Support Us

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

Writers Pool
About Us

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Home Blog Page 24

Donald Trump: Militarist or Peacemaker?

By
Professor Alexander Kostyuk
-
0
Donald Trump

John Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser during Trump’s first term, testified in his memoirs that the idea of a peace treaty between South and North Korea took up a lot of President Trump’s workspace, who wanted to go down in history as a peacemaker at all costs. It did not work out then for various reasons. This year, Trump has a good opportunity to re-enter the Oval Office of the White House as the host. Will Trump continue his peacekeeping mission, using the war in Ukraine as an object of peacekeeping?

Politico recently reported that Trump’s priority after winning the US presidential election in November will be to end the war in Ukraine. In May of this year, Trump even made public statements on this issue, claiming that he would end the war very quickly. Given his statements, we can try to draw up the contours of this peace plan.

Trump pledges to swiftly end the Ukraine war if re-elected.

So, Trump will use the plan developed by Henry Kissinger in December 2022 – with separation along the front line, with buffer zones along the front line and borders, and with post-war security guarantees that have already been provided to Ukraine by about 20 countries, including the United States.

This is Trump’s plan, some details of which have been previously voiced by the Chinese leadership and even the Pentagon, when Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley offered Ukraine, against the backdrop of successes on the battlefield in Kharkiv and Kherson regions in September-November 2022, to sit down at the negotiating table from a position of strength and stop the fighting. The author of the plan is former US Secretary of State, and former National Security Advisor to President Nixon, Henry Kissinger, who first voiced it in December 2022, then followed it up in July 2023, and at the age of 100 flew to Beijing to visit President Xi Jinping.

Henry Kissinger’s peace plan resurfaces as a blueprint for Trump’s Ukraine strategy.

How does Trump differ from Biden in his rhetoric on the war and Ukraine? Trump speaks frankly about ending the war because it is his topic – during his first term, his idea was a peace treaty between the two Koreas and friendship with the leaders of both Koreas. He didn’t have enough time then.

So he no longer has the patience to start his peacekeeping mission. He knows how to keep the hawks in Europe, and not only in Europe, if there really are any, quiet, and they know it too: by demanding a sharp increase in European defense spending, a reduction in the presence of US troops in Europe, and the fate of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, the US nuclear bombs in Europe. Trump is likely to do this in November without waiting for his inauguration in January.

Security guarantees for Ukraine from NATO countries is also Henry Kissinger’s idea. Ukraine’s path to the EU, as a way for the EU to be involved and responsible for Ukraine’s future, is also his idea, which is why the EU is opening negotiations right now. Foreign Affairs, a leading geopolitical publication, recently tried to predict Trump’s foreign policy after winning the November 2024 election. Ending the war in Ukraine will indeed be a priority for Trump.

Trump’s foreign policy: Prioritizing peace in Ukraine post-election

The results of the recent debate between Trump and Biden only serve to boost Trump’s confidence and give him even more hope of winning the November election. Trump feels confident. He manages to do this even when he avoids facts. Biden is insecure even when he operates with facts.

This is the main conclusion of the foreign media regarding the recent debate between Trump and Biden. On the eve of the debate, Trump’s lead in the polls was 5-6%. After the debate, the difference between Trump’s and Biden’s support became catastrophic for the latter – 67% vs. 33% of voters’ support in favor of Trump. Thus, Trump’s position on the war in Ukraine is clear: he plans to resort to forcing peace on those participants on both sides who disagree with its end and the subsequent political resolution of the sport. He will have a wide range of tools.

Below there is a very useful historical parallel how geopolitics work in complicated circumstances.  In 1990, the question of a united Germany joining NATO depended on whether Lithuania would renounce its declaration of independence or not. If it did, Gorbachev would support Bush’s decision on Germany and NATO. In the middle of these two issues was the lifting of the Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania and the West’s provision of large financial aid to the USSR. Lithuania said no for a long time.

Debate outcomes bolster Trump’s confidence in peacemaking ambitions.

But when such important issues were at stake… in his memoirs, President Bush said in just one sentence that on June 29, 1990, Lithuania reversed its decision on the declaration. At the same time, Bush said nothing about who and how forced Lithuania, with a powerful lobby in the United States, as Bush himself said, to do so and to withdraw. History usually does not record such episodes because the methods of coercion to peace and the corresponding decisions are far from democratic. In this case, it will be the same, because the issue is much more important.

Biden’s situation is much more complicated. On the one hand, he publicly declares his support for Ukraine for as long as it takes, although he does not say what the goal of support is – whether it is the 1991 borders, the collapse of Russia, or independence with sovereignty. At the same time, privately, National Security Advisor Sullivan is seeking negotiations with Russia, i.e., a room to extend the nuclear treaty between them, with the issue of ending the war in Ukraine on the agenda. This has been repeatedly stated by Russian representatives. It is obviously difficult for Biden to play such a double game at the same time.

