War in Ukraine: The Fallouts and Lessons

By

-

April 18, 2023

A year ago, Russian forces invaded Ukraine and with no end in sight, the war continues even today. The war had various consequences for Russia, Ukraine, and NATO, but it will be broadly impacting the global economy too. Despite the visible casualties, no side is apparently giving up and we have no idea how this is going to end. The war most likely seems to continue probably at a slower pace or turn into a frozen conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Witnessing no negotiation strategies on the way, the war is more likely to escalate, and the recent example of the Afghan war shows how citizens of a war-torn state lose the essence of their lives.

The war in Ukraine has many consequences which have directly impacted Ukraine and Russia and indirectly the whole globe. However, there are many key takeaways from the ongoing war which can be a warning for other strategically vulnerable states as well.

There are many questions concerning global peace and economy to which the answers are still unknown. The war in Ukraine has left the world a more perilous place. Despite Fukuyama’s idea of ‘the end of history’, the world has witnessed that bellicose jingoism is not an ancient practice but a bitter present reality. This war has not only threatened the current global peace but also has become one for the future as it has made the possession of nuclear weapons more attractive for the states in general. This tension in the globe escalates with the massive economic challenges faced by the world.

The world was slowly recovering from the global pandemic when it was hit by a huge energy shock due to the war in Ukraine. For decades, Europe relied on the energy from USSR and later Russia, and it was assumed that this massive reliance would be refraining Russia from taking aggressive measures, however, the reality turned out to be otherwise. Russia, despite being the largest energy exporter to Europe, invaded Ukraine and as a result, the west boycotted Russian energy, but transitioning away from Russian energy would not be easy for Europe. No doubt, alternatives like Liquefied Natural Gas are filling the gap yet cannot compete with the prices of dry gas which as a result led to global inflation which impacted underdeveloped countries more. Flipping the side of the same coin, decreased Russian exports to Europe impacted the domestic revenue of Russia as well which is hampering the political influence of the present Russian government inside the state as well.

The Russian economy has been led heavily by oil and gas exports and even if the war stops, the West is less likely to return to Russia because the perils of Russian aggression are too high. Owing to the sudden shift in global market preferences, the world is facing the added pressure of de-globalization due to global price hikes and inflation. This will also be the main cause of changed supply-chain policies throughout the world and also a visible surge in global defense spending will be witnessed due to the ongoing war in Ukraine.

States that were spending more on human development will once again focus on strengthening their traditional security, to overcome the vulnerability that Ukraine is in.

No doubt, the Russian image as a military power has been sternly tarnished and even if it remains on the battlefield for the years to come, it has been weakened. One of the biggest reasons was Russia using heavy old weapons like tanks instead of swift modern weapons. There have been different opinions on what the future of Russia would be and more than the economic collapse, in case the war in Ukraine continues a huge chance of Russia’s internal collapse in form of a civil war or a political disintegration is foreseen. This also reminisces the position of the USSR in the cold war which led to its political and economic downfall. However, these are all speculations as Russia being a nuclear power and aware of its national security is equally dangerous for the world and the perils might exacerbate in case of Russian failure in the war in Ukraine.

Moving ahead of the consequences which are more intense for Eastern Europe as compared to the rest of the world, the war in Ukraine can be termed as a cautionary anecdote for states because there are many lessons the states can learn from it if they want to. As discussed earlier, economic dependence on any state can be a dicey business and for that matter, states should be open to multiple options for trade to survive such unforeseen situations. Today, a strong economy and robust relationships in the world give more advantages to states at war, which implies that states need to work on achieving effective long-term economic and foreign policies.

Apart from the economy, traditional security when discussing war cannot be neglected. The battlefield situation shows that modern technology including satellites played a salient role in the war and this visibly overshadowed the role of older heavy machinery which is more exposed in such wars. The Turkish drones and Western anti-tank weapons used to attack Russian tanks flipped the idea of possessing heavy weapons for state security stressing the importance of modern weapons. As a result, the states need to acquire modern state-of-the-art technology to insure national security and maintain deterrence. Along with that, Russian troops according to some studies were neither trained nor briefed properly and many of them did not know the actual cause of the war. This strategic loophole is a warning as well as an eye-opener for the states that are prone to wars to invest in proper training and briefing of their soldiers to avoid chaos.

Acquiring modern technology, and training the army is however only halfway through it. Turning the pages of history, we find out that after the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine became an independent country. This implies that it should have worked on its internal and external security which includes acquiring both conventional and nuclear weapons. However, under international pressure or influence, Ukraine signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1994 and removed nuclear deterrence from its national security as a strategic option in return for assured collective security by NATO when needed. At the time of need, reliance on external factors led Ukraine to pay through the nose.

Had Ukraine not given up on its nukes, the scenario due to the added deterrence would have been different today. This again emphasizes the importance of state security and deterrence with complete control within the state.

The war in Ukraine is in itself a message for Pakistan too. Owing to the strategic depth of Pakistan with both internal and external security threats, Pakistan needs to establish and strengthen both hard and soft power. As emphasized earlier, the economic fallouts of this war have shaken the entire world, and Pakistan due to various other factors had to face a stronger jolt from this global economic recession. Resultantly Pakistan needs to work on its economy keeping in view the trade deficit, and debt trap, by finding multiple sources of increasing the state revenue. Moreover, Pakistan needs to try to get rid of economic dependence, even on its closest friends, and stand on its own to be able to face any unforeseen situations.

Along with the economic growth, Pakistan needs to focus on its military strength as well. Pakistan during the Indo-Pak war of 1971 has already learnt its lessons by relying on external help from US Seventh Fleet’s Task Force 74. Strengthening the military by acquiring modern weapons with all control in hand and no reliance on any state for help along with trained officers has become essential for Pakistan. Pakistan has an enemy in the neighborhood and it has to bring its military strength both conventional and non-conventional to par with modern standards. However, balancing the power does not promote waging a war, but promises national security by deterring the enemy at the western and eastern borders as well as within the country.

To conclude, the war has seen many escalations in the name of Western military assistance to Ukraine or switching to more powerful weapons which are only changing the war instead of ending it.

Out of all the fallouts from economic losses and breach of peace, Russia being a nuclear state and its possibility to use these weapons can be the most worrisome consequence of this war.

For most of the world, after the cold war, the term war had become an abstract reality that was least expected to occur due to globalization and the liberal world order. However, the war in Ukraine struck the world with the harsh reality of armed aggression and violence, which brings with it different lessons for other states. Although reshaping the military and technology is not easy, it has become the need of time for the world. This is because it heavily depends on the perception of the future of war which in simple terms means connecting the national economy with security. This as a result requires some agonizing policy decisions and contemplation on the part of major global actors as well as individual states, which will be impacting global peace and security in the years to come.

Nuclear Energy: A Hopeful Sign in Addressing Pakistan’s Energy Challenge

By

Usman Ali khan

-

April 18, 2023

0

Nuclear power forms the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Alongside renewables, energy efficiency, and other innovative technologies, nuclear can make a significant contribution to achieving sustainable development goals while enhancing energy security.

Presently, Asia is leading the way in bringing new Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) online. According to the World Nuclear Association, Asian countries continue to dominate the market for building new NPPs. Two-thirds of the 61 reactors under construction around the world are being built in Asia. As Pakistan is facing severe energy crises, where, worsening blackouts are the latest manifestation of Pakistan’s economic distress. Such blackouts are becoming increasingly common.

Pakistan has various options to meet the growing demand for electricity i.e., indigenous coal, hydro, nuclear, and renewables. Picking the right combination of the future energy mix of a country is calculated based on a thorough comparative assessment of these technologies.

Indigenous available fuels are almost always given the highest priority if they are either sustainable or abundantly available to capitalize on in the long term.

During the year 2019 to 2020, 19 percent of Pakistan’s electricity was generated by four coal-fired power plants constructed under the umbrella of the CPEC project. These include CPEC 4.62 GW of coal-fired generation including the 1320 MW Huaneng Shandong Ruyi-Sahiwal Coal Power Plant, 1320 MW Port Qasim Coal Fired Power Plant, 1320 MW HubCo Coal Fired Power Plant, and 660 MW Engro Thar Coal Power Plant.

