Kashmir Black Day: A Call For Human Rights And Justice

By

-

October 27, 2024

On October 27, the people of Kashmir and Pakistan observe Kashmir Black Day every year to recall the deployment of Indian occupational forces in Jammu and Kashmir. It commemorates the beginning of the illegal Indian occupation while starting an unprecedented era of massive human rights abuses, especially against Kashmir’s Muslim population.

The combination of force deployment and human rights abuses started in 1947 when the Indian leaders realized the emerging local voices in favor of Pakistan while raising the demands of their right to self-determination. It resulted in the landing of Indian offensive forces in the region on October 27 1947, as India began forcibly occupying the territory, making it one of the most serious issues in the world. The subsequent years saw an unending inhumane treatment by the Indian security forces in the occupied parts of Kashmir, which hampered the values of peace and development in the region.

Subsequently, the dramatically increasing deployment of occupation forces made the state a heavily-militarized zone. Thus, the disputed status of this South Asian region laid the foundations of historical New Delhi-Islamabad hostility in which Pakistan decided to stand with the Kashmiri people, whereas Indian leaders preferred to continue their brutalities in its occupied state.

The illegitimate arrival of Indian offensive rule in Srinagar not only ensured New Delhi’s occupation in the region but also subjugated the local people.

Pakistan’s support for preventing Indian brutal control of the Occupied Kashmir gradually became prominent in regional and international politics because of New Delhi’s desire to continue its illegal occupation. It is internationally considered an effort to ‘Indianize’ the valley through coercive means, which resulted in the disempowerment of the Kashmiri people and the disappearances and forceful detention of local population. In this way, New Delhi’s inflexible and irrational position on the Kashmir dispute mainly started targeting the locals without respecting their age and gender.

The illegitimate arrival of Indian offensive rule in Srinagar not only ensured New Delhi’s occupation in the region but also subjugated the local people, disrespecting the fundamental values of international law. It is dubbed globally as an explicit violation of the universal humanitarian norms.

However, the continuation of Indian unilateral and illegitimate actions turned worse in August 2019 when New Delhi, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, introduced specific legislative steps to meet its desired changes related to the Kashmiri demographic structure. These legislative measures were evidently rejected by the Kashmiris and strongly opposed by Pakistani people due to their solid ideological associations with their brethren.

The arrival of Modi as Indian Prime Minister resulted in the increasing suffering of Muslim people living within India and Kashmir.

Modi introduced legislation (abrogation of Article 370) dishonored the Kashmir-specific United Nations resolutions, which undermined the scope of cooperative intergovernmental frameworks of the international community and their influential roles in addressing the sufferings of people living in disputed lands. While having an explicit involvement in the anti-Muslim bloodshed of Gujarat in 2002, the arrival of Modi as Indian prime minister resulted in the increasing suffering of Muslim people living within India and Kashmir.

It is pertinent to mention here that New Delhi’s efforts under various political administrations proved inefficient and failed in achieving the desired results due to the strong resistance of the Kashmiris and their persistent struggle to secure a democratic right to decide their future.

The genesis of New Delhi’s oppressive policies regarding Kashmiri society can be traced in the Indian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA). The two laws formally allowed its occupation forces to ensure silencing the voices for self-determination. Hence, this scenario dramatically raised the cases of violence in the Indian-occupied areas of Kashmir and dragged the attention of the international community toward South Asia.

Also read: Five Years Since Article 370 and Indian Illegal Occupied Kashmir Enigma

Regarding Kashmir, various inter-government and non-government organizations have issued their impartial analysis concerning the multiplying sufferings of the Kashmiri population. The leading media outlets from diverse backgrounds have also reported the multileveled violations of people living under Indian occupation. It is not a surprise that these violations mainly comprise extrajudicial killings, sexual harassment, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and ferocious displacements.

In this regard, the recent reports of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Amnesty International could be considered significant.

There are various statements from Indian leaders available to assess the growing human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir.

Amnesty International has highlighted in various reports the need to end the Indian government’s repressive behavior in its illegally occupied Kashmiri areas in the form of months-long communication shutdown and the extensive use of pallet guns. The debate on growing infringements of fundamental human rights cannot be completed without understanding the positions of Indian civil society on the sufferings of the Kashmiri Muslim population.

In this connection, one must cite a report “Torture: Indian State’s Instrument of Control in Indian Administrated Jammu and Kashmir”. It is published by the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) and Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS). The document rationalized the widespread use of multileveled violence in Kashmir due to the massive deployment of Indian forces against the will of locals.

Meanwhile, there are several other reports too on this issue: The Structure of Violence: The Indian State in Jammu and Kashmir; JKCCS Annual Human Rights Review; Facts under Ground: A Fact-Finding Mission on Nameless Graves & Mass Graves in Uri Area; and Ambiguous Marital Identity and Conflict: A Study of the Half-Widows in Jammu and Kashmir.

In this regard, continued violence along with internet shutdowns and communication blockades further validated the violent patterns of New Delhi’s Kashmir policy.

Akin to these reports, there are numerous analytical and factual surveys available online to understand the increasing sufferings of the Kashmiri population under Indian occupation forces. These findings played a crucial role in highlighting the massive human rights abuses which have resulted in widespread sufferings in the Kashmiri society. As a result, ordinary Kashmiris are determined to remain loyal to their right to self-determination.

A consensus-based and united position of the international community can make New Delhi to find a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute.

Moreover, there are various statements from Indian leaders available to assess the growing human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir. These accounts reflect critical position of several politicians. Rahul Gandhi and Shashi Tharoor of Congress, former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, former leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, and most important Arundhati Roy, an intellectual and civil rights activist. The formal positions of these leaders provide a glimpse of the emerging voices within India on New Delhi’s oppressive policies concerning Kashmir.

There is no harm in saying that the Kashmir Black Day is a powerful reminder of the disputed land between India and Pakistan. Islamabad has always showed the desire for peacefully resolving the issue while respecting the local population’s unchallengeable right to self-determination. In contrast, New Delhi is strong-minded in continuing and augmenting the presence of its occupation forces to curb the legitimate demands of local people.

In this scenario, the international community can play an effective role to protect the rights of the Kashmiri Muslims. In this way, the states having multifaceted bilateral engagements with New Delhi and the supporters of international human rights campaigns are required to pay substantial attention to the sufferings of Kashmiris. A consensus-based and united position of the international community can make New Delhi to find a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute in which the local people will prefer to decide their future independently.

Africa Needs Economic Diversification To Shun Resource Curse

By

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Munir

-

October 26, 2024

0

Resource Curse — Despite having huge natural resources, Africa remains a hostage to resource curse due to political instability. Nigeria is one of the best examples.

Africa is still experiencing challenges that defines its developmental course in future despite having a great fortune in the shape of natural resources and human capital. Many of the African countries still have a long way to go before realizing the dream of sustainable economic growth while being victim of ‘resource curse’. Speaking of Africa’s potential, it is predicated intricacies such as political instability, economic fluctuations, influence from outside forces and climate change which are hampering the progress.