It is much easier for Trump – he has no need for a non-public dialog on ending the war, as he has never announced any plans for the war other than to end it. It is obvious that if Biden does not have time to complete the non-public dialogue and end the war before November, the US presidential election, Trump will do it publicly, and he will start immediately after the election, without waiting for the inauguration in January 2025.

In the 1990s, Bush and his advisor Scowcroft, and later President Clinton and his advisor Talbot, formed the view that everything possible should be done to prevent a war between Ukraine and Russia, because it would be very difficult to pull Ukraine, that is, Ukrainians, out of the war, because of the powerful national idea and, accordingly, expectations about the outcome of the war. That is, it will be necessary to resort to outright coercion to peace.

Biden’s Dual Approach: Publicly Backing Ukraine, Privately Negotiating with Russia

Now, their foreign policy colleagues in the United States have probably formed a continuation of this thesis: If the war does take place, the main task is to do everything possible to prevent a split within the country and its society, as a result of asymmetric expectations about the end of the war and as a result of high moral asymmetry in society, against the background of a powerful national idea in Ukraine, because the split itself could lead to a social revolt, which would be much more difficult to resolve than the actual end of the war.

Both theses are urgent tasks for the West, and the second is more difficult than the first. These tasks should be fulfilled, because otherwise the entire security structure in Europe could collapse as a result of a prolonged war due to its possible escalation like a house of cards. Therefore, the West will use both carrots and sticks to lead the participants to peace. Coercion to peace successfully applied to end the war in Korea in 1953 would be a case to follow. It is very likely that Trump, as the likely next US president, will take these carrots and sticks into his hands to be fixed by history as a peacemaker.

With or Without Biden?

By
Dr. Muhammad Nadeem Mirza
-
0
Biden

Biden could win any war, but not the one against time. Democrats in the US are repeating this sentence in every other opinion piece, editorial, or in public discussion. At 81 years, he is the oldest president in the history of the United States. Ronald Reagan held the record earlier of being the oldest president when he completed his two terms at the age of 77 in 1989.

It is not just the age, which is a problem, it is Biden’s mental capacity to handle one of the toughest jobs in the world – sitting in the White House. His competitor Trump is just 3 years younger at the age of 78. Not too younger though, Trump has proven himself to be a tough contender and unusual of his style has muted himself about the age-related issues of Biden.

At 81 years, Biden is the oldest president in U.S. history, surpassing Ronald Reagan who was 77 at the end of his second term.

It suits Trump. He wants Biden to stay in the race. Because the more Biden speaks publicly, the more his mental health will be exposed. That is why, Biden since the first presidential debate – which jacked up the popularity ratio of Trump to new heights at the cost of Biden – has avoided public appearances. And when he did appear in front of the public, he avoided the questions and followed the scripted speeches with the help of a teleprompter.

In the instances where he appeared in front of the public without a teleprompter, he continued to destroy his chances of being elected. In one of such post-debate interviews, he mixed his race and said, “I’m proud to be, as I said, the first vice president, the first black woman to serve with a black president.”

Biden in the first Presidential debate held on June 27th stuttered, misquoted the facts, cleared his throat continuously, and spoke with a hoarse and raspy voice. His biggest verbal gaffe came when he stuttered while discussing the tax cuts imposed during the Trump era and after several ummm’s said, ‘if we finally beat the medicare…’ Trump did not let it go and immediately responded ‘he beat it to death, and he is destroying medicare.’ Biden struggled with completing sentences, steered off to different topics without answering the questions, and often remained incomprehensible and confused.

Trump benefits from Biden’s public appearances, as they often reveal Biden’s mental lapses, increasing Trump’s popularity.

It was not the first time that Biden’s mental health came into question. In October 2023 in an interview with Special Council Robert Hurr, he often forgot and mixed up key events and dates. ‘If it was 2013, when did I stop being Vice President?’ At another instance, he asked, ‘In 2009, am I still vice president?’ He even forgot the year his son Beau Biden died.

More recently, Democrats were looking very closely at his performance at the NATO summit that was held in Washington from 9–11 July. They were expecting him to perform better and to not go for more slip-ups.  But in the summit, he called his Vice President Kamala Harris as ‘Vice President Trump’ and to the astonishment of everyone introduced President Zelenskyy as ‘President Putin.’ Zelenskyy responded laughingly ‘I’m better (than Putin)’.