Nuclear energy has been a source of power for many countries for several decades and received increased attention in recent years due to its reliability and cost-effectiveness. In view of the looming energy crisis and the increasing cost of using fossil fuels to supply the country’s energy requirements, Pakistan sees nuclear energy as a viable option that can be employed to meet the rising energy demands. It is so because Pakistan is already relying excessively on coal-fired power plants which are volatile options considering the climate crisis and the environmental cost of carbon emission. Nuclear energy is a clean and cost-effective source of power that offers several benefits over traditional fossil fuels and renewable sources. Favorable cost economics, coupled with freedom from the import dependence on fossil fuels, make nuclear power more attractive for fulfilling the rising energy deficit. Moreover, unlike coal and natural gas, it emits very little carbon dioxide emissions. Further, once built, NPPs require very low foreign exchange for the import of fuel.

Pakistan has been utilizing nuclear technology for energy generation for five decades, in turn, providing clean and cost-effective energy to the nation.

Pakistan made an entry into the nuclear power club in 1972 when the first unit of electricity was sent to the Karachi grid from 137 PWR type KANNUP. Currently, there are six NPPs operating at two sites in the country which include two units of KANNUP (K-2, K-3) and four units of Chashma NPPs (C-1, C-2, C-3 & C-4). At present, the total nuclear-installed capacity is 3530 MW. Four units of Chashma are the best electricity-generating plants in terms of endurance and availability. Needless to mention, the dedication of Pakistani scientists is commendable for reasons that most plants are still operating after completing their design life with perfect safety. C-2 and C-4 made a national record for continuous longest operation for over one year. During the period of 2021, capacity factors of C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 were 86%, 98.7%, 91.3%, and 78.7% respectively which was well above the average of capacity factors of thermal power plants in the country. All this is the reflection of the solid foundations of a strong, viable, safe, and secure nuclear power program in Pakistan. Also, Nuclear power contributed to 8.4 percent of Pakistan’s total power generation between 2020 and 2021. The average tariff of operational NPPs for the analysis period is about 12.2/kWh, which is less than LNG and coal-fired power plants in the country.

The total power generation of the NTDC system in the month of February 2020 was about 7 billion units which increased by 16% to 8.1 billion units in the same month of the current year. Similarly, as per the data shared by National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), domestic nuclear energy production resulted in substantial savings compared to importing non-nuclear energy in 2022. After accounting for loan installments on NPPs, Pakistan saved $3 billion compared to importing oil, $2.2 billion in importing natural gas, and $1.6 billion in importing coal. Along with this, nuclear energy is an efficient source that provides large-scale power reliably without the fear of intermittency unlike wind and solar power. Nuclear energy has the potential to generate energy 90% of the time as opposed to wind and solar which only generate energy 25-40 percent of the time.

Pakistan has great potential for nuclear technology collaborations. There is a need to attract international and national investments by private companies in Pakistan’s nuclear power program.

Therefore, the promising policy strategy for Pakistan’s rising energy demands and to reduce the harmful impacts of climate change that it faces lies in balancing the continuous development of its established renewable energy sector, while technologically and economically stimulating its nuclear energy sector.

Hence, for Pakistan, relying more on nuclear energy would substantially contribute to saving foreign exchange which will indirectly reduce the country’s dependence on imported fuel and provide cheaper energy to the national grid. Therefore, Pakistan must diversify its energy basket and seek out alternatives such as nuclear energy to meet its growing needs.

Unfortunately, in contemporary international politics, Pakistan has been consistently facing discrimination in the field of nuclear science and technology. Pakistan’s civilian energy program has contributed to its socio-economic uplift and a more comprehensive approach is needed to utilize this potential for the country’s economic growth. Furthermore, there is ample room available for Pakistan to enhance its nuclear power generation capacity to meet growing energy demands. In order to benefit from nuclear technology, country-specific discrimination against Pakistan must end and Pakistan should not be denied its legitimate right to use civilian nuclear technology for peaceful uses including electricity generation.

Missile Fiasco and the Rising Threat Matrix in South Asia

By

Sana Hamid

-

April 18, 2023

0

In yet another ‘technological glitch’, India once again misfired three missiles during their annual firing exercise in the Jaisalmer region of Rajasthan on March 24, 2022. The missiles fell into neighboring villages this time in India, causing loud explosions and producing large craters in the fields. Taking into account Operation Brasstacks of 1984-1985, in which India amassed some 500,000 troops near Pakistan’s border under the guise of conducting its largest-ever military exercise,

India’s latest misadventure sent shockwaves to the entire region whose security fabric is already tampered with due to the highly volatile nuclear environment.

The moments of March 9, a year ago, flashed back when the BrahMos cruise missile landed 124 km deep into Pakistani territory traveling 3 minutes into Pakistani space. India attributed the accidental firing of a missile to a ‘technical malfunction’ during routine maintenance and later sacked three of its air force officers on account of violating Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which led to the horrendous episode. The irresponsible firing of the missile while endangering human life and civilian property could have led to even more disastrous consequences as two airway routes were active with several commercial airlines operating in the area at that time. Pakistan had demonstrated exemplary restraint as a testament to its systemic maturity and unflinching commitment to peace as a responsible nuclear state but the egregious lack of technical prowess and procedural efficacy on the part of India is casting aspersions on an already festering security dilemma in the region.

From such accidental firings of nuclear-capable missiles to the theft and illegal smuggling of Uranium-The Diplomat reports that some 200 kg of nuclear and radioactive material has gone missing from Indian facilities in the last two decades alone-security and safety of India’s weapons systems and the credibility of its command-and-control system gravely becomes the question of concern and speculation for the entire region and hence international community. In February 2023 eight people including 2 Indians were apprehended in Nepal for illegally possessing Uranium that has been reportedly smuggled from India, stoking fears regarding the existence of nuclear black markets with transnational links in India. Smuggling of this sort, if continued unhindered might end at the hands of militants which would consequently mean becoming the tool of terrorism and hence a final blow to any successes in the war against terrorism. It is the need of time and requisite of peace, therefore that India addresses concerns regarding its security protocols and technical safeguards against all such incidents to avoid any strategic misadventure in the highly volatile nuclear environment of the region.

India’s Animus Dominandi is festering Security Dilemma in the region

India, specifically under the RSS-lead BJP regime is leaving no stone unturned to satisfy its insatiable desire for power (animus dominandi). Even if such aforementioned gestures are looked over as India’s callousness and inaptitude, such Indian offensives as that of the Balakot Strike (2019)- in which it confidently breached Pakistan’s territorial integrity sending some 12 Mirage-2000 fighters with Spice 2000 and Crystal Maze missiles into Pakistani airspace, to its own detriment-is emblematic of both the state’s hawkish policies and practice and also its utter disregard to the peace, security, and development of the region. It is also reflective of the structural, technological, and administrative loopholes and technical inefficacy daunting the entire Indian defense system. In the subsequent one-on-one air combat revered as Operation Swift Retort, not only Russian-available SU-30 AND Mig-21 were downed but India’s Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman had also been captured.

Pakistan, in the spirit of traversing the path of peace later released the captured pilot back to India but it is not possible for any one state to uphold its International Obligations concerning peace and regionalism specifically when others are continuously detracting to the course of hostility and belligerence.

Not only India but the entire world must acknowledge this today that any such misadventures might result in haphazard consequences for the entire region and the world, a result, as Pakistan reserves all the rights to act proportionately, specifically in instances where it is unaware of the payload that might follow such ‘technical glitches’ let alone the intentions of the transgressor. There is a need, therefore, that the International community to respond to the gravity of the situation accordingly, to tend to the volatility of the region, hindering peace and prosperity of the entire world.

China’s Diplomatic Success in Reconciling Iran and Saudi Arabia: The Deal and its Implications for Pakistan

By

Shanzeh Rehman and Muhammad Ali Baig

-

April 17, 2023

0

Introduction

On March 10, 2023, Iran and Saudi Arabia announced an agreement in which they agreed to restore diplomatic relations after a long period of hostility between both states which continued to threaten the peace and stability in the Gulf and fuelled conflicts in the region. This breakthrough agreement was brokered by China after four days of undisclosed talks in Beijing among top security officials from the three countries. The deal outlined the two-month embassy reopening process in Riyadh and Tehran and discussions on a range of cooperation mechanisms between both states.

