Support Us

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

Writers Pool
About Us

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Home Blog Page 20

The Effectiveness Of Israel’s Sabotage Operations

By
Syed Raza Abbas
-
0
Lebanon Pager Explosions

Victor Ostrovsky, in his book “By Way of Deception: The Making of a Mossad Officer”, argues that Mossad literal motto is “By deception, thou shalt do war”. Israel established its first psywar unit after the second Intifada (Palestinian uprising) circa 2000-2005. The unit was named “Malat” in Hebrew, meaning “the Center for Consciousness Operations,” and it became operational at the time of the second Lebanon war in 2006.

Malat was made operational for the three main purposes: Hamas militants, the civilian support base of Hamas, and general Palestinian citizens living in the Gaza Strip. Although the main purpose of Malat was to target the Palestinian population, it now conducts psychological and sabotage operations in other countries along with “Mossad,” Israel’s premier intelligence agency.

Malat was made operational for the three main purposes: Hamas militants, the civilian support base of Hamas, and general Palestinian citizens living in the Gaza Strip.

The recent sabotage operations that Israel conducted, such as the assassination of Ismael Haniyeh in Tehran as well as the pager and walkie-talkie explosions to target Hezbollah members, were a preparation of the foundation for something substantial. These were followed by the air campaign that targeted Hezbollah-dominated regions of south Lebanon and the capital Beirut. The Israeli air campaign was also successful in killing the chief of Hezbollah, Syed Hasan Nasrallah, last week on Friday night at his bunker in Beirut. Israeli air force used American-made BLU-109s 2000-pound bombs to kill the Hezbollah chief. These bombs are also known as “Bunker Busters” which can penetrate deep into the ground to take out the target. At least 15 BLU-109s were fired on the target location.

Meanwhile, the earlier operation involving the explosion of pagers and walkie-talkies – just days before the killing of Nasrallah – is a perfect example of inflicting psychological terror. Twenty people were killed and more than 450 wounded in Wednesday’s attack, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health. And a day before, thousands of Hezbollah pagers exploded, killing at least 37 and wounding more than 3000 people, including some children. The primary target of those exploding electronic devices were Hezbollah-dominated regions such as Beirut and its southern suburbs – Hermel, Baalbek, Saida, Nabatieh, Tyre, Naqoura, and Marajayoun.

The earlier operation involving the explosion of pagers and walkie-talkies – just days before the killing of Nasrallah – is a perfect example of inflicting psychological terror.

Reportedly, people across Lebanon after those explosions are feeling traumatized and nervous. People using non-military walkie-talkies in civilian spheres have also abandoned using them due to the fear of being booby-trapped.

Amid the rising tensions between Israel and Hezbollah since the start of the latest conflict on October 7, both parties are engaged in sub-conventional level conflict.  This sabotage operation serves two purposes for Israel. First is that Israelis may have intel about a potential operation that Hezbollah was about to conduct against Israel. The successful execution of this operation has thwarted Hezbollah’s plans to conduct any military venture against Israel because their communication medium is almost choked. The second purpose is to inflict the fear of being surveilled all the time by the Israeli intelligence network. This operation would have certainly sent shockwaves into the operational command of Hezbollah, making them appear vulnerable to Israeli sabotage operations.

Hezbollah would now be looking inward to solidify its operational command and communication systems rather than focusing on the threats emanating from Israel. The Israeli security apparatus uses such tactics with utmost precision and has achieved credible success in going forward with such misadventures.

The assassination of Hamas political chief Ismael Haniyeh happened just a month ago in a similar mysterious way. Haniyeh was in Iran to attend the oath-taking ceremony of newly-elected Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. He was killed in an explosion at a state guesthouse in Tehran on July 31, 2024. The fact that how Mossad carried out this operation is yet to be ascertained, but there are different theories that revolve around Haniyeh’s murder.

According to BBC, the killing was carried out using the “short-range projectile,” fired from outside, which caused the explosion and killed the Hamas chief along with his bodyguard. The New York Times investigative story claims that the bomb was smuggled into the Tehran guest house two months ago.

Israeli sabotage operations have almost become routine in Iran, and Tehran seems helpless in countering it.

The fact of the matter is whether the explosion was caused by the explosive installed within or from a projectile launched from outside is not important here. What is important is that Israel was successful in assassinating one of the top commanders of Hamas in Iran. This assassination also raised some serious questions about the capability of the Iranian security establishment. Israeli sabotage operations have almost become routine in Iran, and Tehran seems helpless in countering it. That’s a success of Israel’s military cum psychological operations.

The assassination plot of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrizade was hatched in a similar manner by Mossad. Top Iranian nuclear scientist Fakhrizade was assassinated in November 2020 in a sophisticated hit led by a Mossad team that reportedly deployed a computerized machine gun. It required no on-site operatives, took less than a minute, and did not injure anyone else, including the scientist’s wife who was with him at the time. The weapon and its mounted device were smuggled into Iran in bits and pieces months before the operation. The Mossad team handled the whole operation from a command center outside the country.

Israel is a textbook example of a security state, and its attitude toward security is not normal.

A report, based on the interviews of American, Israeli, Iranian, and two intelligence operatives involved in the operation, says Mossad has been following the movements and career trajectory of Fakhrizade since 2007.

Fakhrizade was a physicist by profession and was considered to be the father of the Iranian nuclear program. Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) hatched the assassination plot in late 2019 and early 2020. The time of execution of this operation was chosen to serve the purpose of both country’s administrations. Former US President Donald Trump wanted re-election, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to sabotage the possibility of revival of the Iran nuclear deal. The operation went in the favor of Israel but proved fatal for Trump, as he lost the 2020 presidential elections to Joe Biden.

Israel is a textbook example of a security state, and its attitude toward security is not normal. It inflicts psychological terror on its opponents to keep them at bay. They justify their actions based on Zionist ethos and deem those steps necessary for the survival of a Jewish state. The ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, which has now expanded into Lebanon, is a perfect example of “how Israel deals with the security threats”. Israel is willing and ready to violate any article of international law and diplomatic norms to safeguard its security interests. Similarly, in dealing with Iran, Israel will use any tactic available in its arsenal with no regard for its legality, morality, and acceptability.

The Israeli sabotage operations that are followed by the fierce air campaign of south Lebanon and the ground invasion will prove catastrophic for the region. The looming clouds of a regional war in the Middle East are on the horizon. Israel is looking for a direct military confrontation with Iran because it knows that Iran lacks the conventional wherewithal and relies more on the network of its proxies. So much now depends on the reaction of Iran, as Israel has pushed them almost to the point of no return. If Tehran doesn’t restore the deterrence equation, Israel’s next target could possibly be the Supreme Leader of Iran.