Verbal slip-ups have rarely been an issue, especially when it comes to politicians or anyone speaking publicly. But when discussing the oldest president who has been criticized for being incapable of handling the American presidency, this has become a (inter-) national issue. Democrats are worried that they are losing the voters and that the chances of Trump winning elections have gone substantially high. During recent polls by the New York Times, 49 percent of respondents said that they would vote for Trump as compared to 43 percent of those supporting Biden. Interestingly, 74 percent of the voters considered Biden to be too old for the job of the Presidency.

During the NATO summit, Biden referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as ‘Vice President Trump’ and introduced President Zelenskyy as ‘President Putin,’ leaving Democrats increasingly anxious about his mental fitness for office.

So, what are the options with Biden and the Democrats? First, Biden sticks to his plan of competing Trump. He is imbibing the mounting pressure from within the party and the voters. He claimed that I defeated him (Trump) in 2020 and I am the only person who can defeat him again. This is the main reason Democrats supported him in the first place and are still supporting him. They remained focused on one point: defeating Donald Trump.

The electability of Biden against Trump resulted in his winning the 2020 Democratic primaries. But his same electability has nosedived this time. But Biden remains adamant and claims that he would quit only when ‘the Lord Almighty were to come down and say, ‘Joe, get outta the race.’ This is not going to happen. In such a scenario with every public appearance, Biden will continue to destroy his chances of winning the elections. One thing he could do is go for the cognitive and neurological tests.

The Pressure has been mounting on him that if he intends to continue, then he should go for a test to check his mental acuity and capability. Biden refused to undergo any such test. ‘I have a cognitive test every single day … I’m running the world.’ Without such a test, Biden’s chances of convincing voters about his mental capability remain meagre.

Second, Biden decides to quit. That again would be a nightmarish scenario for Democrats. In case of Biden quitting, Kamala Harris may succeed him and face Trump in the November elections. There is no doubt that Kamala Harris has proven herself to be a strong vice president with a long list of achievements to her name. She also remains the first Asian-American (her mother hails from India), an African-American (her father is a Jamaican), and the first female Vice President of the US. However, electoral politics is different from governance and office work.

Electoral politics is all about winning. Commentators believe that Americans are not ready yet to have a female president. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. People have not forgotten it. Democrats have not forgotten it. Clinton was a ‘white’ female and a much stronger candidate than Harris. But she lost. Prediction is one of the most difficult jobs for the students of politics. And they are predicting now that Harris will find it very difficult to defeat Trump.

What can Democrats do then? First things first, they do not have time. Democratic National Convention (DNC) is going to be held in August. They must make a decision about Biden’s campaign before the DNC. It is reported that the Democratic bigwig, Barrack Obama, one of the biggest supporters of Biden till now, has also started thinking of the possibility of asking him to quit. He along with 23 Democrat Governors of different states, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other bigwigs can sit together and decide about the future of the 2024 Democratic campaign.

They can ask Biden to quit. They can also interview and nominate 3-4 possible contenders to replace Biden. To make the process more democratic, they can ask those contenders to present themselves at the upcoming Democratic National Convention and let people and delegates choose their leader.

Biden’s electability has nosedived, yet he remains adamant, claiming he would quit only if ‘the Lord Almighty were to come down and say, ‘Joe, get outta the race.

There is no denying the fact that Biden is the only person who has ever defeated Trump. But there is also no denying the fact that Trump is far ahead of Biden in every opinion poll held and he is not coming slow. The desperation level of Americans has gone too high. Nancy Pelosi recently opined, ‘We’re all encouraging him to make the decision. Because time is running short.’ Democrats have strong feelings for Biden, but they also want to win. And it seems they have realized the bitter fact that with Biden going into the elections, their chances of winning remain dismal.

The catch-22: they also know, it may already be too late to have someone else lead the race. Harris may not win the elections and other candidates may not have ample time to even introduce and entice the disenchanted voters. Moreover, with Biden leaving the race, his die-hard supporters (especially the coloured voters) may not accept or vote for other candidates. Defeating Trump this time seems to be the biggest challenge Democrats have ever faced. As of now, they are failing in it.

From hope to despair: Faltering steps of the BJP in Ayodhya

By
Iqra Arif
-
0
BJP's defeat

The BJP’s defeat in Ayodhya, a sacred Hindu place due to the birth of deity Rama, came as a shock for the BJP. This defeat was shocking at a place where the consecration ceremony of Ram Mandir took place a few months ago. The BJP ran its campaign in the name of development projects, but it backfired as the residents were disappointed by the land grabbing, transaction regulations, bureaucratic dominances, and traffic diversion policies of the BJP in urban areas.

The people also experienced a sense of insecurity. The Ayodhya failure cannot be viewed as a failure in one constituency rather it can be perceived as a failure of the Hindutva ideology of the BJP. This failure depicts the miserable failure of politics over the Ram Temple and saffron card in Ayodhya.