The major cause of unpredictability of the future development of Africa is political instability.

However, there also remains opportunity for more creation, development, and advancement. With the global attention shifting to Africa, it is important to understand the causes of this uncertainty, that lies ahead, and what among possible steps can pave the way to sustained development.

However, I believe that the major cause of unpredictability of the future development of Africa is political instability. The problem of governance has plagued many African countries through corruption, lack of democracy and authoritarian rule. Political instability leads to economic uncertainty and decline of foreign investments. Military takeovers and rebellions, social turmoil and political instability challenges the DNA of development affecting regions like Sahel, Central Africa and parts of East Africa.

Also, the problems of corruption, vague authority of the government in many countries and no or low standards of accountability and transparency prevent the proper adherence to development policies. Inefficiency and instability of institutions contribute negatively to inequalities and poverty, so several African countries are in a vulnerable state.

But the situation is gradually improving. Several countries such as Ghana, Botswana and Namibia within a similar timeframe have also shown economic growth. These nations have proved that the African countries can set sustainable indices for development with good leadership and political will. However, the question is how other countries can follow these successes and manage to avoid the political barriers which hinder growth.

Africa is an indebted economy which makes it prone to fluctuating global market prices since most of its businesses and revenues originate from raw material exports. Oil, minerals, agricultural produce can hugely influence the national economy of a country. Each time the prices go down, the exporting countries experience slow growth, which means less jobs, fewer services, and less development initiatives.

While Africa joined the global markets, its integration has normally been in the form of providing natural resources.

Moreover, while Africa joined the global markets, its integration has normally been in the form of providing natural resources. Hence, it is susceptible to the so-called resource curse.

Another problem of high economic risk relates to foreign debt. African governments have taken loans principally to finance infrastructure projects but the capacity to repay such debts is unclear. Debt crises, as in the context of Zambia and others, are perceived with certain sustainability of economic growth. However, many African countries continue to depend on donor funding and other external financing sources for the continuity of growth leading to skewed external orientation. This makes African economies even more dependent on financial resources from the developed world and political changes in donor nations.

However, Africa’s economy has potential for growth among countries facing the issues. The African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA) that was signed in 2021 offers an avenue to increase trade within the region, development of the African products and less reliance on exports to other markets.

ACFTA can transform the continent into a single market to help improve the continent’s bargaining power on the international market. For this opportunity to be materialize, however, the African countries must overcome the challenges to intra-African trade, including inadequate communication infrastructure, policy incoherencies, and political turbulence.

Many African countries continue to depend on donor funding and other external financing sources.

International environment is another factor that is greatly influencing the level of development uncertainty. Climate change is making many of these problems worse, especially hunger, water scarcity, and forced migration across Africa. Global warming or climate change characterized by increased temperatures, unpredictable rainfall and increased incidences of natural disasters negatively impacts crop production, a critical element of many African economies. For instance, Horn of Africa is evident to have had extreme dry spell in the past years which resulted to famine and migration of people.

Global warming, pollution and depletion of natural resources, continued land degradation, deforestation and desertification are on the rise in some parts of Africa. For instance, the issue of desertification affects highly the Sahel region, this has culminated to competition for resources like water and fertile land. At the same time, accelerated population growth rates are exerting more stress on already stretched ecosystems.

However, Africa also has brighter prospects like becoming a leader in renewable energy and thus developing sustainable electricity supply. With abundant resources in both solar and wind power, the continent could use technology to meet its energy needs as well as to assist in trying to curb climate change. Funds in renewable energy and integrated farming systems also have potential for both embracing environment and enjoying economic development as well as enhanced employment opportunities for the poor in rural areas.

However, youth unemployment is a huge challenge, meaning that millions of young people enter job markets which limited job openings. Thus, Africa is facing social unrest, migration, youth hopelessness and more instability.

This comes at a time when African population is relatively young who can boost innovation and development. New technology centers in the cities such as Lagos, Nairobi and Cape Town prove that Africa’s youth can support technological development and new sources of income. But there is a need for governments and the private sector to invest in education, vocational training and job creation programs to maximize the results across Africa.

Democracy along political reforms that enhance openness and accountability are important for establishing state structures which are favorable to investment and development.

Africa’s development uncertainty is not part of the plan, it should not be seen as a fait accompli or an irreversible course of events. Achieving the impossible is often possible if one knows and understands what various policies, strategies, and investments are required to really make a difference.

Democracy along political reforms that enhance openness and accountability are important for establishing state structures which are favorable to investment and development. Emphasis should be placed on aggressive diversification of the economies, departing from the dependence on raw material and developing technology, manufacturing and services sectors which will translate to reduced economic insecurity and growth.

One has to embrace the fact that the climate change issue can only be solved through investments in renewables and sustainable farming. Similarly, provision of job opportunities to the youth is required to ensure social justice. Measures such as ACFTA may accordingly catalyze economic openness and improve the ability of the African states to adapt to external environment fluctuations.

Chinese Foreign Policy: Beijing Pursues Soft Power Strategy

By

Corinna Perini

-

October 26, 2024

0

The Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) in China with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) serves the structure of the Chinese foreign policy in the era of contemporary globalization that encourages international cooperation during the fragmentation. Global instabilities in the form of intensified geopolitical rivalry, economic inequality, and ideological differences are on the rise, and the global competitiveness index of China brings focus to cultural differences, exchange, and knowledge sharing.

China presents itself as a mediator that focuses on gap closing between the different civilizations, while strengthening the pillars created by the BRI. The question remains: is GCI really an innovative idea toward connectedness and cooperation in the world or rather an extension of tactical support for China’s ambitious BRI plan?

The GCI which began in March 2023 rolled by the Chinese President Xi Jinping advocates recognition of other civilizations, fairness and understanding. It harmonizes with the intentions for multiculturalism and integration. That is why China can be regarded as the country focusing on the surrender for the international understanding.

China presents itself as a mediator that focuses on gap closing between the different civilizations, while strengthening the pillars created by the BRI.

It places values people’s tolerance having no one superior civilization and the need to have harmony among nations for everybody’s benefits. This tally with the mission of the BRI that has been useful in developing extensive connection infrastructures across Asia, Africa, and Europe. From the foregoing analysis, the two strategies namely BRI and GCI appear to project China as a world power not only economically, but socially and politically as well.

Where globalization is driven by ideological and political bipolarity in parts of the world, the GCI might provide a check on the recent tendencies towards unilateralism and protectionism. For instance, the United States has been accused of subjecting the world to neoliberal imperialism and liberal democratic imperialism. Specifically, China through the GCI advocates for an alternative discourse, which is multicultural and recognize cultural diversity.

But there are some strategic perspectives related to the GCI that must be discussed. On the one hand, the initiative could be associated with the desire to foster mutual cultural and historical appreciation and understanding. This way, the initiative has a clear diplomatic slant, which means that its main goal might be to ensure that China gets more allies in its international politics.