The agreement shows China’s efforts and willingness to mediate this major Middle Eastern rivalry in order to increase its investments and economic projects in the region.

Background of Saudi-Iran Relations

The agreement between Riyadh and Tehran is a significant diplomatic breakthrough between both states after years of animosity, support of proxies against each other, and espionage activities. Being rival major powers of the Middle East, both countries did not enjoy a history of good relations particularly due to sectarian differences and apparently the American interference in the region. This regional rivalry started with the efforts to dominate the region and in the 2011 Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia blamed Iran for inciting protests against the royal family in Bahrain while Tehran rejected such accusations. The Saudi policymakers supported the Syrian rebels against the Iran-backed Bashar al-Assad regime in 2011 and further supported the Yemeni government in the Civil War of 2015 against the Houthi Rebels which were backed by Iran. In the 2015 Mecca stampede, Iran accused Saudi Arabia of mismanaging the Hajj pilgrimage in which 400 Iranians died.

Saudi Arabia cut its diplomatic ties with Iran after the Saudi diplomatic missions were seized in Tehran and Mashhad in protest of the execution of Shiite opposition cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in 2016. In 2019, Riyadh blamed Iran for the missiles and drones attack on its oil facilities in Abqaiq–Khurais and tankers in the Gulf waters. Later, in March 2022, the Saudi Aramco oil depot in Jeddah was attacked by missiles launched by the Iran-supported Houthi territory in Yemen.

Tehran and Riyadh viewed each other as a security threat and the region witnessed various attacks on Saudi and Emirati vessels and energy infrastructure which was then blamed on Tehran by both the Saudi and its Western allies – however, Iran denied all such accusations. Iran also reciprocated by blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Iranian opposition groups which are recognized as terrorist organizations by Tehran, this includes the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the ethnic Arab group Al-Ahvaziya and the infamous Baloch militant group Jaish al-Adl.

China’s Role

Historically, after the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United States (U.S.) maintained a significant presence in the Middle East and effectively replaced France and the United Kingdom (U.K.). Consequently, the majority of the conflict resolution work was done by the U.S. However, The New York Times writer Peter Baker argued that China side-lined the U.S. by brokering the deal between the arch-rivals. Such a deal shows a shift in the major power influence in the Middle East.

As the manifestation of the unintended consequences of great power politics, the sanctions imposed on Russia due to the Russia-Ukraine War led to global economic consequences and conceivably paved the way for deeper Sino-Arab cooperation. The Gulf states remained neutral in the Ukraine conflict and had a certain distaste for the sanctions imposed on Russia, particularly by the US. However, China used this opportunity to create economic and investment opportunities for the new Gulf wealth. Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi called the deal the “Victory for Peace” and that China will continue to play its constructive role in the region.

Factually arguing, China has deeper economic interests in the Middle East, perhaps more than Tehran, Riyadh, and even Washington. It is worth noting that Beijing continues to import Iranian oil despite the U.S. secondary sanctions and China has also allowed Iran access to its 20 billion USD which was frozen in the Chinese banks when the U.S. reimposed sanctions on Iran after leaving the landmark nuclear deal i.e., Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). China is Saudi Arabia’s biggest trade partner having a bilateral trade of almost 90 billion USD and it accounts for 40 percent of Saudi crude oil exports.

China benefitted enormously from this deal as a conflict-prone Middle East is a threat to its economic investments, projects, and trade opportunities.

The deal also symbolizes an increased influence of China in the region side-lining the U.S. while giving China certain prestige and trust as a reliable power and mediator in the region.

Pakistan’s Position

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari warmly welcomed the normalization of diplomatic relations between the two countries and called it an important diplomatic breakthrough commending the role played by China’s visionary leadership. Historically, this role has been played by either Pakistan or Egypt.

For decades, Pakistan has been following the policy of balancing its relations with Riyadh and Tehran. First, being an important strategic ally, and second being an important neighbor. Thus, Pakistan was more vulnerable to the consequences of the Saudi-Iran rivalry. Pakistan has a military alliance with Saudi Arabia and is dependent on it when it comes to financial assistance. It is important to note that more than a million Pakistani diaspora lives and work in Saudi Arabia and is a vital source for remittances for Pakistan. Also, Pakistan has a 10-15 percent Shia population and borders with Iran. Consequently, Pakistan faced sectarian violence and attacks by militants based in Iran whenever the matter of Saudi-Iran rivalry intensified.

Reportedly, Riyadh’s politico-diplomatic pressure was behind Pakistan’s calculations of not completing the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline and not expanding trade with Iran. Also, Pakistan’s external security had been under continuous external pressure to choose a side. The Saudi-Iran cooperation will help build stability in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and will help Pakistan in considering new initiatives and projects in Iran. Such developments are a good omen for materializing the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline; otherwise, Pakistan could be liable to pay 18 billion USD to its Iranian counterparts for not honoring the deal.

Future Prospects for Pakistan

Pakistan has been going through an economic crisis, and the political instability and recent floods have further aggravated the situation. In these conditions, Stability in the region will provide Pakistan with an opportunity to increase the cross-border trade with Tehran and to complete the pending projects of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline.

There is a possibility of Pakistan’s joint ventures with Tehran and Riyadh depending on the sustainability of the deal. Riyadh may also invest in Pakistan and Iran.

China being the mediator in the deal, and also a close friend of Pakistan with strong economic ties may also advocate Pakistan’s case in rich Gulf countries and drive their attention towards Pakistan’s financial woes. China can also invite Pakistan to become a part of future projects in the region.

Kakistocracy : The Heart of Darkness is in the Political System

By

Ambassador Naghmana Hashmi

-

April 17, 2023

0

“Stupidity does not consist in being without ideas. Such stupidity would be the sweet, blissful stupidity of animal and molluscs. Human Stupidity consists in having lots of ideas, but stupid ones. Stupid ideas, with banners, hymns, loudspeakers and even tanks and flame-throwers as their instruments of persuasion, constitute the refined and the only really terrifying form of Stupidity.”

– Henry de Montherlant, Notebooks, 1930-44

Pakistan has experienced years of distress, anxiety, and political chaos with no end in sight. Currently, the country is experiencing so many major issues that are not being addressed or resolved. The era of leadership that rose up to the challenges has long been over. In recent years, the political parties have been redoubling their efforts to sink even deeper into the vile stuff with singular gimmickry and dangerous success which is leading toward a political and economic dead end. All this is part of a process that is ruthlessly eroding governance. One of the most serious phenomena is the gradual acceptance by the people of this situation that not too long ago would have been inconceivable.

It is horrifying to realize that we have, for years, heard little or even nothing from political leaders and ministers who sounded authentically human and totally honest. Too often their pronouncements are either contradictions of other official statements, or absurdities; one is bewildered in the face of routinized rampant mediocrity, incompetence, deceit, dishonesty, and evasion of accountability and responsibility in the political sphere.

The national interest has become a concept without referent reality which is manipulated and trifled with according to opportunity for partisan political advantage; So many in positions of political power and influence have come to resemble, in Albert Camus’ description, “hollow clowns”; Mainstream politics all too often appears as a banal squabble over the distribution of largesse pilfered from the national treasury.

If any country is repeatedly in the thrall of this type of governance, kakistocracy is the best word to describe it.

Kakistocracy is the government of a state by its most stupid, ignorant, least qualified, and unprincipled citizens in power.

The first recorded use of kakistocracy was in a sermon, delivered in 1644 by Paul Gosnold. The term lay silent for 200 years to reappear in recent history in 1829 in a book titled “The Misfortunes of Elphin,” written by the English novelist and poet Thomas Love Peacock. In The Misfortunes of Elfin, he mocks the “agrestic kakistocracy” of his time, which treated “treading on old foot-paths, picking up dead wood, and moving on the face of the earth within sound of the whirr of a partridge” as “heinous sins”.

The word soon found fertile soil in the United States, where in 1838, William Harper, a US senator, and defender of slavery, claimed that anarchy was a kind of kakistocracy. Decades later, in 1876, the American poet James Russell Lowell asked: “Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people,’ or a Kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?” Kakistocracy as a term then tapers off only to make a modest rise around 2008, when eight years of Bush implied the word might be of some significance. However, since Donald Trump became President, this word has thrived.