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

By
Dr Shama Junejo
-
0
Imran Khan

Imran Khan, once again, sits in jail but has not abandoned his political playbook. He has issued a call on Monday from Adiala jail for a new sit-in at D-Chowk, Islamabad — a tactic that reminded me of 2014 when his 126 days of prolonged sit-in caused the cancellation of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit, halting critical economic discussions. This move and the continuous calls of failed but chaotic rallies and protests threaten to sabotage the upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, scheduled for October 15 and 16 in Islamabad. Given the importance of this moment for Pakistan’s economy, regional and domestic tensions, and international alignments, can we afford to let history repeat itself?

This is not a fight for civilian supremacy but rather an effort to regain personal power at any cost.

Economically, Pakistan cannot afford this instability. Thanks to an IMF loan, the nation has narrowly avoided default, and the SCO summit presents an important opportunity to Pakistan for bolstering regional ties and securing further investments. Additionally, Pakistan’s potential to join BRICS could be a game changer, offering alternatives to the US-dominated global financial system. However, Imran’s relentless political agitation is undermining these prospects.

Also read: Gandapur Pushing For Governor’s Rule. You’re Gonna Get It

Since his ouster in 2022, Imran’s brand of populism has adopted new dimensions of a dangerous tone. While he projects himself as anti-establishment, the reality is that his political movement is precisely driven by personal vendettas, particularly against current Chief of Army Staff Gen Asim Munir. This is not a fight for civilian supremacy but rather an effort to regain personal power at any cost. The May 9 riots, where military installations were attacked, represent an unprecedented challenge to the military’s authority, signaling not just defiance but a planned uprising to overthrow Gen Asim Munir. Meanwhile, the judiciary has also played a vicious role by not convicting any accused being a vital partner of Imran’s crusade against the military.

Hence, I recall a significant conversation with Gen Pervez Musharraf during my PhD research. Musharraf advocated that military intervention in politics was essential for its ‘survival’ to discourage civilian penetration of political heroism. However, I argued — and time has proven — that by endorsing Imran Khan, the military compromised its institutional integrity, tearing apart its internal cohesion. The trial of Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed — marking the first prosecution of a former spy chief — is an unprecedented consequence of this failure. Faiz, who once aligned himself with Imran to be the future army chief, reportedly orchestrated an attempted rebellion within the army after his retirement, a failed coup against Gen Asim Munir. This attempted rebellion culminated in the infamous May 9 riots, which saw military installations attacked, further proving the dangers of politicizing military leadership.

The continuous calls of failed but chaotic rallies and protests threaten to sabotage the upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit.

The catastrophic failure of “Project Imran” did not just expose the vulnerabilities within the army; it shattered Musharraf’s narrative of institutional unity that the military had so carefully curated since the creation of Pakistan. In my PhD research, I extensively elaborate on post-project Imran’s “citizen-soldier paradox”, where soldiers, once revered as apolitical state protectors, have found themselves entangled in the political chaos incited by a civilian leader, to cause a rift in their intact institution.

However, Imran’s ambitions have not just dragged the military into his power struggle; his influence has also seeped into Pakistan’s judiciary and bureaucracy. Pakistani judiciary often played a dodgy role against parliamentary supremacy, but now judges have even rewritten the constitution to accommodate Imran, which is grave misconduct.

Imran’s ambitions have not just dragged the military into his power struggle; his influence has also seeped into Pakistan’s judiciary and bureaucracy.

That is where I see the nation in grave jeopardy and divided. Military cooperation with civilian governments on national security is essential globally. Still, it has morphed into something political in Pakistan, where the civilians brag about being on the same page regarding security matters. What began as a collaboration for the state’s protection has decayed into personal vendettas, distorting the role of institutions like the judiciary and bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, military’s involvement with Imran has not only harmed its neutral standing but fostered a perception of control behind the scenes — a perception as damaging as it is untrue. The instability caused by these actions has reverberated across Pakistan’s already weakened institutions. Judiciary, military, and civilian leadership are now locked in a power struggle that risks tearing the country apart.

The arrest of Faiz and the potential military trial of Imran are not isolated events but part of a broader institutional collapse. Once propped up by the establishment, Imran has become its most significant threat to fulfil foreign agendas, with May 9 marking a turning point in this evolving crisis.

The writ of the state has to be intact because Pakistan’s strategic partnership with China through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) requires stability due to ongoing terrorist activity in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Attacks on Punjabi laborers by Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) militants and terrorist strikes on Pakistan Army soldiers in Waziristan are all part of a broader conspiracy to destabilize the country. These attacks are designed to make China reconsider its investment in Gwadar, a critical piece of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. With Gwadar serving as a strategic replacement for the Malacca Strait, any regional instability could lead China to question whether Pakistan is a dependable partner.

Also read: Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda Asked For FATA Revival. Imran Said Yes

At the same time, the region’s instability has also been compounded by the escalating conflict between Israel, Hamas and now Hezbollah, coupled with increasing Israeli acts of aggression in the name of self-defense. Though Imran has not publicly advocated for Israel, the apparent support he receives from Israeli lobbies in the US and Israeli media outlets raises questions about the broader foreign agenda at play. A coordinated campaign at international forums, including resolutions against Pakistan and the PTI letters to the IMF, adds fuel to the conspiracy that some forces are invested in pushing Pakistan toward political and economic chaos.

The catastrophic failure of “Project Imran” did not just expose the vulnerabilities within the army; it shattered Musharraf’s narrative of institutional unity.

Pakistan is already caught between great power politics as its strategic pivot toward China and Russia intensifies amid growing strains with the US. Joining BRICS could provide economic benefits, such as bypassing US dollar reliance. Still, Imran’s actions risk derailing these ambitions. His smartly crafted anti-establishment narrative serves foreign interests that would benefit from Pakistan’s destabilization. The timing of his sit-in and repeated calls for disruption during critical international moments, such as the upcoming SCO summit, cannot be dismissed as coincidental.

His tactics also call into question the integrity of the country’s judiciary and military. By aiming to create continuing chaos through Gandapur, conspiring for a divide between military and civilian governance, exacerbated by populist rhetoric, he fosters an environment where all state institutions are jeopardized, and so is the nation. Due to this perpetual chaotic populism, Pakistan’s institutional collapse may become a reality despite the selfless efforts of the current government because the judiciary is not letting the executive governor deliver justice. Thus, the military trial of Faiz may be the military’s last effort to reassert its control within the institution for survival, and if it happens, Imran’s potential military trial may extend beyond conventional politics. If he faces a military court, it will signal a decisive end to his political career, forever altering the country’s political landscape.