The BRI has been criticized for generating economic interdependence among host countries and nations as well as increasing their debt vulnerability since it was inception in 2013. On the other hand, it is rather plausible that by promoting the GCI, China might wish to do away with some of these former and offer a more mutually beneficial view of its involvement in the global affairs.

Therefore, by the GCI, China may be trying to be a peacemaker in a world full of conflict. Further, the initiative presupposes that conflicts in cultural and ideological terms can be settled through dialogue and cooperation. In this regard, it seems that the GCI is consonant with what the BRI is about, which is connection and cooperation.

The BRI has been criticized for generating economic interdependence among host countries and nations as well as increasing their debt vulnerability.

As it is with the positioning of the BRI as an infrastructural institution that seeks to physically connect nations, the GCI positions itself as an institution of culture that seeks to facilitate civilizational connection. This alignment may assist China to popularize and centralize its control with the participant countries of BRI, whether it is from an economic point of view or the diplomatic view.

However, there are some doubts to the motives of utilizing the GCI. Critics want to know whether there is more to the introduction of the initiative other than being a vehicle that would help China assert its dominance in international matters. This may be so because by couched its leadership role in cultural diplomacy, Beijing may be trying to downplay, or arguably dissuade negative perceptions about China’s rising economic and political might. For example, countries which are doubtful of China’s increasing influence might regard the GCI as an exercise in soft power politics aimed at enlisting partners who might be reluctant to endorse the BRI.

Furthermore, the commitment of the GCI to non-interference of civilizations also gives food for thought regarding how China treats the endogenous cultural and ideological differences. One gets the impression that the way Beijing governs the country when it comes to politics of ethnic minorities’ treatment and the rights of individuals in Xinjiang and Tibet or any other place that the central government considers rebellious, is somewhat inapposite to the goals of the GCI.

Doubters have noted that although China prescribes itself as a peace-loving nation that respects other cultures it has been accused of restricting freedom and discrimination of some cultures in China. This lack of simulator could dilute the authoritative position of the GCI on the international level.

The GCI can be seen as an audacious endeavor by China to assert its voice and set the directions in attitude to civilization the world. As the world faces phenomenal challenges including climate change, economic disparity and conflict, there is need for global communication.

Material promoting cultural diversity and respect in global communication might find interest in China-asserting countries that are looking for different models of development and conducting diplomacy than those initiated by west. For instance, the Global South countries most of which have benefited from one BRI project, or another might easily relate to the communication of the GCI which embraces the message of pluralism and progress.

The partnership between GCI and BRI shows how Beijing fastidiously plans for being a world leader through an effective Chinese foreign policy. Linked with cultural diplomacy into economic strategies, Beijing is building a complex system of relations with a global society. The strategy enables China not only to construct literal structures but also shape the discursive and cultural registers in which interactions occur. In this respect, it is the GCI that provides a kind of the parallel to the BRI and contributes to a perception of China’s rise as benign and beneficial.

Cyberwarfare: A Dilemma For Intelligence Institutions Worldwide

By

Harsa Kakar

-

October 25, 2024

0

Cyberwarfare can not only damage the rival countries economically, but also has the potential to influence their domestic politics. Alleged Russian interference in the US presidential elections is an example.

“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and few minutes of cyber-incident to ruin it” – Stephane Nappo.

In an interconnected world like today’s, any digital challenge has far-reaching consequences than it had a century ago. On top of the line among these is cyberwarfare. It is another side effect of globalization that the world faces besides its numerous positive effects. Cyberwarfare refers to the usage of cyberattacks against a state to cause comparable damage to their vital computer systems leading to espionage, propaganda, and blackmail. This type is distinct because it keeps the identity of the attacker anonymous which prevents him from being identified directly. Hence, this feature increases the complications.

The first cyberattack is said to have been carried out in 1834 in France when criminals accessed the French telegraph system to steal financial market data.

Since the world now depends on digital networking, businesses, earning, communication, and managing infrastructure, cyberwarfare has gained popularity among attackers leading to escalated incidents of cybercrime with each passing day. Historically, the first cyberattack is said to have been carried out in 1834 in France when criminals accessed the French telegraph system to steal financial market data. It was even before the internet was a thing. These incidents have continued to occur to this day. However, their impact is far greater and the damage they cause is far-reaching today.

Cyberwarfare, unlike conventional warfare, operates in an anonymous environment which enables the state or non-state entities to conduct attacks without being identified. The globalized world we live in is dependent on digital infrastructure in all domains and this has made cyberwarfare an attractive resort for countries that hold no power to conduct conventional attacks. Thus, they conduct cyberattacks to avoid the blame and have the job done.

Among these numerous high-profile incidents of cyberattacks many have occurred in recent years. Notably, the Bundestag cyberattack in Germany in 2015 was carried out by a group linked to Russian intelligence. The attackers were successful in stealing large amounts of data from German legislative offices undermining the trustworthiness of their government. Then in 2016, the US Democratic National Committee (DNC) was targeted by a cyberattack that was conducted by the Russian government’s hackers which resulted in the leakage of important emails and confidential files. It had serious political consequences and showed that cyber criminals could now impact democratic functioning.

Similarly, in 2020, the US Department of Homeland Security faced the SolarWinds attack in which cyber criminals, who were again seemingly attached to Russian intelligence, tried to enter their software supply chain which affected a wide range of private and government sector systems. It was conducted in a way that it could not be tracked down until several months.

Cyberwarfare, unlike conventional warfare, operates in an anonymous environment which enables the state or non-state entities to conduct attacks without being identified.

Later in July 2024, several countries – Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand – came together and issued a notice concerning Chinese state-sponsored cybercrimes that were tracked down within their networks. In the same way, in August 2024, US government officials accused Iranian hackers of penetrating Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Similar attempts were made in Joe Biden’s time by offering him stolen documents from the Trump campaign when they were not responded to. This incident alerted US officials about potential interference from adversaries in the upcoming US elections.

Overcoming the challenges of cyberwarfare require a well-planned strategy that includes technological, tactical, and cooperative efforts. Among these strategies, some recommendations suggest that first and foremost, all countries need to strengthen their cyber security system including firewalls, intrusion detectors, and encryption technologies.

The international community must outline a set of consequences for cyberattacks such as economic sanctions or retaliatory actions to make the countries aware of the consequences of their actions.

It is also essential to update security patches and implement a zero-trust security model that notifies of every access request. Intelligence agencies need to counter cyber threats by analyzing the strategies of adversaries in cyberspace. This can be made possible by collaborating with trustworthy private companies and can also rely on the use of AI and machine learning for threat prediction. Furthermore, cyberwarfare requires global collaboration to weaken it altogether by setting standards for a state’s cyber behavior as advocated by the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE).