In her book, Stupidity, Ronell finds in the history of nation-states the recurring image of a country that “resembles a ship of fools” tossed about enough that collective stupidity “breaks and enters the political body.” After years of real and perceived oppression, they “offer stupor in lieu of responsiveness,” and “the capital gains of the ruling classes.” It is a forced condition, not an innate limitation or in other words Kakistocracy. Yet given the prevalence of the problem it describes, the word is strangely not appreciated and is underused in the present day. In a world where stupidity penetrates multiple levels of government, policies, and personalities; it is strange that the term coined to best describe it has actually ended up in the endangered and forgotten words books. Stupidity in governance needs to be treated as a political problem, and kakistocracy can best capture this problem.

It is, however, not correct to assume that kakistocracies only occur in the poorest and most underdeveloped corners of the globe. It is also a mistake to think that it is only in countries with weak institutions and immature political systems that thieves and goons can reach the most important positions. What we saw in the United States and in many European countries that have long democratic traditions simply demonstrates that no nation is immune to the rise of kakistocracy.

Before the era of citizens exhibiting internet-induced, seriously diminished attention spans, such behavior had a chance of being recognized and dealt with on more occasions than now. But such is that reduction that the trajectory towards kakistocracy, though discernible and its consequences predictable, proceeds without arrest. A political calculus exists in place of anything resembling a process by which the true needs of the people and their regions are given appropriate procedural and ethical consideration.

At the heart of this new political arrangement, Kakistocracy is a constellation of political black holes from which probity and integrity cannot escape: favor exchanges, obligations based on private benefits, clientelism, power brokers, perception management consultants, polling advisers, lobbyists, transactional loyalties, policy by the think tank, sleaze, moral bankruptcy, and the absence of independent oversight. To belabor the point, it is not difficult to understand why and how kakistocracies repel the talented and attract the inept and most debased; over time, and without a revolution in integrity, they exist as realms that are systemic, strategic, and seemingly permanent.

Pakistan is no stranger to this phenomenon. Pakistan is not only a democratic but also a severely politically polarised kakistocracy. Not to name any particular government that we have had, say in the last 50 years or so, but governments of the past have been kakistocracies as well.

Pakistani kakistocracy assumes and relies upon a passive citizenry, a collective that is not only sufficiently ignorant and inattentive to challenge it but also possessed of a sense of fatalism regarding the status of its members as walk-on players whenever elections are called.

The shrinking space for dialogue over issues has given rise to detestable sentiment. Politicians increasingly engage in an otherization approach and call each other traitors, thieves, and immoral. This political polarisation has soiled the political atmosphere and forced the electorate to gradually detest not only politicians but the entire political system.

Those in charge are aware of the challenges faced by the common man. Those in opposition are also aware of the existential problems facing the country but no one is in a position to offer any workable proposals for overcoming the challenges of the economy, inflation, unemployment, stagnant growth, climate change emergencies, alternate energy sources, population growth, teeming millions of unqualified and untrained youth and the list goes on.

Kakistocracy, being ruled by the worst of the worse is fast spreading its roots and corrupting not only our institution but also our polity, society, and nation as a whole. Pakistan has had a tumultuous relationship with effective and successful democratic governance right from its inception. If there were to be another term for politics in Pakistan it would undoubtedly be Kakistocracy. The problem cannot be blamed only on the actions of shrewd, conspiring, conniving, dishonest and corrupt politicians but is built into the very fabric of our representative system which promotes systemic corruption and falsehood.

This tendency towards decay of the political culture in Pakistan is nurtured by the presence of a large uneducated electorate, huge youth bulge aimlessly wondering the streets without direction and hope for a better and constructive future, living and surviving on the edge of poverty, ethnic and religious tensions, and parochial differences threatening the delicately and carefully woven fabric of society, institutions vying for and competing for greater influence irrespective of the constitutional limitations and sphere of activity and responsibility, where it is nearly impossible to break the shackles of elite capture dictating all aspects of state at the cost of the disempowered teeming millions – the common man and unfortunately where the very ills that plague governance and society as a whole, have been normalized and generally accepted norms. All this has only enabled but emboldened the politicians and other contenders for state and political power to fully indulge in and promote kakistocracy.

“God has given us a grand opportunity to show our worth as architects of a new State; let it not be said that we did not prove equal to the task.” Quaid’s address to Civil, Military, and Air Force Officers, 11 October 1947. The Quaid’s vision and expectations for the development of Pakistan were clear from the beginning that is from the time Pakistan Resolution was passed in Lahore on 23rd March 1940. “There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day! If that is the idea of Pakistan. I would not have it.” Presidential Address Delivered at the Thirtieth Session of All-India Muslim League, 24 April 1943.

The fall of Dhaka, the pathetic state of national unity, the disastrous state of the economy, shrinking socio-economic development, rising poverty, weak institutions, and the current abhorrent political circus in the country all demand a serious introspection and larger national consensus both on the future political orientation and economic development if we are to survive the shenanigans we have subjected our beloved Pakistan our identity to.

There is no denying the fact that Pakistan has come a long way, but what is tragic is that were not up to the task of making a great nation of Pakistan as directed by the Quaid. We squandered the gift given to us by the sacrifices and struggles of million. There is still time to put our beloved country back on track by following the vision and laid down principles and instructions of the Quaid. The country still has the potential to reach great heights and make astronomical achievements if we come out of the siloes of our narrow sectarian and parochial mindset, abandon our greed for political power and control, abide strictly by the constitution, respect the distribution of responsibilities and areas of jurisdiction, put the welfare of the common people at the front and center of development strategy, root out corruption and nepotism, embrace transparency, meritocracy, and accountability, do away with hereditary politics, make political parties truly democratic and abandon parochialism and sectarianism as direct by the Quaid.

It is therefore, time for deep introspection to understand the political, governance, economic and social mistakes made in the last 76 years of independence by the successive leaders, bureaucracy, and other stakeholders that have created a sense of deprivation and betrayal in the masses.

In the 21st century, where some nations are reaching out to the moon, stars, and beyond, discovering new worlds and perfecting Artificial Intelligence to develop and enhance their societies, here in Pakistan, the seventh nuclear power, we are still embroiled in mundane controversies about sighting Eid Moon, polio vaccinations being halal or haram, coeducation and hundreds of other such issues while our society as a whole is continuously regressing.

In this depressing scenario, the media has a great responsibility in any society and particularly in a society like ours where illiteracy is high and knowledge is limited, where democracy has yet to take root and the people still have to learn how to exercise their rights. TV has a major role in educating and developing the abilities of its audience. In the era of social media and ratings race the quality and content of many channels and their anchors are becoming untouchable stars who can do no wrong. Some are blatantly spreading fake news and divisive, sensational, misleading, and inflammatory content that is further destroying the ethos of society.

In the face of overwhelming and complex challenges, we need to move away from a culture of mediocrity and towards a society that champions that values, and cherishes excellence. Treading this path and reorienting our policies would require overcoming massive apathy. It entails absolute commitment, courage, and a persistent drive by the political system to lift expectations of society, particularly the youth.; to raise standards and deliver excellence itself to set high standards against which others can judge their performance; cleanse the system of corruption and safaris; raise the standard of academic institutions and not pull it down; re-establish meritocracy and accountability; initiate a deep civil and judicial service reform plan which promotes excellence and breaks the pervasive hold of mediocrity. Failure is not an option if we want to save our nation and society from falling into the bottomless pit of mediocrity.

Understanding Space Weaponization & Its Implications on Global Security

By

Rabbia Bashir

-

April 17, 2023

1

The creative conquest of space will serve as a wonderful substitute for war.

—James Smith McDonnell

It is a widely known fact that the domain of space is contested, congested, and competitive. Every year, the international community relies more and more on space-based technologies for military, civil, and commercial use. In recent years, the idea of weaponizing space has become a real possibility, with nations actively exploring outer space. The pool of emerging and aspiring space power is increasing.

The implications of utilizing space for military purposes are wide-reaching and could have a major impact on global security.

What Is Space Weaponization and Militarization?