Jaishankar At UNGA: Long on Rhetoric And Short on Substance

By
Ambassador Abdul Basit
-
0
Jaishankar

Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s address at the 79th UN General Assembly session was disappointing and disquieting, to put it mildly. He was long on rhetoric but conspicuously short on substance. Not only was the speech riven with policy contradictions but also unabashedly threatening towards Pakistan. The international community must take strong exception to his minatory remarks before India, in its fatalistic hubris, pushes South Asia to the edge of a precipice.

As the US and other Western countries are pandering to India in the backdrop of global geostrategic and geoeconomic considerations, India is increasingly seeing itself as a country which believes it has the carte blanche to say and do anything with impunity. It is fast becoming a rogue state internally and externally.

India is increasingly seeing itself as a country which it believes has the carte blanche to say and do anything with impunity.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in his UN General Assembly address rightly highlighted the Islamophobia being stoked by the “Hindutva” regime to ostracize close to 200 million strong Muslim population in India. The Indian Muslims are being mob lynched and more and more mosques are being made controversial, preparing false grounds for their demolition, as the world witnessed the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992.

At the same time, Christians and their churches are also under attack. In the state of Manipur, hundreds of Christians belonging to the Kuki and other tribes have been killed by Hindu extremists and, according to some Indian media reports, over 300 churches have been desecrated or razed to the ground. The continuing violence has forced thousands of Christian families to leave their homes. Yet the BJP governments in Imphal (the capital city of Manipur) and New Delhi do not seem to be interested in bringing about normalcy at the cost of alienating “Hindutva” votaries. All these and many other internal contradictions belie Jaishankar’s claim that India is a democratic country where all is working well. In short, India is beyond anyone’s criticism.

The Indian Muslims are being mob lynched and more and more mosques are being made controversial, preparing false grounds for their demolition.

Jaishankar also talked about “cross-border terrorism” and tried to name and shame Pakistan. May I remind him that it is India which has been abetting and funding “cross-border terrorism” in Pakistan? India’s objectives are clear. One, to keep Pakistan politically and economically unstable with an aim to building pressure on Pakistan on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Two, subvert the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and drive wedges between the two counties. Over the last 10 years, Pakistan has prepared several dossiers containing irrefutable proof of India’s active complicity in many terror attacks in Pakistan.

In fact, there is no dearth of evidence. Even Canada and the US have confronted India with undeniable evidence of the involvement of Indian intelligence officers planning murder of Sikhs abroad who are actively pursuing the cause of “Khalistan”.  Many believe that India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval is the mastermind. Hence, it is least surprising that a court in New York has recently issued a notice summoning him to clarify his position in the attempted murder case of a Canadian-US national, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who is the co-founder of “Sikhs for Justice” organization.

Even Canada and the US have confronted India with undeniable evidence of the involvement of Indian intelligence officers planning murder of Sikhs abroad.

India’s chutzpah is unbeatable. Rather than giving Kashmiris their inalienable right to self-determination, Jaishankar abused the UN General Assembly podium to state that the Kashmir dispute was now left only in the context of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, he was implying that the question of the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir had been settled once and for all with the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A on August 5, 2019.

One should remind him that no matter what India does or say, political aspirations of Kashmiris could not be wished away. There are several UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and New Delhi had committed to hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir to determine whether Kashmiris would like to join India or Pakistan. By effecting illegal constitutional amendments, India is only hoodwinking itself. Kashmiris would never ever settle for less than self-determination.

New Delhi also does not get tired of parroting the claim that Kashmiris are happy with India and even the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir would prefer to be with India than Pakistan. If that is indeed the case then what stops India from holding a plebiscite. Why then fight wars over Kashmir. India could get all of Kashmir by letting Kashmiris exercise their right to self-determination. Since India is well aware of the ground realities and what most Kashmiris think, it sees no other option but to palter.

By effecting illegal constitutional amendments, India is only hoodwinking itself. Kashmiris would never ever settle for less than self-determination.

Jaishankar also dwelt upon reforming the UN Security Council. To be fair, most leaders bemoaned the fact that the UN Security Council has miserably failed in keeping peace and security around the world. The veto power given to P-5 countries under the UN Charter is now being seen as the major impediment to preventing conflicts and achieving peace in turbulent regions including the ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Lebanon. India strongly feels it also deserves a permanent seat at the high table.

India’s claim can be somewhat justified given the fact that it is now world’s largest country in terms of population. Its economy is also doing fairly better than many other developing countries. Nevertheless, it is also the largest importer of arms from Western countries as well as Russia. At the same time, it is working on developing a highly dangerous Cold Start doctrine that envisages a limited war in a nuclear environment.

Keeping all the foregoing in view, can India add value to the Security Council? In my well-considered view, a country that itself is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and takes dubious positions on critical peace and security issues, will add more problems to its working as a permanent member. What India needs is some soul-searching. A country that finds itself alienated in its own region and has disputes with almost all its neighbors will hardly be able to contribute anything positive but to torque up negativity.

“Incredible India” is no doubt a good tagline for promoting tourism. But Jaishankar in his address ended up exposing India’s arrogance and jingoistic tendencies. It is a bully in South Asia a la Israel in the Middle East. I hope the international community is not that credulous to fall for India’s duplicity and self-serving narratives.

Iran Says killing Of Quds Force Commander Is An Atrocious Crime

By
Arshad Mehmood
-
0
Abbas Nilfroushan

ISLAMABAD – Two days after Israel attacked Hezbollah’s headquarters in southern Beirut, which resulted in the death of several Hezbollah commanders, including Hassan Nasrallah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), officially confirmed the death of Abbas Nilfroushan, the commander of the Quds Force in Lebanon.

Following Israel’s Friday night strike on Hezbollah’s stronghold in Dahiya, Iranian media reported the death of the IRGC Quds Force commander.

The delay in the official announcement of his death remains unexplained.

Nilfroushan is the second senior IRGC Quds Force commander in Lebanon to be targeted and killed by Israel in the last six months.

Brig Gen Nilfroushan served as the deputy commander of Quds Force operations since 2018. In April of this year, he succeeded Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was killed in an attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, taking command of the IRGC Quds Force in Lebanon and Syria.

Following the IRGC’s announcement on Sunday, Iran’s embassy in Beirut issued a statement, calling the deaths of Nilfroushan and “resistance leaders” a symbol of the “bloodshed” that unites nations against common threats.

According to Iranian state television, Nilfroushan played a “key role in coordinating resistance forces in the region” and was an “unwavering supporter of the resistance”.

The “Axis of Resistance” refers to the alliance of Iran-backed militias across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, as well as militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen’s Ansarullah.