Similarly, the international community must outline a set of consequences for cyberattacks such as economic sanctions or retaliatory actions to make the countries aware of the consequences of their actions. Besides that, educating the public and cyber workforce about cyber hygiene practices through awareness programs and government initiatives, like recognizing phishing emails, usage of long and complex passwords, etc. Moreover, organizations and intelligence institutions regularly need to update their response plans for such incidents by running simulation exercises and dummy attacks to pinpoint their weaknesses and overcome them to lessen the impact of an actual cyberattack.

To sum up, cyberwarfare appears to be a great global dilemma for countries and their sensitive institutions in an interconnected world like today. Several such high-profile attacks have been part of top news in recent years. Their impact is growing with each passing day and the anonymous nature of attackers makes it even more complicated.

Overcoming the cyberwarfare challenge requires a well-planned strategy. This can be made possible by improving cybersecurity, bolstering cyber intelligence, increasing international collaboration, strengthening public-private partnerships, and learning from successful examples. If such strategies are utilized by countries in the right way at the right time, only then can they avoid cyberwarfare and its consequences.

EU Foreign Policy Crisis: Europe At A Crossroads

By

Dr. Nhien Tran

-

October 25, 2024

0

The European Union (EU) was once seen as a super power (diplomatic in nature) and one that had the ability to greatly affect foreign policies. In the years gone by, the bloc’s distinctive model of soft power diplomacy based on consensus, economic diplomacy and multilateralism provided it with a distinctive opportunity to become an important player on the international stage. However, in the recent past, the EU foreign policy seemed to be incoherent and inconsequential – most of the time, highly ineffectual.

This represents as confused and ineffective EU foreign policy machine when tensions increase across the globe – from Middle East to growing authoritarianism in Eastern Europe and China’s increasingly loud demands. Arguably, what this implies is that the EU foreign policy is in a very sad state if it needs to reassert its international power and protect its stake.

The EU multilateralism approach to foreign policy often results in making weak common positions that lose any power or sense direction on the international level due to national interests.

Another major problem of the EU in conducting its foreign policy is that the bloc is extremely divided. The union is formed by 27 member states all having their own national interests, priorities and foreign policy viewpoints.

Despite the established entity’s desire for cohesion in its external political decisions, it is rarely seen. For instance, while France aims at enhancing strategic cooperation with Russia, Germany engages in striving for a partnership with China and Africa. Hence, the EU multilateralism approach to foreign policy often results in making weak common positions that lose any power or direction sense on the international level due to national interests.

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

This fragmentation was particularly noted in the EU in its management of the crises like the ongoing Ukraine war. On the one hand, the EU has resorted to sanctions on Russia and offered humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine, on the other hand, it shows internal conflict. Some countries like Hungary have declined to support stronger measures while some other countries, including Germany, initially, did not offer to supply military equipment.

While France aims at enhancing strategic cooperation with Russia, Germany engages in striving for a partnership with China and Africa.

One can see that the EU has at its disposal the ‘soft power’ – influence through their policies, diplomacy, granting of aid, as well as the projection of democracy. However, EU’s soft power is also in decline; especially as the bloc is failing to provide an effective strategy in combating authoritarianism and new emerging threats. Hence, the EU has lost influence in critical power regions because of not having a consistent policy of how to manage with authoritarian actors like Russia, China and Turkey.

However, internal issues, including the recent rise in illiberal authorities which are members of the union, primarily Hungary and Poland, are also a serious issue, as these governments through their policies impose doubts about EU democracy. This decision of theirs has eroded EU’s moral high ground it needs to convey those values to the rest of the world. And that’s why the bloc has eroded the ability to regulate stability and development, and future in areas such as Africa and Latin America that used to enjoy the bloc’s protection on issues to do with human rights and democracy.

The EU is also aspiring to navigate through a fast emerging new geopolitical structure characterized by the return of great power contests. The emergence of China as a world superpower in the last couple of decades, the assertive foreign policies of Russia and the new political landscape of Biden’s America have put EU into a new strategic reflective mode. ‘Strategic autonomy’ has become a favorite parlance in EU foreign policy discourse and conversations, following the Biden years of American unilateralism, considered Europe’s weakness and triggered an understanding that the continent can no longer rely on the US for lead and security.

Strategic autonomy, as would be understood, therefore, conceptualizes the EU as beginning to undertake international actions on its own volition, without much assistance or direction from other actors. At present, the EU does have neither a proper defense policy, nor strong military power, and relies on NATO protection. In addition, significant divergences between EU members regarding many areas, including military expenditure, the use of force, and relations with world players, such as the United States and China, still block the path to genuine independence. Thus, until there will be improved cooperation and expenditure on defense, EU will be unable to assert itself as a single actor on the International scene where disorder increases daily.

It is high time for the EU to recall its base and fundamental principles and values like democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

For instance, as the conflict-ravaged Syria and the resultant refugee crisis emerged, the EU failed to be a serious player on the world stage and did not actively map out a clear strategy. It enabled other serious entities, such as Russia and Turkey, take EU’s place on the world stage. Likewise, in another rapidly evolving region – the Indo-Pacific where China’s power is increasing – the EU failed to offer a coherent policy at its foreign-policy birthplace and remains outside one of the most promising areas in the world.

In order to revive its overseas foreign policy, the EU needs to fix its internal affairs first. Togetherness is important for member states to appear more united through systemic challenges. This will, thus, call for increased cooperation and these member states and leaders more determined and willing to trough their political capital to get what is important to all the countries.

Secondly, there is a need to strengthen the strategic autonomy of the EU. This will also include further strengthening of military forces, deepened cooperation in security matters and ability to operate autonomously during crisis in the rest of the world. Enhanced cooperation between the EU on the one side and NATO on the other will also be necessary for Europe to be able to defend itself in the unpredictable world.

Finally, it is high time for the EU to recall its base and fundamental principles and values like democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If the EU wants to get back to the shift of global power onto itself, it needs to not only set the standards when it comes to core values but also sanction member states that breach these values.

Why Reviving SAARC Matters Now?

By

Dr. Ghulam Mujaddid

-

October 25, 2024

0

South Asia is one of the most populous and diverse regions on the globe, where a quarter of the world population lives. Most of the countries in South Asia are still instable, marked by conflicts and short of development, despite a great history, culture and potential for economic growth. One of the structures aimed at the creation of cooperation, peace and stability in this region is the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). However, SAARC hardly functions today, as it has largely remained in a state of frost due to conflict between two largest countries of this organization – India and Pakistan. It is very important to revive the organization because it can help solve regional issues and open the way for stability, economic development and integration.

The SAARC Charter was signed in 1985 in Dhaka, Bangladesh, with seven founding members – Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Later in 2006, Afghanistan was inducted as the eight member state of SAARC in 2007. The basic objective for the formation of SAARC were to foster development cooperation and regional welfare. Efforts were made to build confidence, enhance the prospects of peace and stability, and raise the quality of life of the people of South Asia.