Space weaponization refers to the development, deployment, and use of weapons that pose a direct threat to assets in space. This can take numerous forms, including kinetic weapons, such as missiles or spacecraft designed to ram targets in space; electromagnetic weapons, such as radiofrequency (RF) energy weapons; nuclear weapons; biological and chemical weapons; and anti-satellite systems. All of these have the potential to damage or destroy satellites, which can have serious repercussions for global communications, navigation, and security. Space militarization isn’t just about weaponizing space – it is also about modernizing terrestrial military capabilities by capitalizing on space resources. This includes developing systems that use satellite networks to monitor countries’ military activity, improve navigation accuracy, or increase battlefield awareness. It also involves using satellite images to identify targets on the ground and enabling increased speed of communication between forces in different locations.

Technical Challenges Presented by Space Weaponization:

Space weaponization and militarization can mean different things to different people, depending on their perspectives. From a technical point of view, there are a number of challenges that need to be addressed before space-based weapons can be used. First and foremost, the physical environment of outer space is vastly different from the Earth’s atmosphere. It is far more extreme in terms of radiation, vacuum, and temperature, which all pose unique challenges for designing and testing space weapons. In addition, there is no air resistance to slow down or stop a missile in space as there is on Earth. This presents an entirely new set of problems for creating effective weapons systems. The communication requirements are equally challenging.

In order for any space weapon system to function properly, it must be able to transmit data over long distances in real-time—something that current technology can’t yet do reliably.

Furthermore, even if communication were improved to the point where it could effectively carry out military operations in space, the system would still need to be hardened against electronic warfare and other disruptions due to space-based countermeasures such as jamming signals, hijacking, spoofing, and anti-satellite missiles.

Impact of Space-Based Weapons on Global Security:

In the current world of rapidly emerging space-based technologies, the militarization and weaponization of space are a growing concern as it has the potential to destabilize global security.

The threat posed by these two concepts goes beyond just their destructive capability – they could also be used to deny access to space assets for reconnaissance and communications purposes, allowing a country to gain a strategic advantage over its adversaries. This could lead to a cascading effect that could disrupt global stability and security.

History of Space Weaponization & Militarization Efforts:

Space militarization and weaponization have been a matter of concern for various countries since the Cold War to the space race of the present day for dominance in orbit. In current times, military forces have built a framework for controlling access and use of space technologies, making it essential to become a space power to dominate international politics.

The earliest effort to militarize space was the launch of Sputnik 1 by the USSR in 1957, which heralded an era of heightened competition and danger in global geopolitics. The US responded with its own space-based initiatives, such as Project Apollo and the development of military satellites like NRO L-2. In 1967, both countries also signed an Outer Space Treaty prohibiting military activity in Earth’s orbit or beyond. Despite this agreement, many countries are still actively pursuing military applications in space. The US established the Air Force Space Command in 1982 and continues to develop new counter-space technologies like high-powered lasers with dual military and civilian uses. Meanwhile, China has invested heavily in its Beidou Navigation Satellite System (BNSS) for improved communication capabilities between satellites. These developments demonstrate that there is still a great potential for conflict when it comes to weaponizing and militarizing outer space.

Current State of International Treaties Related to Military Use of Outer Space:

The current state of international treaties related to the military use of outer space can be divided into two parts. Firstly, there are five major international treaties that set the legal framework for peaceful activities in space and restrain the deployment of weapons in outer space. These include the Outer Space Treaty, The Rescue Agreement, The Liability Convention, The Registration Convention, and The Moon Agreement. Secondly, there is a developed body of norms and regulations derived from UN General Assembly resolutions and other international agreements. This serves as an informal code of conduct with respect to outer space matters. However, there are still significant gaps in this existing framework due to various factors such as a lack of verification mechanisms or an overall lack of binding measures for states to comply with these norms.

Potential Implications of Increased Weaponization in Outer Space:

Increased weaponization and militarization of space could have far-reaching political and economic effects, as well as lead to heightened levels of conflict and even full-fledged war. The USA and China are two major players in this arena and have made significant advancements in space technology and exploration.

Responsible space powers must address these risks in order to ensure that we are able to utilize the realm of outer space for its intended purposes, such as communication, exploration, and scientific research.

Otherwise, in this race, the cost of maintaining a militarized stance in outer space would be extremely high and put a burden on the budgets of countries. Moreover, if left unchecked, increased weaponization could lead to a full-scale war in outer space between potential space powers which could have devastating and disrupting effects both in orbit and on Earth.

Conclusion

Space militarization is a complex and controversial issue with far-reaching implications for global security. Space-weaponization is a serious matter with considerable consequences which must be addressed before we reach a point where it becomes difficult, or impossible, to control its effects. Space weapons such as ICBMs and ground-based lasers can be used to threaten nations, and the militarization of space could weaken existing treaties and arms control agreements. Hence, it is essential that the international community takes a proactive stance in regulating and monitoring space activities to develop preventive strategies that reduce the risks of the space arms race.

Finland’s NATO Membership and Its Strategic Implications

By

Moazam Khan

-

April 16, 2023

0

Finland, a country of 5.5 million people, has been an independent nation since 1917, following centuries of domination by Sweden and Russia. Finland has maintained a policy of military non-alignment since the end of World War II, which has helped to maintain a delicate balance in the region. Finland is located in a strategic position in the Baltic Sea, bordering Russia to the east and Sweden to the west. This unique location has made Finland a critical partner in regional security issues.

The country has long been a member of the European Union, which provides economic and political benefits. Finland is also a member of the Partnership for Peace program with NATO. This partnership has allowed for military cooperation and participation in joint exercises. While Finland is not a member of NATO, it has participated in various NATO missions and operations, including in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Finland’s relationship with NATO has evolved over the years, and there is a growing debate about the country’s potential membership in the alliance. Supporters argue that joining NATO would provide greater security and stability in the face of growing Russian aggression, while opponents fear that it would increase tensions with Russia and jeopardize Finland’s traditional policy of neutrality.

Finland’s History of Neutrality

Finland’s policy of military non-alignment dates back to the end of World War II. The country had fought two wars against the Soviet Union, and it was clear that maintaining neutrality was the best way to ensure its independence. Finland signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union in 1948, which guaranteed the country’s territorial integrity and independence.

During the Cold War, Finland maintained a careful balance between East and West. The country developed a strong relationship with the Soviet Union, while also maintaining ties with the West. Finland was a founding member of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), which later became the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). This organization provided a forum for dialogue and cooperation between East and West, and Finland played a critical role in its development.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Finland’s relationship with Russia changed. The country became more focused on developing relationships with the West, including joining the European Union in 1995. However, Finland maintained its policy of neutrality and military non-alignment.

Finland’s Partnership with NATO

In 1994, Finland became a member of the Partnership for Peace program with NATO. This program was established to promote cooperation between NATO and non-member countries, with the aim of strengthening security and stability in the region. Finland’s participation in the program allowed for military cooperation and participation in joint exercises with NATO. Since joining the Partnership for Peace, Finland has participated in various NATO missions and operations. The country has contributed troops to the NATO-led mission in Kosovo and has also participated in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. Finland has also hosted joint exercises with NATO, including the annual Cooperative Archer exercise, which focuses on air defense.

The debate about Finland’s potential membership in NATO has intensified in recent years, as tensions with Russia have increased. Some Finnish politicians and experts argue that joining NATO is necessary to ensure the country’s security in the face of growing Russian aggression. They point to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its intervention in Syria as examples of the country’s expansionist ambitions. They argue that NATO membership would provide Finland with a stronger deterrent against Russian aggression.

However, opponents of NATO membership argue that it would increase tensions with Russia and jeopardize Finland’s traditional policy of neutrality. They point out that Finland is not a member of any military alliance, which allows the country to maintain good relations with both Russia and the West. They argue that joining NATO would force Finland to take sides in a potential conflict between Russia and the West.

Joining NATO would provide Finland with access to the alliance’s collective defense capabilities, including military assistance in the event of an attack. This would increase Finland’s security and deter potential aggressors, particularly Russia, which has shown a willingness to use military force to achieve its strategic objectives in the region.