The Ayodhya failure cannot be viewed as a failure in one constituency; rather, it can be perceived as a failure of the Hindutva ideology of the BJP.

Locals had resentments regarding the development of Ram Temple in which the contracts were given to the outside contractors. They were not accommodated in any manner. As a local remarked, the devotion to Ram Mandir is in place, but in its name, our livelihood has been taken away from us. A BJP member also confessed that even the construction of the Ram temple didn’t give us a winning position in Ayodhya.

This depicts locals who preferred socio-economic progress over religious symbolism. In addition to this, under the BJP government, there were multiple incidents of land grabbing in Ayodhya. As per reports of the Times of India, there were 40 colonizers in Ayodhya who illegally grabbed the land and started their development projects there.

The idea of constructing the Ram temple in Ayodhya was a yearning desire of the Hindu nationalists since the 1930s. A boat that kept the boat of the RSS sailing for decades the fruits of which were reaped in 2014 and 2019. However, for every political dream, there is a limit and for the BJP, the 2024 stumping defeat at Ayodhya symbolized the people’s whims. This failure depicts that the people of India have not helped the opposition to win rather it had given its verdict of standing with the secular and democratic ethos.

They voted against majoritarianism and communal practices of the BJP against religious minorities. Moreover, the construction of the Ram temple which was a source of religious affinity for the Hindus who make up a big chunk of the Hindu population was not enough for the Indians. They have voted for “economic prosperity” over “religion card” and “Saffronisation”. In the upcoming state elections in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, if the BJP persists with its polarizing politics and resorting to slogans such as “infiltartratos” for the Muslims and otherization of the lower castes, it will have to walk a tightrope in securing the majority.

Locals had resentments regarding the development of Ram Temple in which the contracts were given to the outside contractors. They were not accommodated in any manner.

This election also makes me foresee an even more miserable defeat of the BJP with more than 63 seats in the next elections, if Modi will not give up on its anti-minority practices. The upcoming elections of the Northern states of India may be another shocker for Modi due to its discrimination politics against minorities and many other such defeats would be written in the BJP’s fate if it does not give up on its ongoing communal behaviour.

The results of the Indian elections of 2024 have shown that the citizens have rejected the politics of hatred and communalism. They are more content with the democratic nature of Indian society where all communities can grow and flourish together. The BJP’s failure in Ayodhya points towards the leaning of the Indian citizens towards socio-economic development rather than religion-based politics.

The results of Indian elections of 2024 have shown that the citizens have rejected the politics of hatred and communalism.

If Hindutva-led ideology manages to retain the discriminating attitude towards different communities, the next elections will present an even more devastating picture for the BJP. It will result in even more miserable failure in future if India continues to treat their minorities in a derogatory way, moreover, great powers would not let India flex its muscles beyond a certain limit therefore, it has to put a pause on its anti-minorities endeavours if it aims to preserve its status-quo in India in the future.

Supreme Court’s Role in Pakistan’s Democratic Evolution

By
Dr. Ghulam Mujaddid
-
0
The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently issued a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for the country’s democratic evolution.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently issued a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for the country’s democratic evolution. This pivotal ruling not only mandated the Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to return specific seats but also asserted that no political party should be excluded from elections due to the absence of an electoral symbol. The judgment underscores the necessity and entitlement of democracy for Pakistani citizens, emphasizing that democracy was a promise made to their forefathers—a promise that must be fulfilled.

The ruling is particularly significant in light of the numerous obstacles that have been placed in the path of democratic progress in Pakistan. Both legal and illegal tactics have been employed to maintain power, often at the expense of democratic principles. Amidst these challenges, the Supreme Court’s decision represents a beacon of hope for democratic development.

The judges, under immense pressure from various quarters, have delivered a verdict that strengthens the foundation of democracy in Pakistan.

In the wake of this decision, the onus now falls on political parties to collaborate and foster a society that upholds democratic values and traditions. Political leaders must reach a consensus to avoid the use of non-democratic means in the future and to prevent any party that ascends to power with such means from forming a government. The appeal against the Practice and Procedure Act should be withdrawn immediately to reinforce this commitment.

The Supreme Court’s decision arrives at a critical juncture when many Pakistanis feel disillusioned with politics. The focus of politics in Pakistan has shifted towards power acquisition, sidelining the resolution of fundamental issues faced by the populace. This alienation has roots in the actions of non-democratic forces, which have historically impeded democratic progress.

The political trajectory of Imran Khan serves as a stark example of this interference. Initially propelled into politics without adequate political grooming, Khan’s subsequent ousting in 2022 was another misstep that ultimately enhanced his stature as a persecuted hero in the eyes of many Pakistanis. This sequence of events underscores the detrimental impact of neo-colonial and modern imperialist interventions, which have bolstered the civil and military bureaucracy, making it more robust than other institutions in Pakistan.