Also read: SCO Summit: It’s Time For Indo-Pak Stalled Dialogue To Resume

Nevertheless, despite very promising beginning, SAARC has experienced a very slow pace of development that has been mainly caused by political conflicts, especially the long-standing hostility between India and Pakistan. This rivalry has blinded the organization from other important tasks and hampered development of regional programs. Hence, SAARC has not met much success. At the same time, it remains the only outlet for collective diplomacy involving all the South Asian nations. Restoration of SAARC is need of the hour because it provides a mechanism or framework to respond to many of the issues typical of the region such as poverty, terrorism, iron curtain, environment, and income disparity.

South Asia is one of the least economically integrated regions globally.

The major reason behind an inactive SAARC is the hostility between two of its largest members, India and Pakistan, both of whom are nuclear powers. India, in its argument, states that Pakistan supports terrorism, while Pakistan feels that India is aggressive and opportunistic, especially in the issue of Kashmir. These tensions culminated in 2016 when India boycotted the SAARC meet in Islamabad in the wake of Pathankot terrorist attack, which, India said, was sponsored by the Pakistan-based militants.

But in the light of changing global order and new challenges including climate change, health hazards, economic fluctuations, calls have emerged again to revive SAARC. For both India and Pakistan, there remains a lot to be won in a stable South Asia and it is being realized that hostility does not serve the interests of either party.

The current and future economic cooperation potential regarding the South Asian economy is very high, but, unfortunately, South Asia is one of the least economically integrated regions globally. Fostering SAARC back into action could potentially augur to open massive economic advantages in the form of enhanced trade, investment, and infrastructure investments. It will enable the member states to cross burden sharing by pooling resources as well as coordinating efforts in large-scale infrastructure projects which may become extremely difficult for them to execute independently due to trade barriers.

The major reason behind an inactive SAARC is the hostility between two of its largest members, India and Pakistan.

One of the areas that SAARC can contribute towards cooperation to an optimal level is energy security. The SAARC member states rely on imports to meet their energy needs. Hence, energy deficits are evident in the region’s several states. If the South Asian countries start to come up introducing renewable energy sources together, such as hydropower in the case of Nepal and Bhutan or sun power in the case of India, the region’s energy security could considerably improve and there would be less reliance on imports.

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

In addition, SAARC can attract investment through changing the economic existence from volatile and unpredictable circumstances to orderly and familiar conditions. The reason is simple: political instability in the region discourages investment. Optimizing relations between member countries can help to reduce the risks indicated above.

Meanwhile, the fact that current global issues cannot be viewed or solved in isolation also highlights the need to revive SAARC. Climate change is perhaps one of the best examples, which is resulting in rising sea levels, increase in natural disaster frequency and intensity, and adverse effects on agricultural yields. In this scenario, SAARC can play a central role in formulating regional strategies in addressing climate change impacts as well as food and water security mechanisms.

The other major factor discussed is health. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the poor healthcare services and a lack of regional health coordination framework. A rejuvenated SAARC will help develop structures through which the member states may mobilize resources jointly to confront pandemics and other health issues to ensure effective response.

As terrorism and extremism remain the main challenge sub-regional stability in South Asia, no country or the region is in a position to find a solution individually. SAARC as a regional body can improve information exchange, intelligence sharing and joint actions against terrorism, thus offering more and effective approaches to deal with these threats.

The China-Led SCO And Strained Indo-Pak Relations

By

Ghazanfar Ali Garewal

-

October 24, 2024

0

Indo-Pak Relations — Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the signing ceremony of Lahore Declaration in 1998.

Pakistan has successfully organized the 23rd annual meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of Government, which was attended by two global powers – Russia and China – along with top leaders and high officials from other member and observer states. India’s External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar also participated in the meeting. His visit was of worthy-discussion because of strained Indo-Pak relations, as this was of the first by an Indian top diplomat to Pakistan in nearly a decade. However, he was here to represent India as a SCO member, which is a multilateral club. Jaishankar also emphasized in a media talk “But I do want to say it will be for a multilateral event. I am not going there to discuss India-Pakistan relations,”. He further added that he would attend the meeting as a “good member of the SCO”.

In the same fashion, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar stated, while welcoming his Indian counterpart with “full protocol”, that this was to meet his duty as ‘a good host’. Neither India nor Pakistan asked for bilateral meeting during the SCO summit. The analysts generally believed this gathering would not thaw tense relations between Pakistan and India. Similarly, Dr Maliha Lodhi while taking to Samaa TV stated that Jaishankar’s visit shall not be viewed as breakthrough in Pakistan-India relations, as he was attending a multilateral forum.

Keeping in mind the statements, would this moot bring any improvement in Indo-Pak relations, which have hit a historically low? Does Indian external affairs minister’s visit have no significance? Answers to these and other similar questions is hard to point in a flat ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

To solve this puzzle, the SCO objectives must be kept in mind. One of the goals says it aims to foster ‘mutual trust, friendship and good neighborliness between the member states”. The realization of this goal is dependent on the normalization of Indo-Pak relations. Moreover, the SCO leadership foresees regional integration and prosperity, which is dependent on cordial relations between India and Pakistan.

The SCO objectives must be kept in mind. One of the goals says it aims to foster ‘mutual trust, friendship and good neighborliness between the member states”.

The future endeavors of the SCO depend on resolving bilateral issues between the member states. Smooth and predictable bilateral relations among the member states reinforce the functioning of any organization. Therefore, the future achievements of SCO depend upon normal relations between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan as a responsible member stands for developing cordial relations by discussing long-awaited issues like Kashmir. India is also expected to response positively by setting aside its stubborn and egoistic approach. However, New Delhi must realize that its ‘hegemonic’ designs in the region shall never materialize. The need of the hour is to move ahead and resolve bilateral issues as per international law and global norms. Hopefully, India shall not try to fix the bilateral issues unilaterally, as it did in August 2019 by abrogating the Article 370.

At the same time, cost-benefit analysis is the guiding star of foreign policy decision making. It is imperative that Islamabad and New Delhi should realize the importance of removing irritants and develop cordial relations. Resolving bilateral issues and playing their role in regional integration and prosperity are in the short- and long-term interests of both the states.

But to achieve the desired objectives, Russia and China being global powers and leading SCO members can mediate between Pakistan and India, the two nuclear armed states. In this regard, Russia has the leverage of utilizing its closeness with India while China can influence the process through its friendly ties with Pakistan. To foster ‘mutual trust and good neighborliness’ between the historical rivals is a win-win situation for all the stakeholders of SCO.

Russia and China being global powers and leading SCO members can mediate between Pakistan and India, the two nuclear armed states.

In this regard, China should take lead, as it mediated for breakthrough between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Being a global economic power and the SCO leader, China is in a position to act as a mediator between these South Asian rivals.

One must remember that China’s foreign policy is based on a dual approach – enhancing its influence in the existing institutions like IMF and UN, and creating its own institutions like SCO and AIIB.