Iranian TV also broadcast footage from mourning ceremonies at Nilfroushan’s family home in Isfahan, where a Maddah – a religious singer who recite or sing at the funerals or anniversaries – threatened the United States, vowing that “the infidels will soon face retribution”.

WHO WAS NILFROUSHAN?

Nilfroushan was born in 1966 in the city of Isfahan. According to the Tasnim news agency, he left school at the age of 14 and, by “altering his birth certificate”, increased his age by two years to join the front lines of the war with Iraq.

Tasnim reports that at 17, Nilfroushan took command of a division in Isfahan’s “14th Imam Hossein Division” and remained with the unit until late 1983. He later joined the “8th Najaf Division,” where he was responsible for operations until the end of the Iran-Iraq war, overseeing military efforts.

Following the war, he briefly served as the deputy commander of the IRGC at the Imam Hossein military camp.

Iranian media also report that Nilfroushan earned a “doctorate in strategic management from Imam Hossein University” and served as the commander of “Dafos”, Iran’s military war university, from 2009 to 2013.

ATROCIOUS CRIME:

In his condolence message, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the killing of the IRGC commander as an “atrocious crime” by Israel and emphasized that this action “will not go unanswered.”

The foreign minister stated that they will utilize all political, diplomatic, legal, and international avenues to “pursue the criminals and their supporters”.

Araghchi warned that Israel “will not find peace” following the killing of Nasrallah, the secretary general of Lebanon’s Hezbollah. He stated that the natural consequence of this act would be the “accelerated decline of the Zionist regime.”

Speaking to reporters, Araghchi remarked, “Everyone is aware of the looming risk of a full-scale war in the region, and the concern is widespread. This poses a significant threat. We are truly in a state of alert. Regional and global powers must understand that the situation is extremely volatile, and anything could happen at any moment.”

Referring to statements made by the foreign ministry and his official social media posts, Araghchi also accused the United States of being “complicit in this crime”.

Although he described the killing of Nasrallah as a “great loss”, Araghchi emphasized that “the resistance will not be weakened,” and that Nasrallah’s “blood will only empower Hezbollah, giving it greater strength and resolve”.

POLITICAL ASSASSINATION:

Meanwhile, according to the Russian Interfax news agency, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned the killing of Nasrallah, calling it a “political assassination.” He stated, “Israel aims to create a pretext for the direct involvement of the United States in this conflict, and will try to provoke Iran and Hezbollah in any way possible to achieve its goals.”

Lavrov further cautioned that “Iranian leaders must act with great responsibility, and every reaction should be carefully considered.”

In his first reaction to Nasrallah’s death, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared, “All Muslims have to stand proudly with the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah in any way they can”.

DON’T INTERCEPT ANYTHING:

Some believe that Iran’s allied militias in the Middle East are preparing to target Israeli and US interests and military bases across the region.

The “Al-Nujba” movement, an Iraqi militia, has declared that all American bases and warships in the region are now within its sights. The group also announced via its X (formerly Twitter) account that all its military units are on high alert.

In addition, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have issued warnings to Arab countries — particularly Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt — not to intercept any attacks from the axis of jihad and resistance against Israel.

Al-Nujba stated that any country using drones to intercept rocket attacks will be considered a “Zionist enemy.” Other Iraqi armed factions have similarly announced their readiness for a “long-term war” with Israel.

GROWING ADVENTURISM: 

Pakistan strongly condemned “Israel’s growing adventurism in the Middle East,” stating that “the regime’s rampant attacks on civilians and blatant disregard for international laws have reached an alarming level.”

In its statement, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Sunday called on the UN Security Council to “halt Israel’s actions in the region, prevent further violations of international law, and restore peace in the Middle East.”

Meanwhile, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom have renewed their calls for a ceasefire along the Lebanon-Israel border.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barro has also traveled to Lebanon to de-escalate tensions.

Goebbels of PTI: It Is Jibran Ilyas Who Runs the Party

By
Stratheia Research Desk
-
0
Goebbels

ISLAMABAD – It seems Jibran Ilyas – the US-based PTI social media team head – dictates the terms and is powerful enough to question even the party chairman, Barrister Gohar.

At the same time, there shouldn’t be any doubt that Jibran is the actual spokesperson of Imran Khan, the PTI founding chairman, as he executes the orders directly given by the jailed leader.

The proof are the screenshots of WhatsApp conversations shared by the party sources, which also show that Imran has empowered Jibran to regulate the PTI leadership. It also shows the fascist nature of the party where Imran is the supreme leader and everyone down the line is nothing but a puppet saying yes to every word uttered by the puppet master.

Meanwhile, this saga also explains the anti-state attitude adopted by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, as he is threatening the state again and again. Certainly, Gandapur is just conveying the message of Imran. If Gohar can’t speak for himself, then Gandapur, a provincial chief minister, too has been executing the policies of Imran.

TALK TO ME. I AM THE BOSS:

On June 3, Jibran in a WhatsApp group “Jibran and PTI Top Leadership”, said, “If you need to ask something about the investigation, then you can ask in this group. I will reply happily, but don’t say anything on basis of assumptions.”

“Like I do not have any account of the PTI founder and social media isn’t operated from abroad.”

“We do have a good number of [workers] in the country, but this suggestion that the [party] workers’ addresses should be shared isn’t good.”

These instructions came in connection with the probe held by the FIA into the controversial statement about 1971 issued through the official X account of PTI.

FAST AND FURIOUS:

As the FIA grilled Gohar and Raoof Hasan, the then information secretary, the former admitted in a written statement provided to the investigators that “Jibran Ilyas and Azhar Mashwani run the social media accounts from abroad”.

It made Jibran furious. He shared the TV channel screenshots with Gohar on June 5, making him give explanations, which is certainly not the way a normal political party works.

Gohar said he didn’t name either of the two as the handler of the post. “You should ask me if you find may statement. Please don’t get me involved in any other thing [affair],” he said, while reminding him that he had talked to him for 30 minutes and explained everything.

He then went on to say that Gibran should please call him again in case there was any other question.

To prove his “innocence”, he also mentioned that “some sources say I have given your names and some [others] say Raoof has named you.”

DENY IT THEN:

In this response, Jibran asked him to deny everything, to which Gohar said, “I had told you earlier too that I would refute when the FIA completes the process.”

Also read: May 9: PTI Mercenaries Led by Raoof And Jibran Target The State

“When I came out [of the FIA office], I said the matter is sub judice and the high court has directed us to appear in person. Therefore, I do not want to give answers in detail.”

WORTHLESS LEADERS vs GOEBBELS:

The latest revelations show that the party leaders have no value in the eyes of Jibran whose reach to the top, Imran, is undeniable.