For democracy to thrive, it is essential for the people of Pakistan to organize and reclaim power from these entrenched bureaucracies. The historical context provides further insight into the challenges faced by Pakistan’s democratic evolution. Shortly after the country’s formation, the dismissal of Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin’s government by Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad set a precedent for political instability. This was compounded by the postponement of elections in East Pakistan in 1954 and the subsequent imprisonment of thousands of political workers.

The Muslim League’s defeat in East Pakistan, where it secured only 10 out of 309 seats, was a direct result of state policies that obstructed the political rights of East Pakistani citizens.

Analyzing Pakistan’s political history since 1952 reveals a consistent pattern of attacks on democratic processes, leading to the erosion of democratic foundations and the fortification of dictatorial structures. The civil bureaucracy’s subsequent involvement of the military in politics further entrenched these non-democratic elements. This has resulted in the loss of an institutional concept within Pakistani society. If democratic institutions had been allowed to flourish, they would have weakened the exploitative groups that act as barriers between the state and the people.

For 76 years, Pakistani politics has been trapped in a vicious cycle, with ruling classes reluctant to allow democracy to take root. Despite the existence of Parliament and the Constitution, the quality of life for the average Pakistani continues to deteriorate. In this context, the Supreme Court’s recent decision offers a historic opportunity for political leaders to set aside personal differences and work towards establishing democracy and civil supremacy. By doing so, they can pave the way for Pakistan’s 240 million citizens to enjoy peace and prosperity and move towards becoming a welfare state in the 21st century.

The Supreme Court’s decision is not just a legal victory but a call to action for all political stakeholders in Pakistan. It is a reminder that democracy is not merely a system of governance but a cherished ideal that the Pakistani people deserve. By embracing democratic values and working together, political leaders can honor the legacy of their forefathers and ensure a brighter future for the nation.

 

The Philippines and Japan’s New Defence Pact

By
Dr. Raziq Hussian
-
0
A new chapter has emerged in the region following the defence pact between the Philippines and Japan.

During tensions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, a new chapter has emerged in the region following the defense pact between the Philippines and Japan. The Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) is designed to deploy forces on each other’s soil, conduct joint military exercises, and allow Filipino forces to carry out combat training in Japan. This pact is tailored due to the shared threat posed by China to both Japan and the Philippines in the East China Sea and South China Sea, respectively. However, the pact still requires ratification by their respective parliaments. The defense pact carries significance for both signees to create an impression of deterrence and unity against China. Most significantly, the pact is a step towards containing China’s influence, with the assistance of the United States, in the South China Sea.

The pact is a consequence of continuous skirmishes between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. The most serious incident occurred on June 17, when Chinese Coast Guard personnel wielding sticks, knives, and an axe surrounded and boarded three Philippine navy boats during a resupply mission to Second Thomas Shoal in the disputed Spratly Islands.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. denounced China’s actions in the South China Sea and warned that the death of any Filipino at the hands of China would be deemed close to an act of war. The Philippines demanded financial compensation of $1 million for the June collision.

However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry termed it a provocation and warned the Philippines to stop, claiming it was safeguarding its rights and enforcing the law. They asserted that the Philippines should bear the consequences of its infringement activities.

The dispute in the South China Sea has numerous reasons. Firstly, the region is rich in fishing resources, and with China controlling much of the area, it has become one of the largest fishing industries in the world. The fishing industry in China has significantly contributed to its economy, making it the biggest exporter of aquatic products globally. Secondly, the region is rich in energy resources. The US Geological Survey estimated in 2012 that the entire South China Sea contains around 12 billion barrels of oil and 1900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Thirdly, control over the South China Sea would guarantee security in distant waters and expand maritime navigation, potentially outmatching US maritime dominance in East Asia. The South China Sea connects the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, facilitating global commerce of goods and energy shipments to China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia.

Control over this region enables China to thrive through exports and mitigates any vulnerability to attacks through the South China Sea.

China is engaged in a tussle with the Philippines over four islands: the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Macclesfield Bank, and Pratas Island and Reefs. China claims historical rights over these islands, which are covered by a nine-dash line in the South China Sea. The Nine-Dash Line encompasses much of the South China Sea, even cutting into the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. The Spratly Islands, rich in marine resources, minerals, and hydrocarbon deposits, have been a bone of contention for standoffs among China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. Reportedly, except for Brunei, all others have established garrisons on the Spratly Islands.

China has also constructed artificial islands in the South China Sea to claim much of its territorial waters. De facto, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) permits the construction of artificial islands under Article 60, but it allows construction only within a country’s exclusive economic zone, with the restriction that the island-constructing country should inform nearby coastal states and prevent any harm to those countries.