Therefore, China must mitigate tensions between India and Pakistan to make the SCO a success story. By doing so, China will qualify the litmus test of becoming the regional leader. The history of SAARC testifies that bilateral tensions of India and Pakistan has been key cause of its inability to be an effective and successful regional organization. Hence, China should not let the SCO being hit by the SAARC syndrome. The future achievements of SCO are dependent on leadership role of China and improved Indo-Pak ties.

Although Jaishankar only attended the multilateral forum, it is a positive development. Sanity prevailed and he did not deteriorate the relations further by making irresponsible statements against Pakistan. Rather he stressed the need for addressing challenges between neighbors through “honest dialogue and cooperation”. Moreover, he reportedly discussed the visits of cricket teams with his counterpart Dar. The summit concluded with ray of hope not only for the ‘Shanghai Spirit’, but also for normalization of relations between India and Pakistan.

Pakistani Cancer Needs Chemo

By

Murtaza Solangi

-

October 24, 2024

0

Imran Khan taking oath from his party leaders and members in a style similar to that of the German Nazis.

“Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero!
No, Andrea….unhappy is the land that needs a hero.”

From the play “ The life of Galileo

― Bertolt Brecht

Humans are mortals. They make mistakes, they can break under pressure, they can be bought and sold. Once they get absolute power, they can be corrupted absolutely. That is the lesson of history. Charisma has a huge unifying as well as a destructive force. While charisma can motivate millions, it can and has destroyed millions in human history. Humans through their personal charisma can fool and mislead others under any lofty and holy banner. The destruction and death of millions of people throughout human history shows how the cult worship has ruined nations and countries. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sing in the political arena are examples of doom and gloom. That is the verdict of history.

Hitler is responsible for the holocaust and pushing the entire world into the WWII.

IMRAN KHAN PHENOMENON:

There has been a desire in Pakistan’s power circles to use charismatic figures to mobilize people and use them to overcome parochial, ethnic nationalism, communalism and dynastic politics. Imran Khan was a classic fit for the role. A cricket super star with Western education and connections but leaning and pleading Pakistani conservative values at the same time was a tight fit for this character, ready to be cast.

Stalin, the Soviet leader, who killed many and sent millions to Gulags in name of protecting communism.

Imran Khan’s emergence on the zenith of the political landscape coincides with the Internet revolution’s next stage – the stage emergence and blossoming of the social media in 2011. While the huge state resources were used to catapult Imran Khan, he too gathered the stars and helped them create the cyber monster we face today. While the traditional political parties were snoring out loud in slumber, the new Frankenstein was in the making.

Imran Khan used everything to attract the aspirations of the young people. Young people got everything they wanted from PTI created by Imran Khan. They wanted Western tilt, a party scene with a touch of Islamic rituals and a superficial and artificial Pakistani identity. And they got them all in PTI under Imran Khan who would start with a Quranic Sura wearing jeans and offering prayer on stage, following by a rock music concert and dance.

HERO BECOMES FRANKENSTEIN:

Imran Khan and his party were good in demolishing the federal and Punjab governments in 2017 so the makers of the phenomenon facilitated his crowning in 2018 with much ease. However, the trouble started early on when they found out that the celebrity hero was only interested in his personal glory and wanted the governance left to his cronies. He wanted the permanent state to manage his woes and shoot his troubles to manage his personal rule like an emperor.

Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge regime (1975–79) and killed up to three million people during the Cambodian genocide.

As Imran Khan tasted power, all his focus was on maintaining it by eliminating all voices of dissent within the society and the state apparatus. With economy sliding down to oblivion and governance at a level of complete mess, he picked up new battles to rattle the steel framework of the state that catapulted him in the first place. With media, civil society, opposition political parties, all opposed to the model, his shenanigans with the permanent state turned out to be the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back, bringing his downfall in April 2022.

IMRAN THE TERRIBLE:

After his unceremonious fall from grace, Imran Khan, the egoist celebrity and the spoilt brat, went berserk and used his charismatic destructive powers to the fullest. He did what he said he will do if thrown out of power. He said he will be “khatrenaak” (dangerous) for the system if thrown out of power. And he has so far followed through his words. His troll brigades, both inside and outside Pakistan, and lynch mobs have wreaked havoc in Pakistan.

May 9, 2023, was the culmination point in this quest, but many mini May 9 have followed since then.

Kim Il-Sung created the songbun system, which divided the North Korean people into three groups – core, wavering and hostile – which persists even today.

The cancer of cult following has spread in the body politics and the society at large. Imran Khan through a sheer display of destructive influence has attracted many regional and global forces that have deep interests in undoing and weakening Pakistan. Once a savior of the system, Imran Khan has proved to be a potential grave digger of the very system that gave birth to him.

DE-IMRANIZATION:

As a society, we have seen, just like any other, the havoc cult worship and individual heroism plays with societies. That is the bitter truth. Without creating an ecosystem opposing cult and individual heroes, we will be moving in the same vicious circle. We don’t need a new hero to kill the old hero who has turned into a monster. We, as a society, need an ecosystem that negates individual heroes and replaces them with collective wisdom, consultation, flexibility, rational thinking and a democratic spirit by emphasizing on developing and nurturing critical thinking and enhancing critical faculties both in the society and the state apparatus.

DEMOCRACY IN POLITICAL PARTIES:

Just like other democratic societies, we need to legally develop a democratic environment and delegation and devolution of power within political parties. While every Pakistani is eligible to be part of any political party, we need verified registered lists of party members under the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). With the digital technology evolving at an unprecedented level and speed, it should be a piece of cake.

At the same time, the political parties must have democratic elections to be overseen/supervised by the ECP. Similarly, the participation of the party members in granting tickets for National Assembly, Senate, provincial assemblies and local governments must be ensured to deprive the party leaders from turning them into fiefdoms and family property. We must ensure to check concentration of power in persons and special groups to stop the emergence of Frankensteins in future.

A single messiah and a single savior breed cult following and catapults monsters. Monsters must not be replaced with other monsters, otherwise, we will be moving in circles.

CULTURE AND SOCIETY:

The cancer of cult following and charismatic personalities has gone into the body and bone marrow of the society. It needs a chemotherapy like De-Nazification. Just like what was done in Germany after the horrific end of the Nazi Germany, we need our own version of De-Nazification.

How? This De-Nazification process in Pakistan must comprise sets of special measures in education and culture to enlighten the society with a special focus on young people, making them learn the benefits of collective wisdom, rational thinking, tolerance and flexibility, and enabling them unlearn the horrors of cult worship. Our homes, playgrounds, social gatherings, educational institutions and the centers of art, literature, music, films and dramas must create a new ecosystem. We need a new “ Shaukat Khanum” to treat the cancers we have created.

US Presidential Election And The Middle East In Transition

By

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Munir

-

October 23, 2024

0

The connection between the United States and the Middle East is one of the most significant and vital in global politics. This has been brought about by years of war and peace, international relations, trade and globalization, and rivalry between communism and the West. While following the US presidential election, one can suggest that several characteristics of the foreign policy regarding the Middle East could be enter a a new phase – indeed, relatively unconventional and challenging.