At the same time, everyone within the PTI knows that the party official social media accounts, running an anti-state campaign designed to incite violence, are managed from outside Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the iron grip on the PTI affairs enjoyed by Imran through Jibran and others also negates the myth of democracy, as the state of affairs only points to the fascist approach and structure of the party.

In short, it is Goebbels of the 21st century who is managing the PTI affairs for Imran who gives statements daily to create anarchy in Pakistan so that he can’t be held accountable for his actions like the botched May 9 coup attempt.

Gandapur Pushing For Governor’s Rule. You’re Gonna Get It

By
Editorial
-
0
PTI

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur in his latest video message has warned of attacking Punjab and threatened to use violence yet again, as he incited the people – especially the tribesmen – to unite for his “holy war” against the Federation and the constitutional order.

The incarcerated PTI founder is the one who had advocated for opening the offices of TTP. Given an opportunity, he later settled thousands of TTP terrorists in the province his party has ruled for 11 years.

It is a clear sign that the PTI – the party founded by Imran Khan – doesn’t believe in political process and democracy. Surprised? No, certainly not.

Also read: Pakistan Whither? Where Do We Go From Here?

One must never forget that the incarcerated PTI founder is the one who had advocated for opening the offices of TTP. Given an opportunity, he later settled thousands of TTP terrorists in the province his party has ruled for 11 years.

He had even agreed to nullify the merger of the tribal belt into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at the behest of Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda, with the purpose of providing a safe haven to all kinds of jihadists in our border region.

Imran’s desperate push for violence stems from the possibility of his military trial in connection with the May 9 events, aimed at mutiny in the armed forces, and a tough sentence in the 190-million-pound corruption case.

He is desperate because of the findings of the inquiry against former ISI chief Lt-Gen Faiz Hameed clearly establishing the link between the two.

Meanwhile, the 190-million-pound case is also enough to get him sentenced for a long jail term.

On one hand, the Taliban terrorists have somehow managed to gain the status of championing the Afghan nationalism, and on the other, they are fortunate to see PTI – the allied party in Pakistan – fuelling the Pakhtun nationalism to their advantage.

No wonder why Imran and his associates had decided to push Pakistan back into the vicious circle of terrorism by importing the expelled TTP.

On one hand, the Taliban terrorists have somehow managed to gain the status of championing the Afghan nationalism, and on the other, they are fortunate to see PTI – the allied party in Pakistan – fuelling the Pakhtun nationalism to their advantage.

This alignment on both sides of the Durand Line – the international border separating Pakistan and Afghanistan – is the gravest security threat Pakistan has ever faced. Why? Because terrorism and politics have mixed together.

Given that Gandapur, who holds the constitutional office of chief minister, is using his province as a base to attack the state, the only practical option left is imposition of governor’s rule.

But the most alarming factor complicating the affairs is the failure to punish those involved in the failed May 9 coup attempt. It has emboldened Imran and his party as they think that the state is so weak thanks to the presence of facilitators at different levels that it cannot go after them.

Also read: Address The Bullies Before They Become Frankensteins

So, weakening the state is an objective shared by both the Taliban and the PTI. In fact, they are working hand in glove to achieve the goal.

Those arguing that the PTI shouldn’t be labelled as a Taliban proxy must answer a question: why a party ruling Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for over a decade is against any action against the terrorists in the province?

Fast dwindling public support of the PTI in Punjab displayed vividly during recent botched calls for protest by the party in the province means that it will go even more violent to ensure its survival. A party earlier claiming to be a federal party is now fast turning into a narrow nationalist, religious extremist and terrorist mode. The “promised revolution” isn’t coming through the streets of Punjab. Therefore, the PTI is now solely banking on the instigating violence in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and using the extremists it has been associated with.

Fast dwindling public support of the PTI in Punjab displayed vividly during recent botched calls for protest by the party in the province means that the PTI will go even more violent to ensure its survival.

In short, Imran, rightly named as Taliban Khan, wants anarchy and create an environment where the state becomes ungovernable.

However, the brighter side is that Pakistan hasn’t reached a point where the state institutions can’t be overhauled and reformed. No one has fully lost the control.

But the state needs to take decisive steps. Otherwise, things could reach a point of no return.

Given that Gandapur, who holds the constitutional office of chief minister, is using his province as a base to attack the state, the only practical option left is imposition of governor’s rule.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif must convene an all-parties conference minus the PTI and develop a consensus over the issue and create a broad-based front against the new terrorist threat emanating both from within and without. Time is running out. Democracy doesn’t mean that the state could be held hostage by the anti-state elements as they have a “difference of opinion”.

The dynamics Of US Involvement In China-Philippine Tensions

By
Wajeeha Ashfaq
-
0
Philippines Coast Guard

The recurring maritime tensions in the South China Sea, especially as seen in the recent standoff between the Philippines and China over Sabina Shoal, provoke pertinent questions about the involvement of the United States in the region. As the Coastguard of China aggressively hauled away a Philippine vessel, important questions arise regarding whether the US would commit fully to such involvement, its implications, and the prospects of Chinese retaliation.

US AND ITS COMMITMENT TO ALLIES

For several decades now, the US has presented itself as a protector of international law and treaty allies like the Philippines. The 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty ensures that the United States will aid the Philippines if an armed attack occurs. Still, it cannot be determined whether the United States would engage military confrontation with China by escalating its involvement.

This region is strategically important. Around one-third of the global maritime trade passes through there. To the United States, it comes as no surprise that protecting freedom of navigation and supporting its allies against coercive practices in the region is of prime importance. Full military engagement is problematic because it holds substantial risks, including potential military conflicts that may become part of a larger conflict.

POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT BY THE US: RISKS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Although there are obvious legal and moral grounds on why the United States should be involved in the support for the Philippines, a series of factors make immediate direct military involvement quite complicated. Firstly, the US does not want to trigger China, which is an actual nuclear power, into a full-scale war. Risks of escalation, miscommunication, as well as the devastating results of a military clash weigh heavily on US decision-makers.

Secondly, the geopolitical context has also evolved over the course of years. China has developed diversified military capabilities and pushed its borders into the region. Its conflict with the United States now has stakes much higher than before: any potential US intervention would provide a clear ground to China to involve in full scale war.

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR US-CHINA RELATIONS

In case of direct US military involvement in the South China Sea, the dynamics in the relations between the US and China would fundamentally change: such an incident could be perceived as an existential threat by China, and it may probably lead to a more aggressive posture from Beijing. At the same time, it would cement the US alliances in the region, reassuring its commitment to international law and principles of freedom of navigation.

However, this confrontation could deteriorate US-China relations for a longer time, with complications in global issues like climate change, trade, and public health, and one may think of the looming potential of a Cold War, with one nation digging itself into an opposing camp.