In this regard, the Philippines filed a case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration, wherein in 2016, the court favored the Philippines, declaring the nine-dash line without legal basis. However, China refused to comply with the decision, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Notably, powerful countries often do not comply with international court decisions because these courts lack specific implementing mechanisms. Countries comply with decisions in contentious jurisdictions, which remain binding on the parties involved.

When decisions are implemented by the United Nations Security Council, countries with veto power often use their veto to prevent the implementation of decisions against themselves or their allies.

With this pact, the Philippines is also expected to benefit from a Japanese program launched in April 2023, designed to provide weapons and equipment free of charge to like-minded countries to expand security cooperation. This will assist the Philippines in acquiring weapons and equipment to engage in any standoff with China effectively, though it may still be unable to outmatch China. Additionally, in November, Japan provided the Philippines with five surveillance radars to strengthen its coastal supervision capabilities, which will improve surveillance in the South China Sea.

Most importantly, the Philippines is strategically useful for the United States because the South China Sea dispute could drag the USA into conflict. Due to its proximity to Taiwan, the Philippines is crucial for the USA in any potential war over Taiwan, as American analysts believe that China will eventually invade it. Thus, the USA has played an active role in forming this pact to strengthen its allies against China, maintain its influence, and contain China’s growing power globally. For Japan, the pact may not seem as immediately constructive since Japan is not directly engaged with China in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

The presence of Japanese forces on Philippine soil and joint drills may serve as a deterrent for China and signal unity among China’s antagonists.

Japan and China have been in a tussle over a group of islands named Senkaku by Japan and Diaoyu by China. These islands can be strategic frontiers for safeguarding China from Japan and the USA. China could use these islands to establish submarine bases, missile bases, and radar systems, expanding its security and military presence in the region. For instance, Mischief Reef in the South China Sea has been armed with anti-aircraft weapons and a CIWS missile defense system. Similarly, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands could be used for defense purposes in the East China Sea.

If the pact is ratified, it will signal a capable deterrence against China, though it may not help the Philippines gain its due share in the South China Sea, as China claims historical rights over the region with the nine-dash line.

The Strategic Implications of Sino-Russian Naval Exercises

By
Dr. Hamza Khan
-
0
On Sunday, July 14, 2024, Chinese and Russian naval forces carried out joint exercises at a military port in Guangdong, a southern Chinese province.

On Sunday, July 14, 2024, Chinese and Russian naval forces carried out joint exercises at a military port in Guangdong, a southern Chinese province. This collaboration came just days after NATO allies characterized Beijing as a “decisive factor” in the Ukraine conflict. On the preceding day, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced the arrival of two Steregushchiy-class Russian warships, “Gromki” and “Ryzky,” at the shores of Zhanjiang, southern China, to participate in the “Maritime Cooperation – 2024” exercises with their Chinese counterparts.

The Russian Ministry of Defence confirmed that these exercises would involve training for rescue missions at sea, joint air defense, and anti-submarine exercises, featuring the naval anti-submarine aviation of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Meanwhile, the Chinese Ministry of Defence stated that the exercises were routine and unrelated to current international and regional tensions, emphasizing that they did not target any third party. Official Chinese media reported that these exercises aimed to demonstrate the capabilities of the Chinese and Russian naval forces in addressing security threats and maintaining global and regional peace and stability.

The activities included anti-missile training, naval strikes, air defense, and military simulation exercises conducted in Zhanjiang City, China.

These joint exercises occurred amidst rising tensions between China and NATO allies. At the NATO summit in Washington, 32 member nations issued a statement describing China as a significant factor in Russia’s war against Ukraine. NATO leaders accused China of deepening relations with Moscow, raising concerns about Beijing’s nuclear arsenal and space capabilities. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized NATO’s stance on China’s role in enabling Russia’s war efforts.

During the NATO meeting, American military officials reported an incident where a US Coast Guard boat encountered several Chinese military ships in the Bering Sea, raising concerns in Washington. This encounter, coupled with the broader geopolitical tensions, led NATO to urge China to halt all support for Russia’s war efforts, highlighting China’s provision of dual-use items to Russia’s defense sector. The American officials were particularly alarmed by the presence of Chinese ships near the Aleutian Islands, an area considered sensitive and strategically significant for the US. This incident was seen as part of a broader pattern of increased Chinese naval activity in areas of strategic interest to NATO countries.

In response, China accused NATO of seeking security at others’ expense and urged the alliance to avoid causing chaos in Asia. The Chinese Foreign Ministry insisted on its fair and objective stance on the Ukraine conflict and denied providing direct military aid to Russia, emphasizing that their relationship remained primarily trade-focused. Beijing expressed dissatisfaction with NATO’s increasing interest in Asia, deeming it provocative and full of Cold War mentality.