Finland’s decision will have strategic implications for the entire region. The strategic implications of Finland’s potential membership in NATO are complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, joining NATO would provide Finland with access to the alliance’s collective defense capabilities, including military assistance in the event of an attack. This would increase Finland’s security and deter potential aggressors, particularly Russia, which has shown a willingness to use military force to achieve its strategic objectives in the region. Furthermore, NATO membership would provide Finland with a seat at the table in the alliance’s decision-making processes, allowing the country to have a greater say in regional security issues. This would increase Finland’s influence in the region and strengthen its position as a key player in European security.

However, there are also potential drawbacks to joining NATO. Russia has made it clear that it views NATO expansion as a threat to its security, and has taken aggressive steps to counter this perceived threat. This includes increased military activity in the Baltic Sea region and the development of advanced military capabilities, such as new missiles and other weapons systems. Russia would view this as a direct threat to its security and would respond accordingly. This could include increased military activity in the region, economic sanctions, and other forms of pressure designed to deter Finland from joining the alliance.

There is also a risk that NATO membership could lead to increased tensions between Finland and its neighbors, particularly Russia. Finland has long maintained a policy of neutrality, and joining NATO would represent a significant departure from this approach. This could strain Finland’s relationships with other countries in the region, particularly those that have close ties with Russia. In addition, there are potential economic implications for joining NATO. The alliance requires its members to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense, which could put a strain on Finland’s economy. This could lead to cuts in other areas, such as social programs and infrastructure, which could be unpopular with the Finnish public.

In a nutshell, the decision about whether or not to join NATO is a complex and difficult one for Finland. The country must weigh the potential benefits of increased security and influence against the potential risks of increased tensions with Russia and other neighbors, as well as the economic implications of membership. Whatever decision Finland ultimately makes, it will have significant strategic implications for the region and for European security more broadly.

Eurasian Integration – Vision for Connecting Continents

By

Asma Khan Durrani

-

April 16, 2023

0

Russia and Iran want to lessen the strain of Western sanctions by creating a new economic corridor that would increase bilateral commerce and connect them with South Asia. The 7,200-kilometer International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) connects South Asia with southern Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. It begins in St. Petersburg. The Caspian Sea corridor, which also offers a route through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, has been discussed for a while but has only recently gained significant traction in the wake of the Ukrainian War. Russia views the corridor as a way to replace European commerce that has been hampered by sanctions. By circumventing the Suez Canal, the initiative significantly lowers transportation costs for all parties involved. The project is incomplete, with funding and infrastructure issues delaying the railway line in Iran. Other logistical issues, limited ship capacity along the waterway, and paper-based transport documents. The project is also affected by non-tariff and other barriers, including the lack of harmonized border crossing procedures and freight and vehicle insurance. The project’s effectiveness could also be undermined by sanctions and geopolitical tensions, including political friction between Azerbaijan and Iran. Although the project is still in its early stages, its implementation is fraught with risks and challenges, and it may struggle to deliver its ambitious cargo transit target, especially if the sanctions regimes against Russia and Iran tighten further.

Pakistan could potentially benefit from the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) in a few ways. First, as a neighboring country of Iran, Pakistan could increase its trade with Iran and other countries along the corridor, particularly Russia. This could be especially significant given Pakistan’s current economic challenges and efforts to diversify its trade relationships beyond China and the Gulf countries. Second, Pakistan could also potentially serve as a transit country for goods moving between Iran and other countries in the region. The development of new transport infrastructure and logistics capabilities along the INSTC route could create opportunities for Pakistan to develop its own transport and logistics sector, potentially creating new jobs and economic growth.

Pakistan could potentially benefit from the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) in a few ways. First, as a neighboring country of Iran, Pakistan could increase its trade with Iran and other countries along the corridor, particularly Russia.

However, there are also several challenges and potential obstacles to Pakistan’s participation in INSTC. These include issues related to security, particularly given the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, as well as challenges related to infrastructure and bureaucratic hurdles that may make it difficult to effectively move goods and services along the corridor. Additionally, given Pakistan’s longstanding political and economic ties with China, there may be concerns about how participation in INSTC could impact Pakistan’s relationship with Beijing.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) are both large-scale infrastructure projects designed to boost regional connectivity and economic cooperation. However, there are significant differences between the two projects. CPEC is a 3,000 km network of roads, railways, and pipelines connecting China’s western Xinjiang province to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea. The project aims to improve Pakistan’s infrastructure, stimulate economic growth, and provide China with an alternative route for its energy imports from the Middle East.

Alternatively, INSTC is a 7,200 km multimodal transport corridor that connects Russia, Iran, and India, passing through Azerbaijan and Central Asia. The project aims to provide a shorter and cheaper trade route between Europe and Asia by bypassing the traditional route and reducing transportation costs.

CPEC is a bilateral project between China and Pakistan, while INSTC involves multiple countries and is more complex in terms of logistics and coordination. Pakistan could potentially benefit from INSTC by improving its trade ties with Russia, Iran, and India, which are important regional powers.

While both projects seek to promote regional connectivity and economic development, CPEC has a greater focus on infrastructure development, while INSTC is more geared towards trade facilitation. Additionally, CPEC is a bilateral project between China and Pakistan, while INSTC involves multiple countries and is more complex in terms of logistics and coordination. Pakistan could potentially benefit from INSTC by improving its trade ties with Russia, Iran, and India, which are important regional powers. However, CPEC remains a crucial project for Pakistan’s economic development, and the country is likely to continue prioritizing it over other regional connectivity initiatives.

In theory, Pakistan’s CPEC can integrate with INSTC. The CPEC is a massive infrastructure development project that aims to connect the Chinese city of Kashgar to Pakistan’s deep-water port of Gwadar via a network of highways, railways, and pipelines. The INSTC, on the other hand, is a multi-modal transportation route that connects Iran, and Russia via road, rail, and sea. Both projects are aimed at improving regional connectivity and boosting trade and economic ties. There is potential for integration between the two projects, as the CPEC and the INSTC can complement each other by providing a more comprehensive transportation network in the region. For example, once completed, the CPEC could provide a shorter route for Chinese goods to reach Gwadar port and then be shipped to Iran and Russia via the INSTC. Similarly, the INSTC could provide a more direct and cost-effective route for Pakistani goods to reach the markets of Russia and other Central Asian countries.

Both projects are aimed at improving regional connectivity and boosting trade and economic ties. There is potential for integration between the two projects, as the CPEC and the INSTC can complement each other by providing a more comprehensive transportation network in the region

However, integrating the two projects would require significant coordination and cooperation between the governments and stakeholders involved. There are also geopolitical and strategic considerations that would need to be addressed. So, while it is theoretically possible to integrate the CPEC with INSTC, it remains to be seen its implementation in practice.

CPEC is primarily a bilateral economic cooperation initiative between China and Pakistan, aimed at developing infrastructure and energy projects, creating job opportunities, and boosting trade and economic growth in Pakistan. Conversely, INSTC is a multilateral transportation and trade corridor, connecting India, Iran, and Russia, and providing an alternative trade route to Europe and Central Asia. Both CPEC and INSTC have the potential to bring significant economic benefits to their respective countries, but their success depends on various factors, including political stability, security situation, investment climate, and the effectiveness of governance and management of the projects. Additionally, CPEC and INSTC have different challenges to overcome, such as geopolitical tensions, sanctions, and security threats, which may affect their implementation and outcomes. Yet, there is potential for integration between the INSTC and the CPEC, there are also significant differences between the two initiatives that could create tension and conflict.

The viability of CPEC-INSTC integration depends on various factors, including political, economic, and geographical considerations.

On the political front, the two initiatives are being pursued by different countries with their own interests and priorities. CPEC is a flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while INSTC is a joint initiative of India, Iran, and Russia. The geopolitical tensions between China and India and the US’s opposition to the BRI could pose challenges to the integration of CPEC and INSTC.

On the economic front, CPEC and INSTC have different priorities and goals. CPEC focuses on the development of infrastructure and energy projects in Pakistan, while INSTC aims to create a transportation network connecting India, Iran, and Russia with Central Asia and Europe. The integration of the two initiatives would require a strategic alignment of priorities and goals.

Furthermore, the geographical challenges cannot be overlooked. CPEC primarily focuses on the development of the Gwadar port in Pakistan, while INSTC aims to create a transportation network connecting India, Iran, and Russia with Central Asia and Europe. The integration of the two initiatives would require the development of a complex transportation and logistics network that spans multiple countries.