CHINESE RETALIATION: THE PROSPECTS

In all likelihood, if the US does intervene militarily, then it could generate a reaction in China that may be asymmetric warfare and cyber operations or even enhancing military deployment in disputed areas. What history teaches us is that China would not step back and is likely to expand its claims and behavior in the South China Sea. China’s non-compromise over its sovereignty and national interest makes such reaction quite obvious.

Keeping in mind The Scarborough Shoal Incident 2012 , history would recall China to be prepared at all times to assert control once being challenged in disputed territories. This is the reason why any form of military US involvement would set off retaliation, thereby, propelling a wave of increased instability in the region.

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NON-MILITARY ENGAGEMENT

Besides the traditional steps in diplomacy, it is time that the US moves on in finding new ways to flex its muscles against Chinese aggression. It can make use of new technologies like AI and unmanned systems to enhance surveillance capabilities for itself and its allies in terms of gaining and reporting real-time data that could lead to greater responsiveness towards provocations.

This is also worth the relationship of the US in regional multilateral forums beyond the discussion of security. Economic cooperation through trade packages and investments in infrastructures can create a vast network of partnerships which does not just offset China’s influence but also leads towards stability and development in the region.

COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY FRAMEWORKS

The South China Sea disputes cannot be solved by military force only, but through a holistic framework of security that includes economic, environmental, and social components. The US must step forward in proposing the establishment of a multilateral maritime security agreement between the Southeast Asia countries. Working together on these suggestions will start to intensify regional cooperation on issues for search-and-rescue operations, disaster response, and environmental protection. This would instill mutual trust within the community of nations, minimize the possibilities of miscalculations, and act as a foundation for building views on issues that cannot be settled, which otherwise would lead to a cold war.

CONCLUSION: A DELICATE BALANCING ACT

As the situation in the South China Sea changes, the US will need to walk a tightrope. Of course, it is an imperative to be by the side of its allies, such as the Philippines, but the cost of a fully engaged military engagement with China might be catastrophic. A differentiation approach giving much space for diplomatic engagement, technology application, and comprehensive cooperation on security may provide the best route to reducing tensions and ensuring stability in the region.

This feat will require the US to recognize that it is important, not just to regional allies but also to its strategic interests within this constantly changing global landscape, to seek the establishment of a cooperative security framework in the South China Sea. Through new strategies and a focus on multilateralism, the US will be able to utilize new tools to present a workable level of countervailing influence against China, coupled with continued peace and stability within the region.

Dangerous Nuclear Saber-Rattling By Russia

By
Shahzad Masood Roomi
-
0
Russian Nuclear Weapons

The Ukraine war has taken a drastic change since Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region of Russia in early August 2024. Kyiv has now made fresh requests to the US to allow using long range NATO supplied weapons against the targets located deep inside Russia. Though this appeal was declined, a large ammunition depot of Russian forces situated in Treves region, which is about 470 kilometers from Ukraine-Russia international border, was attacked by a drone. The storage facility, three kilometers in length and a kilometer in width, was completely destroyed. It provoked a reaction from Moscow which responded in the form of a new updated doctrine of Russian nuclear arms.

Also read: Ukraine War: Failed Interplay Of Russia’s Hybrid And Hard Power?

Recent changes suggested by President Vladimir Putin specifically refer to Russian nuclear doctrine, mentioning the nuclear “triad,” which has three elements: ICBMs based in land, SLBMs, and strategic bombers. The posturing of Russia’s nuclear triad of strategic forces has seen some major changes.

Expanded use of nuclear weapons has emerged the most vivid change in Russian nuclear doctrine changes.

He also said that the nuclear triad constitutes “the most important guarantee” of Russia’s security. As such, there is a commitment to maintaining and modernizing these three elements for establishing an effective deterrence against currently perceived threats.

Expanded use of nuclear weapons has emerged the most vivid change in Russian nuclear doctrine changes. The updated doctrine allows for the potential use of nuclear weapons in response to conventional military threats, especially if such threats are considered critical for Russia or its allies, including Belarus. This, in fact, suggests a more general interpretation in terms of when nuclear force could be justified, thus lowering somewhat the threshold for their use.

What is odd here is that the military doctrine of Belarus explicitly stipulates the use of nuclear weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons stationed on the territory of Belarus by Russia. Of course, this represents a somewhat new turn in Belarusian military policy and is closely aligned with strategic interests of Russia.

Changes in response to missile threats also illustrate the manner in which this nuclear saber-rattling by Russia is threatening regional and world peace. New proposals comprise consideration for nuclear responses upon the detection of a “massive launch of missiles or drones” crossing Russian borders. This adjustment itself points out a readiness as well as the willingness to respond with nuclear force in the face of conventional military actions.

The new doctrine labels aggression by non-nuclear states, especially when abetted and aided by nuclear states, as a form of joint attack on Russia.

Overall, there seems to be an emphasis on non-nuclear aggression apparently by a NATO state. The new doctrine labels aggression by non-nuclear states, especially when abetted and aided by nuclear states, as a form of joint attack on Russia. This might increase the aggressiveness of international behavior and push the tensions higher with NATO and other military coalitions.

Although certain details regarding modernization were not disclosed, this attention suggests that the development and credibility of the country’s nuclear triad are continuous in the pursuit of maintaining a salient state of every part of the triad as threats evolve over time.

Putin’s new doctrine speaks of a “significantly lowered threshold” for nuclear weapons use.

The shift in the nuclear doctrine of Russia may have significant strategic implications for the global security dynamics. Through reinforcement of the role of the nuclear triad and extension of circumstances under which nuclear weapons are permissible, Russia is thus declaring its willingness to move more aggressively in areas where it perceives its sovereignty to be under threat. This naturally brings miscalculations and escalatory risks to the fore in an already tense geopolitical environment. Some key concerns leading from these modifications are:

  • Putin’s new doctrine speaks of a “significantly lowered threshold” for nuclear weapons use. He said Russia could respond with nuclear force to conventional attacks that present a “critical threat” to its sovereignty, a vague term that could embrace a broad range of military actions. This shift may result in seemingly minor conflicts blowing up to become nuclear wars if taken as a “threat” by Moscow.
  • The new doctrine expands what it has classified as aggressive to include the attack on a non-nuclear state, especially with the support of a nuclear state. Putin had warned that this would be included under a “coordinated assault on Russia”, therefore, bringing in other countries under hypothetical nuclear war conditions. Thus, this position warns the Western world of what it perceives as Western support for Ukraine and that military aid will invite a nuclear attack by Russia.
  • These changes become a kind of ‘amber light’ for the West, but specifically against backing Ukraine. It has explicitly made it clear that the Kremlin considers any conventional attack on it, especially if it has the nuclear powers of the world behind it, a valid reason for the use of nuclear attacks. Therefore, these changes do not just escalate the risks associated with the ongoing war in Ukraine but also give a wake-up call about some other emerging security dynamics between NATO and others on the planet.
  • The new doctrine also extends Russia’s nuclear umbrella over Belarus, meaning Russia can use nuclear force if it feels such an ally is being threatened. This further adds to the regional instability and may become a catalyst towards further militarization in Eastern Europe since the way security has been approached and strategized may be reviewed under these shades of threat perception.