The Chinese government argued that NATO’s expansion of influence into the Asia-Pacific region was unwarranted and destabilizing, further complicating the already tense international environment.

The NATO statement also accused China of malicious cyber activities and rapid nuclear arsenal expansion. Former US Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs, Danny Russell, commented that NATO’s unity against China and Russia highlighted the failure of Beijing’s attempt to appear neutral and divide Western Europe from Russia. Russell’s remarks underscored the perception that China’s strategic maneuvers were aimed at exploiting divisions within the Western alliance, a strategy that appears to have backfired by consolidating opposition to Beijing’s policies.

Further intensifying the situation, Chinese forces conducted joint military exercises in Belarus, a Russian ally, for the first time since the Russian-Ukrainian war began in February 2022. This move drew objections from Poland, a NATO member and ally of Washington, which expressed concerns about the use of these exercises for misinformation and propaganda purposes. Poland’s statement highlighted the broader apprehension within NATO about the strategic implications of the Sino-Russian military cooperation, particularly in regions adjacent to NATO’s eastern flank.

In response to NATO’s accusations, China continued its assertive military stance, conducting joint exercises with Belarus. These maneuvers, named “Falcon Attacks,” started on July 8, 2024, and were scheduled to continue until mid-July. The Chinese Ministry of Defence highlighted these exercises as an effort to deepen cooperation with Belarus in facing common threats.

The choice of Belarus as a partner for these exercises was seen as a clear message to NATO about China’s commitment to supporting its allies and countering what it perceives as Western encroachment.

The backdrop of these joint Chinese-Russian naval exercises illustrates the complex geopolitical landscape marked by rising tensions between NATO allies and the Sino-Russian axis. As NATO scrutinizes China’s role in supporting Russia, China steadfastly defends its position, leading to an intricate interplay of military maneuvers, diplomatic statements, and strategic posturing. These developments underscore the broader context of shifting global alliances and the ongoing power struggle between major world powers.

The joint exercises between China and Russia serve as a tangible demonstration of their military capabilities and cooperation, potentially altering the strategic balance in the region. This dynamic interplay continues to shape the global political and security environment, with significant implications for international relations and stability. The exercises are not merely about military preparedness but also about signaling to the world the growing strategic partnership between China and Russia in the face of what they perceive as Western antagonism.

The Taliban’s Special Forces have killed an IS-KP Commander in an Operation near Pakistan’s Border

By
Arshad Mehmood
-
0
IS-KP insurgency in Afghanistan

The slain commander Zakir Ullah aka Abu Sher, was a chief of IS-KP’s Achin cell. IS- KP began its activities in Nangarhar in 2015 and designated “Achin” as its base for operations in the region. According to The Taliban‘s Intelligence sources “During a recent intelligence-based operation, Special Forces targeted an operational base of IS-KP, killing their chief and some of his associates”.

During the operation, the Special Forces also seized a large cache of modern weapons and ammunition. However, some IS-KP fighters managed to escape by taking advantage of the darkness of the night. The official declined to provide further details. Located on the border with Pakistan, Achin district is Afghanistan’s key eastern province of Nangarhar, which had been heavily contested by the Taliban, IS-KP, and US-led forces.

During a recent operation, Special Forces targeted an operational base of IS-KP in Nangarhar, resulting in the death of their chief and several associates.

During their presence in the region, US forces conducted frequent operations against IS-KP, resulting in the deaths of many of its top commanders. IS-KP has conducted various suicide attacks on security personnel and the minority Shiite community in Afghanistan since the Taliban regained power.

These attacks resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, including key Taliban leaders and religious figures. One of the deadliest attacks by IS-KP was carried out in 2021 at Kabul International Airport during the withdrawal of US troops, resulting in the deaths of 170 Afghans, including US soldiers.

The incident was a tragic conclusion to the US longest war in history, resulting in the deaths of 13 US Marines in a single incident. The deceased Afghans were desperately seeking US assistance to escape the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul. However, a recent US military revealed that” The man who detonated a bomb outside the Kabul airport in August 2021, resulting in the deaths of 170 Afghans and 13 American service members, was identified as an Islamic State operative.

The report further revealed that “the bomber had previously been detained in a coalition detention facility in Afghanistan but was released by the Taliban, according to a new U.S. military review that has revealed his identity for the first time”. After the Taliban retook power in Afghanistan in August 2021, the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (IS-KP) intensified its insurgency, launching a series of deadly attacks across the country.

IS-KP has been responsible for numerous deadly bombings and suicide attacks across Afghanistan, targeting both civilians and security forces.