In conclusion, while the integration of CPEC and INSTC has the potential to create a more extensive and integrated transportation network connecting Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, it is subject to several challenges, including political tensions, economic priorities, and geographical considerations. Therefore, the viability of such integration depends on a careful assessment of these factors and a strategic alignment of priorities and goals.

Combatting Islamophobia: The Pakistan’s Role

By

Habiba Ali

-

April 16, 2023

0

Historical Background:

The term Islamophobia stands for the fear of and aggression toward Muslims and Islam which arises from racism and culminates in violent, discriminatory, and exclusionary behavior towards Muslims and those perceived as Muslim. These attitudes can be expressed through violent actions such as burning mosques and vandalizing properties, as well as abusive behavior towards Muslim women who wear headscarves. Islamophobia is identifiable through a range of perspectives, statements, behaviors, and gestures, and can be seen not only in isolated incidents but also in broader societal trends.

Western discourse has a long history of Islamophobia, dating back to the Middle Ages when negative stereotypes about Muslims were used to garner popular support for the Crusades. Such stereotypes also served to justify European colonial domination of the Muslim-majority world, portraying Muslims as violent and uncivilized. Studies indicate that the American media had a bias against Muslims even before 9/11, and Muslims have consistently been portrayed in a negative light, making them one of the most negatively depicted minority groups in the US.

After the 9/11 attacks, however, the organized mobilization against Islam and Muslims in liberal democracies intensified, giving rise to transnational anti-Islamic movements. These movements have both taken to the streets and spread their message online.

The fear has not been born in thin air, indeed, the actions of many key individuals, think tanks, media outlets, and political leaders are involved to promote false and inflammatory ideas about Islam and Muslims, contributing to the growth of the phenomenon.

Pakistan’s Efforts against Islamophobia:

Pakistan played a significant role in raising the issue of Islamophobia at the international level, which resulted in the adoption of the resolution declaring March 15 as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. The resolution can play a crucial role to combat discrimination and violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief and to promote respect, understanding, and dialogue among different religions, beliefs, and cultures.

Pakistan’s efforts to combat Islamophobia began in 2019 when Prime Minister Imran Khan addressed the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and raised the issue. During his speech, Khan emphasized the need to address the issue of marginalization, which often leads to radicalization. He pointed out that terrorism has nothing to do with any religion and that no religion preaches radicalism. Khan also criticized Western leaders who equated terrorism with Islam. Pakistan further raised the issue at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) conference in 2020. The Prime Minister wrote to all Muslim rulers, emphasizing the need to move a resolution on Islamophobia in the UN. Pakistan’s proposed resolution aimed to declare 15 March as the ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’. March 15 was chosen as Anti-Islamophobia Day because on this day in 2019, a right-wing extremist launched a terrorist attack on two mosques in New Zealand, resulting in the death of more than 50 Muslims.

On March 15, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution, declaring this day as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. The resolution highlights the need for international cooperation to combat Islamophobia and calls for increased efforts to promote tolerance, dialogue, and mutual respect.

UN Conference on Women in Islam:

On March 8, 2023, a conference titled “Women in Islam: Understanding the rights and Identity of women in the Islamic World” was held in New York. The event was presided over by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and is being hosted by Pakistan in its capacity as the chair of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers. The conference took place on the sidelines of the 67th Session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.

The main objective of the conference was to address the misperception and misconceptions regarding the rights of women in Islam. It also aimed to celebrate the experiences and successes of iconic Muslim women and establish an annual policy dialogue to address challenges and explore opportunities to advance the role of women in OIC countries. FM Bilawal Bhutto Zardari emphasized the importance of distinguishing between Islamic principles and law and patriarchal social practices in order to fully understand the rights of women in Islam. He stated that those who promote discrimination and tyranny would not like to make such a distinction between the two.

“This caricature is a result that the perception of our religion has largely been hijacked after 9/11 by extremists who do not represent our faith and I feel a special responsibility to counter this propaganda and perception.” “It offends me as a Muslim and a Pakistani to the core of my heart that the face of Islam unfortunately in much of western public perception are the likes of Osama Bin Laden and not of the likes of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto,” he added. He told the reporters, “Islamic rights enshrine women’s rights, that there is no space for groups such as those in Afghanistan or anywhere else to claim that Islam justifies their actions.”

Commemoration of the International Day to Combat Islamophobia:

This year on March 10, the United Nations held a special event in the General Assembly Hall to commemorate the first-ever International Day to Combat Islamophobia. The event aimed to address the rising hatred, discrimination, and violence against Muslims and promote tolerance, peace, and respect for human rights and religious diversity.

The International Day was established following the adoption of an Assembly resolution last year that proclaimed March 15 as the day to combat Islamophobia.

Pakistan, which initiated the move, co-convened the event. The Foreign Minister highlighted Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance, and pluralism. The UN Secretary-General highlighted the diversity among the nearly two billion Muslims worldwide and their frequent experiences of bigotry and prejudice solely because of their faith. The linkages between anti-Muslim hatred and gender inequality were also noted, with Muslim women facing triple discrimination due to their gender, ethnicity, and faith. The President of the UN General Assembly, Csaba Kőrösi, recognized that Islamophobia is deeply connected to xenophobia, which can result in discriminatory practices such as travel bans, hate speech, bullying, and targeting of others.

Conclusion:

The rise of Islamophobia is a complex and troubling phenomenon, rooted in centuries-old prejudices and has been fuelled by the actions of extremist groups, as well as by the political interests of certain individuals and organizations. The negative portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the media has also contributed to the growth of Islamophobia, with Muslims often being depicted in a negative light. However, efforts are being made to combat Islamophobia and promote greater understanding and acceptance of Islam and Muslim communities. Pakistan has considered it its prime responsibility to raise its voice against the unjust happening with Muslims merely on the basis of religion. It is due to the tireless efforts of Pakistan that 15 March has been successfully declared as the ‘International Day to Combat Islamophobia’. However, Islamophobia continues to be a challenge for the Muslim nation that still needs to be addressed and fought.

The State of British Politics

By

Tayyaba Khurshid

-

April 16, 2023

0

British PM Johnson holds cabinet meeting in Downing Street — British Prime Minister Boris Johnson addresses his cabinet ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting in Downing Street in London, Britain July 5, 2022. Ian Vogler/Pool via REUTERS

A state’s economic prosperity and stability depend on a stable government that works efficiently for the progress and development of a state. The choices and policies adopted by the political leadership of any state during hard times severely impact a state’s internal and external stability. From a colonial power that colonized various regions (from Asia to Africa) to a recessive economic State, British politics and politicians in power have ruined Britain, where its financial system is in collapse, and the leadership cannot manage the economy and the energy crisis Britain is facing. The inflation in Britain is now 10%, and the outlook is bleak with growing recession and rising unemployment. The Brexit decision by the Conservative party, the resignation of various Prime Ministers, the Ukraine crisis, and the decisions taken by the government to overcome the challenges posed by internal and external factors are some of the reasons that led to the present political and economic crisis in Britain.

The Britain politicians have adopted populist policies instead of long-term hard decisions that proved to be fatal for Britain.

Brexit and UK’s recessive economic state

The departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union can be viewed as a self-inflicted injury to its economy, impacting prices, investment, and trade. This outcome is not solely a consequence of a pandemic or energy crisis, but rather a result of the decision made in 2016 to leave the EU. At the time, the choice between leaving and remaining in the EU appeared to be a straightforward one between two options. (Foster 2022). However, the unfolding of events was quite distinct from the initial expectations, and the United Kingdom had to bear the consequences of its decision to leave the European Union. As a result, the country found itself outside both the European single market and a customs union. The costs associated with Brexit were initially obscured by the global impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused the shutdown of economies worldwide. Later, the Ukraine Crisis disrupted global energy markets, exacerbating inflationary pressures and further exposing the costs of Brexit. As rightly suggested “We are starting to see the Brexit effect, and it’s not particularly pretty” (Parker 2022). Subsequent to the pandemic, there was a resurgence of trade among all the other members of the G7, while the trade recovery in the United Kingdom remained largely stagnant. Consequently, the UK’s trade intensity has fallen behind its counterparts.