In total, Putin’s new nuclear doctrine presents a “very dangerous escalation” of rhetoric and policy that increases the opportunities for military tensions and miscalculations on the international arena. The implications of these are deep and profound, with the potential to shift the very fabric of international relations and significantly increase the risk of a nuclear conflict in this already increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape.

Again, some have argued that this updated nuclear doctrine of Russia may also be part of its diplomatic efforts to convince Kyiv about a possible deal as per Russian aspirations which says Ukraine must not be allowed to join NATO. But it is less likely as this new approach happened when the Ukrainian president was in US with his ‘victory strategy’ against Russia; an update which vividly tells us that Ukraine is not going to think of any kind of negotiated settlement of this prolonging conflict. Both sides must take heed of those who are warning about what may turn into an imminent human crisis before it’s too late!

Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis: A Catalyst For Regional Conflict

By
Aqsa Shafqat
-
0
Gaza

The unending Israeli aggression has brought more sufferings to the people of Gaza as they remain trapped in a vicious circle of war, eviction, and hunger. The Palestinians continue facing bombings, ground invasions, and, most recently, an embargo, and nobody seems to come forward and do something about it.

Since October 2023, continued airstrikes and ground assaults have led to great devastation, resulting in over 41,000 deaths, including thousands of children, with more than 92,000 people injured. This has, therefore, led to questioning of the tactics used by Israel as well as the unethical standards, which are tantamount to war crimes, for military operations targeting civilian structures such as homes, schools, and hospitals. Such losses in the Gaza Strip are the chief characteristics of a plan that punishes an entire population for the actions of a few from certain militant groups.

Continued airstrikes and ground assaults have led to great devastation, resulting in over 41,000 deaths, including thousands of children.

Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and has been transformed into an open prison for more than two million people. The conditions have only worsened over time, since every new fighting phase, deteriorates the already weak structures.

Due to the current challenges, the healthcare system in Gaza has almost collapsed. Many of the hospitals have destroyed and the few remaining ones are overstretched for resources. At the same time, many doctors and other healthcare professionals have been purposely attacked or killed, thus causing a long-term damage to the infrastructure. In fact, the loss of doctors and other staff can be listed as even more severe than the destruction of physical infrastructure.

According to the Gaza health officials, at least 700 medical experts have so far been killed, including key doctors. That’s why a healthcare worker said, “We can fix our hospitals, but who will step up to replace the doctors we’ve lost.”

Healthcare system in Gaza has almost collapsed. Many of the hospitals have destroyed and the few remaining ones are overstretched for resources.

These individuals had acquired knowledge with many years of training and were committed to saving others. Their loss is incalculable.

In this connection, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has strenuously criticized these actions, stating, “Attacking healthcare professionals is a war crime.”

Essential to saving lives during and after the conflict, these healthcare professionals are the target of a direct attack on the civilians in Gaza. Israel claims the use of force is needed to protect its people from the rocket attacks by Hamas and other militants, but the fact is that it not only has vastly superior firepower but also a variety of other resources. The Iron Dome of Israel is effective in downing most of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, thus limiting the loss of life and property among Israelis. On the other hand, the people of Gaza have no such protection against airstrikes.

The loss of lives and properties in Gaza is massive, that’s why it is being listed a genocide which has raised a lot of concerns over Israel’s “right to defend” and whether their actions are justified. Thus, the myth of self-defense is designed to justify the occupation and displacement, the reason behind the Palestinian resistance.

To Palestinians, it is not about rockets or armed conflict, it is about the decades of occupation, the seizure of their homes and territory, and the refusal to accept their rights as a people. During the events leading to and after the formation of Israel in 1948, the Palestinians have been subjected to the process of ethnic cleansing. They have been forced into confinement after losing more and more of lands and homes – from the expansion of settlements in the West Bank to the siege of Gaza.

The myth of self-defense is designed to justify hide the occupation and displacement, the reason behind the Palestinian resistance.

The Palestinians, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank, are living in violence, poverty, and despair, with no hope of the world recognizing their rights as a nation. Each time bombs are dropped, they kill the hopes of a family, reduce the number of homes, and make the future darker.

At the same time, children in Gaza do not know anything besides war and suffering and their dreams of a better life have become pipe dreams. In fact, the real cost of the conflict is not shared equally by the two parties. Though Israel might be experiencing rocket attacks and security issues, it enjoys all the requisite resources, be it in the form of technology or most importantly international support to provide it with a protective buffer from the worst of the conflict.

The struggle in Gaza and Israel is not the only battle; its effects are starting to spread to the entire region. There have been recent airstrikes from Israel across Lebanon, which resulted in the deadliest day for the country. These attacks aimed at Hezbollah in Lebanon has left at least 600 people dead.

António Guterres has told the world leaders, “This is a time for the world to come together in demanding an end to this foolish violence. A more extensive war will damage the region seriously and may have untold impacts around the world”. The international community now cannot ignore the extensive threats posed by this conflict. In case of any failure to arrest the trend, this war has the potential to threaten nearby states, motivating actions that might threaten global peace. The escalating tensions mean that the international community must institute powerful actions to block this bloodshed from going any further.

Both diplomatic announcements and symbolic resolutions have long past their due date. Resolving this issue is critical, which means there must be an immediate end to the fighting and an assurance that humanitarian help reaches those critically in need. Without a strong intervention, the conflict can escalate dangerously, causing serious harm to the people in Gaza and throughout the Middle East.

India Wavered And Wobbled, China Prevailed

By
Saleem Samad
-
0
Muhammad Yunus

When India was busy trading tirades against Bangladesh, the incumbent interim government chief adviser, Dr Muhammad Yunus, had two separate agendas on his mind. At the same time, the Chinese were already on the playground with no defender to protect the goalpost.

India often boasts of top diplomatic skills and maneuverability, a legacy of Chanakya who is regarded as a great thinker and diplomat in India. However, New Delhi has continued mishandling Bangladesh, which produced diplomatic blunders.

New Delhi’s South Block from day one has been playing with Hindu card since Dr Yunus took the oath of office on August 9.