As the Middle East is familiar with volatility, the US presidential election in 2024 will put the Middle East in a position of change with a new president of the United States. The combination of domestic American politics and more frequent crises in the Middle East can redefine the interaction of the US with the region for many years to come.

For most of the 20th and 21st centuries, the United States’ relations with the Middle Eastern countries have been greatly influenced by power and security priorities and indeed the main goals were energy sources, terrorism and geostrategic cooperation. There must be the Cold War competition that saw the US and the Soviet Union frequently fighting for domination in the region. The US nurtured its strategic partnership with countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. It also conducted went for military actions like as the Gulf War of 1991 and invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s.

Both Obama and Trump wanted to pull back from the endless wars in the Middle East, but they approached this goal in vastly different ways.

However, the new phase after 9/11 has seen an accelerated encroachment of the American military might in the Middle East. This presence, in the name of the global war on terror, created continued conflicts and civil wars within nations, especially Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. However, US assistance towards Israel and the hostile attitude toward Iran have been consistently most important indicators in the region.

In recent years, nevertheless, there has been an observable change. Both Obama and Trump wanted to pull back from the endless wars in the Middle East, but they approached this goal in vastly different ways. When focusing on foreign politics, Obama represented diplomacy – Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA, 2015), while Trump acted independently – withdrawal from JCPOA while focusing on relations with the Gulf States and Israel. These decisions outlined for the US a highly polarized future discourse as to how it should continue to navigate the region.

Meanwhile, Middle Eastern politics remain volatile as campaign is in full swing for the US presidential election 2024.

However, another question is critical, and it concerns the Palestine-Israel conflict, which has become more intense in recent years. The Abrahamic Accords signed during the Trump presidency were seen as a historic moment in the Arab-Israel relations, but little has been achieved when it comes to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

At the same time, Iran continues to pose a threat with its nuclear program. Given that the JCPOA is virtually dead now and the Biden administration has attempted to resurrect the negotiations but with limited success. At the same time, Iran’s proxies such as Hezbollah and Houthis in countries such as in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen are gaining more ground. Unfavorable Iran-US relations and the economic crisis in Iran have made Tehran desperate, as it continues supporting its proxies for dominance in the region, given the conflict with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states.

Another area requiring attention is the US-Saudi Arabia relation. Traditionally, cooperation between the two countries was based on oil and security issues. However, over the recent past, their relationship has been souring over issues such as human rights and the Yemeni war. The assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul consulate in 2018 evoked strong global response and a call for Washington to rethink relationship with Riyadh.

Despite the prospects of President Biden initially assuming a more hostile approach to Saudi Arabia, there was a shift in US diplomacy back to Saudi Arabia due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine – a development which led to several challenges in the global energy market.

The Abrahamic Accords signed during the Trump presidency were seen as a historic moment in the Arab-Israel relations, but little has been achieved when it comes to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Meanwhile, Washington’s politics continues to shape the US foreign policy in the Middle East to this date on grounds of insecurity. As the 2024 election come into focus, its approach to the region is again on the cusp of change. The result of upcoming election may be seen as either a continuation of a decline in the trademark aggressive disposition of US foreign policy in the region or escalation of warlike policies.

As for the Democratic Party, a fresh movement is promoting isolationism overseas. The liberal wing of the party has most recently opposed interventions in foreign countries and supported diplomacy, human rights and the climate change issue. It also wants the West to reconsider the friendly partnership with apparent tyrannies of the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and turn the focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict again.

Taking a closer look at the structural changes, the most prominent phenomenon in the last few years has been the changing character of the world order in which China and Russia have emerged as key players in the Middle East. For the two countries, economic interests and military cooperation in the region have escalated their activities, thereby countering the monopoly of the US.

China has also developed economic relations with states like Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. At the same time, Russia entered the Syrian civil conflict as an ally of the Assad government and increased its military base on the Mediterranean. This scenario invites China and Russia to influence the Middle East and complicates US strategy.

Hence, the new multipolarity means that any future US administration must take reality of increasing foreign presence in the region into account, along with the US interests.

With the US presidential election round the corner, the fate of Middle East is on the line, as the region continues experiencing conflicts, economic insecurity and flip-flopping relationships. However, how the US accomplishes addressing these issues will depend on the election results. Whether the next president pursues a more diplomatic or interventionist strategy, one thing is clear: A new age in the relationship between the U.S. and the Middle East is on the horizon, which will define this important part of the world for the next several decades.

France’s Strategic Gamble To Regain Clout In Middle East

By

Akif Ali Hayat

-

October 22, 2024

1

From “we unequivocally support Israel’s right to self-defense” to “If you call for a ceasefire, it’s only consistent that you do not supply weapons of war” and “Netanyahu must not forget that his country was created by a UN decision”, President Macron’s stance has dramatically shifted as the Middle East crisis escalates. Israel has launched a ground invasion of Lebanon – a move that perturbed the French government. What started as diplomatic support has now transformed into a potential hardline response, as the conflict spills over into Lebanon, producing a sharp turn in the adopted by France.

There are various reasons for the aggressive posture of France, ranging from the historical ties, growing domestic and international pressure for a ceasefire and, above all, regaining her diminished clout in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon.

Following World War I, Lebanon and Syria were mandated by the French. The mandate system aimed to transition these territories from imperial control to self-governance under international supervision. Until 1943, Lebanon remained a French Protectorate. Thereafter, Lebanon gained independence as France transferred the power to the Lebanese government. By taking the 1932 consensus into account, it was decided that the President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies would be a Christian, Sunni, and Shia respectively. During this period, France tried to ‘Francize’ Lebanon by introducing French institutions, language, and education system, supporting socioeconomic and political reforms, and establishing strong ties with the, traditionally pro-French, Maronite community.

These developments did not happen in isolation as Macron has been strategically focusing on the Middle East for the past several years.

In 1975, when civil war erupted in Lebanon, France found itself walking a tightrope between the PLO – the newly found ally as a result of reinvigorated Arab Policy – and Lebanon, its historical partner. Therefore, France adopted a neutral stance and accelerated its diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. After the invasion of Israel in 1978, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established and France was the first country to send troops.

Later on, France deployed around 1500 troops as part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF) to stabilize Beirut, following the invasion of Israel. In 1983, France lost 58 soldiers due to Beirut barracks bombings and had to withdraw from Lebanon. Consequently, it confined itself only to diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the conflict.

As the time progressed, France played an important indirect role in the Taif Agreement (1989) as it remained engaged with Lebanese political actors and endorsed the agreement as a means of ending this conflict. Following the agreement, France provided diplomatic and financial support for Lebanon’s reconstruction.

The assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri – a key figure in Lebanon’s reconstruction after the civil war – on 14th February 2005 triggered the Cedar Revolution which called for the end of Syrian military presence in Lebanon. France pushed for international accountability for Hariri’s death by co-authoring the UNSC resolution 1595 which called for an international investigation into the assassination. The investigation led to the creation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in 2009. Meanwhile, the Arab Spring plunged the region into chaos and led to sectarian violence in Lebanon.

On the other hand, the Iran-backed Hezbollah continued to gain influence in Lebanon. The already diminishing French influence nosedived when France decided to support the ‘rebels’ in Syria to overthrow the Assad’s regime. The decision proved to be counterproductive as Russia came to rescue Bashar Al Assad. In 2020, Macron visited Lebanon, talked about the crippling political system and called for reforms. His comments upset the political factions in Lebanon and he was reminded that he should not act like ‘the ruler of Lebanon’. It shows how France’s influence has eroded over time.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel which marked the beginning of another phase of the Israel-Palestine conflict. After a year, Israel killed 42,000 human beings – 17,000 of them were children – bombed schools and hospitals, displaced 1.9 million people with 9 out of every 10 no longer in their homes, and attacked UN officials. It has now escalated and spilt over into Lebanon as Israel has launched a ground invasion into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah. This has presented France with an opportunity to regain its clout in Lebanon by intervening and resolving the ongoing conflict.

The change in Macron’s stance can be seen as, earlier, he had talked about Israel’s right to defend itself and the need for a ceasefire, whereas now, he is considering a ban on weapon supply to Israel. He went on to call upon the West to take action so that peace could prevail in the region. While calling for arms sales, he stated “The Lebanese people must not in turn be sacrificed, Lebanon cannot become another Gaza”. Macron, along with the outgoing Biden, reiterated at the Berlin summit that peace in Gaza is an “immediate necessity”.

The United States is gradually shifting its strategic focus from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific and has a limited presence in the region.

France’s historical ties with Lebanon compel it to take a proactive role in the resolution, or at least containment, of the Israel-Palestine conflict to avoid the suffering of the Lebanese People. In addition, there is mounting domestic and international pressure on Macron’s government to stop the bloodshed in Gaza. However, it is the changing geopolitical realities that drive Macron to adopt a harder stance.

Meanwhile, the United States is gradually shifting its strategic focus from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific and has a limited presence in the region. While Russia remains engaged in Ukraine and its influence limited to its involvement in Syria, no Arab state appears to be capable of filling the geopolitical vacuum left by the American withdrawal. In contrast, Iranian influence in the region has increased, while Turkey is expanding its footprint in Lebanon. It seems Macron perceives the resolution/containment of the Israel-Palestine conflict as not only a means to end violence but also as an opportunity to regain France’s political clout in Lebanon, curb Iranian and Turkish influence, and reestablish France as an important player in the Middle East.

However, these developments did not happen in isolation as Macron has been strategically focusing on the Middle East for the past several years. In 2020, Macron put forth the idea of ‘inclusive sovereignty’ during his visit to Baghdad. He went on to say that the leaders want to take their destiny in hand and “the role of France is to help them”. An Iraqi official stated that it was an indirect message to Ankara.

Earlier in 2021, the UAE inked a $19 billion deal to buy 80 Rafale fighter jets and 12 military helicopters.

France also enjoys a close relationship with Qatar, which has made heavy investments in France. In this connection, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani agreed to invest $10.83 billion in French startups. On the eve of 50 years of France-Qatar friendship, they have decided to strengthen their strategic partnership. This economic bond complements France’s political and diplomatic ambitions in the region.

Earlier in 2021, the UAE inked a $19 billion deal to buy 80 Rafale fighter jets and 12 military helicopters. And there were reports that the oil-rich Gulf State had been mulling over more of these fighter jets. Meanwhile, the airlines based in the Gulf States are important customers of Airbus – the main rival of Boeing, the US manufacturer.

All in all, the Israel- Palestine conflict is moving up on the escalation ladder. It has reached the borders of Lebanon and can potentially transform into a broader regional conflict. France has a historical connection with Lebanon, starting from the early 20th century when it was governed by France under the Mandate system to the Lebanon Civil War and Rafiq Hariri’s assassination.

Whether it was about the post-civil war reconstruction or co-authoring the UNSC resolution to push for accountability, France has always been proactive when it comes to Lebanon. Once again, France decided to take a proactive role when it realized that the Israel-Palestine conflict could spill over into Lebanon. This time, it is seen as a blessing in disguise as resolution or containment of this conflict would allow France to regain its political clout in Lebanon and pave its way to become an important player in the Middle East.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

The illegitimate arrival of Indian offensive rule in Srinagar not only ensured New Delhi’s occupation in the region but also subjugated the local people.

The arrival of Modi as Indian Prime Minister resulted in the increasing suffering of Muslim people living within India and Kashmir.

There are various statements from Indian leaders available to assess the growing human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir.

A consensus-based and united position of the international community can make New Delhi to find a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute.

The major cause of unpredictability of the future development of Africa is political instability.

While Africa joined the global markets, its integration has normally been in the form of providing natural resources.

Many African countries continue to depend on donor funding and other external financing sources.

Democracy along political reforms that enhance openness and accountability are important for establishing state structures which are favorable to investment and development.

China presents itself as a mediator that focuses on gap closing between the different civilizations, while strengthening the pillars created by the BRI.

The BRI has been criticized for generating economic interdependence among host countries and nations as well as increasing their debt vulnerability.

The first cyberattack is said to have been carried out in 1834 in France when criminals accessed the French telegraph system to steal financial market data.

Cyberwarfare, unlike conventional warfare, operates in an anonymous environment which enables the state or non-state entities to conduct attacks without being identified.

The international community must outline a set of consequences for cyberattacks such as economic sanctions or retaliatory actions to make the countries aware of the consequences of their actions.

The EU multilateralism approach to foreign policy often results in making weak common positions that lose any power or sense direction on the international level due to national interests.

While France aims at enhancing strategic cooperation with Russia, Germany engages in striving for a partnership with China and Africa.

It is high time for the EU to recall its base and fundamental principles and values like democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

South Asia is one of the least economically integrated regions globally.

The major reason behind an inactive SAARC is the hostility between two of its largest members, India and Pakistan.

The SCO objectives must be kept in mind. One of the goals says it aims to foster ‘mutual trust, friendship and good neighborliness between the member states”.

Russia and China being global powers and leading SCO members can mediate between Pakistan and India, the two nuclear armed states.

Both Obama and Trump wanted to pull back from the endless wars in the Middle East, but they approached this goal in vastly different ways.

The Abrahamic Accords signed during the Trump presidency were seen as a historic moment in the Arab-Israel relations, but little has been achieved when it comes to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

These developments did not happen in isolation as Macron has been strategically focusing on the Middle East for the past several years.

The United States is gradually shifting its strategic focus from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific and has a limited presence in the region.

Earlier in 2021, the UAE inked a $19 billion deal to buy 80 Rafale fighter jets and 12 military helicopters.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.