Brexit has also affected local businesses that cannot send their product to a single market without any hurdle. It has made businesses less efficient and more costly. Since 2016, business investment has exhibited growth in all G7 nations with the exception of the United Kingdom. All areas of prices and investment, and trade have adverse effects.

The United Kingdom’s economic growth has reached a standstill, and the country is under significant pressure due to Brexit.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Lord David Frost ratified the Northern Ireland Protocol with Ireland and supported the Brexit campaign. The impact of Brexit has created a political conspiracy surrounding its effects, with no political party in the UK willing to broach the subject. The Conservative Party has been reluctant to admit the severity of Brexit’s impact on the UK economy. Similarly, the Labour Party has refrained from addressing the Brexit controversy due to concerns that it may remind voters of the reasons behind their vote for the Conservative Party.

In the United Kingdom, individuals who discuss Brexit are frequently criticized as being “Re-moaners” or “Re-maniacs.” The populace is urged to embrace a viewpoint that was solely espoused by the UK Independence Party in 2015. All other parties, including the Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, Greens, trade unions, the CBI, and the broader British political and civic society, believed the UK was better positioned within the European Union. Still, those who thought that Brexit was necessary couldn’t contemplate the harsh impacts of Britain losing 4% GDP after leaving the European Union. As per OBOR Economic and Fiscal Outlook, There has been a 15 % reduction in trade activity due to Brexit. The UK’s exports have not backed up like other countries after Covid, which is again the effect of Brexit. Although, the Britain government has concluded bilateral deals and almost 71 new agreements with other countries like Japan, New Zealand, and Australia.

According to the House of Commons Library (2022), the Australian Deal is projected to increase Britain’s GDP by 0.08% by 2035. Business investment in the country peaked in 2016, the same year as the Brexit referendum, but has yet to recover to that level. Additionally, the value of the pound has declined due to the strength of the dollar, which has had a global impact on currencies. A weaker pound has led to increased costs for goods, contributing to inflation. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that these factors will result in a 4% reduction in GDP over the next 15 years. While politicians and ministers in the UK have attributed the economic recession to global issues and energy price pressures, it is essential to acknowledge the long-term economic challenges faced by the country. Since 1970, the UK’s economic growth has slowed progressively, and productivity has remained stagnant since the global financial crisis of 2008.

Brexit is one of the critical issues impacting the country’s economic performance, as highlighted by the OBOR and other policymakers and institutions.

Premiership of Boris Johnson, the Resignation series, and the downfall of the economic and political state

Boris Johnson served as the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom from 2019 to 2022. Prior to this, he held the position of Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018 and was the Mayor of London for two consecutive terms spanning eight years from 2008 to 2016 (Geiger, 2022). Johnson won the majority of Conservative Party votes in 2019, and his leadership coincided with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, which posed significant challenges to the country. In 2020, the Prime Minister negotiated a trade deal with the European Union that saw the UK leave both the single market and customs union. Johnson touted this deal as one that would promote increased trade between the UK and Europe, stating that “This deal will allow our companies and exporters to do even more business with our European friends.” (Johnson, 2022). However, the reality has been vastly different from what was predicted, as noted by Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. According to him, “Britain has lost a substantial portion of our trade with the EU, including high-value professional services, which have made us poorer.” (Johnson 2022).

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, faced a significant challenge in the form of the Covid-19 pandemic. His handling of the pandemic has been criticized, as the UK had the highest death rate among developed countries at one point. Despite this, Mr. Johnson has highlighted the success of the UK Covid vaccine roll-out, which has enabled the country to reopen its economy by exporting vaccines more than other states. However, his political opponents have criticized his ability to lead, citing his ignorance and delayed lockdowns as contributing factors to the high death toll. Furthermore, Mr. Johnson’s character has been called into question, as he has been investigated for various scandals, such as violating Covid SOPs and breaking the law by conducting indoor gatherings. Although his resignation was ultimately forced by the resignation of numerous ministers, Mr. Johnson expressed confidence in the country’s system to produce another leader committed to leading the nation through difficult times and improving the way things are done to promote growth and income (News 2022).

The resignation of Boris Johnson couldn’t end the political and economic crisis as Prime Minister Liz Truss had to resign six weeks after becoming the 15^th Prime Minister for Britain on 20^th October 2022. After two days after her appointment by Queen as Prime Minister, the Queen died on 8^th September, and her funeral procession continued for ten days. UK politics was suspended during this period, but after 19th September, her downfall began. She had a bunch of policies that she wanted to implement; she and her finance Minister Kwasi Kwateng announced a stimulus package of a 45 billion pound tax cut which government borrowings would fund. The tax cut was not the right strategy because, in an already weak economic situation, a government can cut taxes, reducing Govt. revenue and leading to a Budget Deficit. Her government came up with the idea of Borrowings, where the government takes loans from private corporations, banks, non-banking financial institutions, and other countries to spend on public service. The government is taking more loans in exchange for government security and treasury bills. Her tax cut plan benefited rich people who paid more tax, which created instability in the UK financial market and further led to a sharp fall in the pound’s value. The British pound became one of the worst-performing currencies, with a 24% decline against the dollar.

With the tax cut, inflation in the UK reached 9.9% (Keown 2022).To control the rising inflation, the Bank of England intervened and increased the interest rates by purchasing government bonds. Growing interest rates impacted ordinary people’s interest payments and utility bills, where the electricity bill rate increased by 80% (NPR 2022). The growing interest rate has worsened the high cost of living in Britain. IMF and other institutions criticized Liz Truss. She had to withdraw from the tax cut plan for which she faced a heavy back clash and had to resign, becoming the shortest-serving Prime Minister in UK history. In her resignation speech, Liz Truss acknowledged that she could not fulfill the mandate for which she was elected by the Conservative Party, stating “I recognize, though, given the situation” (B. News 2022) News 2022). It has been suggested that her focus on populist policies rather than making difficult long-term decisions contributed to her downfall.

Following the resignation of Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak assumed the role of Prime Minister during a challenging period. He made a pledge to bring professionalism, integrity, and accountability to the government. The recent series of resignations and the Ukraine crisis has posed severe challenges to British politics and the decision-making process, resulting in a weakened state of affairs. While the EU is struggling with an energy crisis and facing difficulties in making consensus-driven decisions, the economic situation in Britain has been troubled for quite some time, beginning with the 2008 financial crisis and further exacerbated by Brexit. The recent resignations of political leadership and the policies they have implemented to address these challenges have sown seeds of uncertainty for the country’s future.

An analysis of the economic situation in Britain from the premiership of Boris Johnson to Rishi Sunak reveals that the policies adopted by Britain’s leaders have been disastrous, highlighting the deep economic insecurity of the country.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Politics in the Digital Age

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – Falling Out From State System?

Martial Law vs Democratic Paradoxes: How Pakistan Differs from South Korea

Between Protests And Uncertainty: Hostel Life Struggles of Gilgit Baltistan Students In Twin Cities

Erosion of Media Freedom Under Taliban Rule

Nuclear Energy: A Path to Energy Security and Climate Resilience

Haqqani Murder: A Web of Accusations among ISKP, Pakistan, and Kandahari Taliban

From Afghanistan to East Asia

A Complex Reality

Noor Wali’s Tactics and Internal Rifts in TTP Leadership

SOEs Driving China’s Global Renewable Energy Leadership

Crucible of Taxes and Slump of Economy

China’s Path To A Sustainable Future

BRICS And The Quest For Financial Independence

US-China Trade War in New Trump Era

War in Ukraine: The Fallouts and Lessons

Nuclear Energy: A Hopeful Sign in Addressing Pakistan’s Energy Challenge

Missile Fiasco and the Rising Threat Matrix in South Asia

China’s Diplomatic Success in Reconciling Iran and Saudi Arabia: The Deal and its Implications for Pakistan

Kakistocracy : The Heart of Darkness is in the Political System

Understanding Space Weaponization & Its Implications on Global Security

Finland’s NATO Membership and Its Strategic Implications

Eurasian Integration – Vision for Connecting Continents

Combatting Islamophobia: The Pakistan’s Role

The State of British Politics

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.