Hindus have been attacked and the Bangladesh government has failed to protect them, is the official Indian mantra.

New Delhi’s South Block from day one has been playing with Hindu card since Dr Yunus took the oath of office on August 9.

Why is India playing the Hindu card?

India has functional democratic institutions and is apparently a secular state, but the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Narendra Modi stands for Hindutva – a right-wing ethno-nationalist political ideology that defines the cultural identity of India in terms of Hinduism and desires to make India an overtly Hindu nation state.

Anyway, the Indian media has been upbeat with the recent attacks, vandalism of Hindu business establishments, and desecration of temples, and is cursing Dr Yunus that he will go down in history for his failures.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi raised the Hindu card with Dr Yunus when they held a phone conversation a few days after the latter took oath of his office.

Meanwhile, the Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, the Adivasis (ethnic communities) and even the Ahmadis were soft targets of the radicalized Muslim majoritarian Bangladesh in the mayhem that followed the tumultuous events leading to the escape of Sheikh Hasina.

The ousted Sheikh Hasina administration always gave an impression that China, Russia and of course India are ‘all-weather friends’ of Bangladesh.

China stood with Pakistan and ignored calls for condemnation of the Pakistan’s atrocities leading to the birth of Bangladesh in 1971.

The ousted Sheikh Hasina administration always gave an impression that China, Russia and of course India are ‘all-weather friends’ of Bangladesh.

When Pakistan recognized Bangladesh in February 1974, China continued refusing to extend diplomatic recognition of an independent Bangladesh. In fact, Beijing deliberately blocked Bangladesh’s membership twice in the United Nations. China also opposed its membership of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a forum of 120 countries.

Yes, Beijing recognized Dhaka in August 1975, a few days after the architect of Bangladesh’s independence Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated in a military putsch. That is history but we don’t live in history and relationship change, sometimes into the very opposite.

Bangladesh is of strategic importance to China. Its location in the eastern part of the Indian Ocean means it is ideally situated for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature project aimed at boosting China’s economic and political influence by implementing a raft of infrastructure projects and trade networks worldwide, writes Dang Yuan, in Deutsche Welle.

Meanwhile, China has been involved in several infrastructure projects in Bangladesh, with some completed and some ongoing. China is also discussing to advance and continue these projects with the Yunus administration.

China has been Bangladesh’s largest trading partner for 12 years in a row. “China has built 12 roads, 21 bridges and 27 power plants in Bangladesh,” Yao Wen, China’s ambassador to Bangladesh, said during a BRI event in Dhaka in September 2023. “Chinese companies have created 550,000 new jobs here,” wrote the Deutsche Welle journalist.

When it comes to defense ties, China supplied 72 per cent of the weapons Bangladesh needed between 2019 and 2023, according to SIPRI, a Swedish think tank focusing on global conflict and security, wrote Dang Yuan.

China has been Bangladesh’s largest trading partner for 12 years in a row.

China played a key role in the construction of the “BNS Sheikh Hasina” naval base south of Chittagong. The base was inaugurated in 2023 and has a space for six submarines and eight warships.

Beijing had also supplied two submarines BNS Nabajatra and BNS Joyjatra, commissioned in 2017, as well as a significant proportion of frigates and corvettes to the Bangladeshi navy which are already stationed there for more than a year.

Among the friends in the past, the quick summersault was first made by China when the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said Beijing would also encourage greater cooperation and partnership between the companies of the two nations. He said Bangladesh would also benefit from the Chinese decision to allow zero-tariff access to all goods from the Least Developed Countries (LDC).

On the other hand, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meet Dr Yunus at the margins of the United National General Assembly in New York.

China took a clear line in its response to the recent ouster of Sheikh Hasina and the formation of an interim government. “We want to further develop the ‘all-round strategic partnership’ with the new government in Bangladesh,” said a Chinese spokeswoman recently.

This confirms that Beijing switched allegiance from Hasina to Yunus when a medical team from the Chinese Red Cross arrived in Bangladesh to treat the students and protesters writhing in pain from grievous injuries during the Monsoon Revolution in July-August people’s uprising.

Earlier, Hasina, during her autocratic 15-year rule, learned how to balance Bangladesh’s ties between the two Asian powers. As a reliable partner, she did not want to upset New Delhi, but she also wanted to win over Beijing.

After her controversial re-election in January 2024, she first visited India, then China weeks later. And since a mass uprising forced her to flee the country, Hasina has found refuge in India.

Dr Yunus thanked China for their understanding, cooperation and collaboration which will strengthen the Bangladesh-China bilateral relationship.

The chief adviser stressed closer relations with China and talked about opening “a new chapter” in the ties between the two countries. Bangladesh also welcomed Chinese investment in solar companies.

While there is a hope that this is the first step in a democratic transition, Bangladesh will find itself stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Wang described Dr Yunus as “an old friend of the Chinese people,” and congratulated him for assuming the leadership of the new government.

“We have full confidence that you will live up to the expectations of the people,” he said, adding he would unite the country.

Earlier on August 25, Chinese Ambassador Yao Wen met with Dr Yunus and said that China strictly follows the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, respecting the development path independently chosen by the Bangladeshi people, and expressed hope that Bangladesh will achieve unity, stability, development, and prosperity soon.

The Chinese ambassador in recent weeks has made hectic diplomatic engagements with members of the new government.

According to the website of the Chinese embassy, since 1 September, Yao has met with Muhammad Fouzul Kabir Khan (Adviser of new government), Wahiduddin Mahmud (Planning and Education Adviser), Nurjahan Begum (Health and Family Warfare Adviser), Shafiqur Rahman of Jamaat-e-Islami and Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

Analysts say the ambassador’s extensive outreach to various sectors in Bangladesh indicates that bilateral relations are likely to remain stable despite domestic political changes and these frequent interactions are expected to further strengthen cooperation between the two countries.

Bangladesh’s transition to democracy will be challenging. At the same time, Bangladesh’s geopolitical position embroils it in the larger geopolitical competition for regional dominance between China and India in South Asia. With India seemingly protecting Hasina from extradition to face a trial in Bangladesh, ties between the two are likely to worsen.

India may also reject Bangladesh’s next government as tilting toward China. While there is a hope that this is the first step in a democratic transition, Bangladesh will find itself stuck between a rock and a hard place, wrote Jacob Dickinson in Dyami, a security intelligence think-tank based in the Netherlands.

1...192021...147Page 20 of 147

Stratheia aims to be a global pioneer in the field of strategic intelligence. Our independent team of researchers cover topics ranging from the latest geopolitical events, to public policy, cyber security, and intelligence analytics.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

Write for us
About Us
Writers Pool

© All Rights Reserved. Stratheia, 2024