IS-KP has targeted various groups, including Taliban forces, Afghan civilians, and minority communities, aiming to destabilize the new Taliban government and assert their influence. The suicide bombing amid the US withdrawal highlighted IS-KP’s capability to carry out large-scale operations in highly secured areas.

In October 2021, IS-KP carried out a deadly bombing at a Shia mosque in Kunduz during Friday prayers, killing over 50 worshippers and injuring scores. The attack underscored IS-KP’s intent to incite sectarian violence and target religious minorities. Another attack on a Shia mosque in Kandahar later that month resulted in at least 47 deaths, further exacerbating fears of sectarian strife.

IS-KP has also targeted Taliban security personnel and government officials in various provinces, employing tactics such as assassinations, bombings, and ambushes. In November 2021, a series of bombings in Kabul targeted Taliban vehicles, causing multiple casualties. These attacks demonstrated IS-KP’s continued ability to operate within the capital despite heightened security measures. Throughout 2022 and 2023, IS-KP continued its campaign of violence. In April 2022, a bombing at a boys’ school in a predominantly Hazara neighbourhood in Kabul killed at least six and wounded many others. This attack, along with others targeting educational institutions, aimed to sow fear and disrupt daily life.

The group has leveraged its media operations to claim responsibility for these attacks, propagating their extremist ideology and attempting to recruit disaffected individuals. Despite the Taliban’s efforts to root out IS-KP through military operations and intelligence efforts, the group remains a potent threat to Afghanistan’s security and stability. The persistent threat posed by IS-KP underscores the ongoing challenges the Taliban faces in maintaining control and ensuring security across Afghanistan. The group’s ability to conduct high-profile attacks and target a wide range of victims highlights the complexity of Afghanistan’s security landscape in the post-Taliban takeover era.

The Taliban have escalated their military operations against IS-KP, focusing particularly on Nangarhar province.

The Afghan Taliban also have been actively combating the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (IS-KP), a regional affiliate of ISIS. They have launched numerous military operations targeting IS-KP strongholds, involving raids on hideouts that result in the capture or killing of IS-KP fighters. Additionally, the Taliban have ramped up security measures in areas known for IS-KP activity, including increased patrols, checkpoints, and intelligence operations aimed at disrupting IS-KP networks.

To enhance their efforts, the Taliban have improved their intelligence-gathering capabilities and, in some instances, reportedly collaborated with regional intelligence agencies to track and eliminate IS-KP operatives. Reliable sources indicate that the US has come to believe that IS-KP, rather than the TTP, poses a significant threat to its interests in the region. This time, bypassing Pakistan, to counter this threat, the US is directly engaging with the Afghan Taliban.

Sources recently claimed that” in May 2024, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials were scheduled to meet with Top Afghan Taliban intelligence officials in Doha. The sources based in Kabul said that” the basic agenda of the meeting was bolstering collaboration and broadening the scope of US over-the-horizon unmanned aerial systems operations within Afghan airspace.”

In response to the IS-KP threat, the U.S. has initiated direct engagement with the Taliban to enhance security cooperation and counter-terrorism efforts.

The sources added, “The crucial meeting was convened at the behest of the CIA, with Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs overseeing its arrangements.” Mullah Abdul Haq Wasiq, head of the Taliban’s intelligence services led the Afghan delegation that includes senior officials such as Mullah Noor Ul Haq Noor. Besides his role as a top negotiator for the Taliban, Noor is renowned for his negotiation skills and expertise in engaging with US intelligence. Wasiq, as the delegation leader, spent several years detained at the US Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (Gitmo) for hostile acts against US forces. He gained prominence as one of five prisoners exchanged in 2014 for US soldier Robert “Bowe” Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in 2009. In terms of anonymity, A Kabul former Intel official revealed “The Taliban’s intelligence chief recently visited London and met with the MI-6 chief.”

The Historical Visit of Ilham Aliyev to Pakistan

By
Dr. Attiq Ur Rehman
-
0
President Ilham Aliyev

The formal two-day visit of Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev to Pakistan on the invitation of Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, has marked a significant development in the ongoing multileveled cooperative bilateral relations between Baku and Islamabad. The two-day visit, July 11-12, 2024, contains substantial significance for the two-sided governments due to the changing geo-strategic landscape of the international system, where the geo-economic interests of the states have become overwhelming forces.

The two-day visit led the leaders of both states to conclude a $2 billion investment deal in diverse areas.

By hosting Azerbaijan’s President, the formal state authorities of Pakistan showed their strong ambitions for upholding the broader agenda of high-level discussion covering several vital areas of bilateral collaboration. This state-level meeting emphasizes the significance of multifaceted cooperation between two key players of the Muslim world. Moreover, the governments of these two Muslim states share a common vision in strategic, political, economic, and social domains. The main purpose of this short visit is to increase the diplomatic engagement of two states located in different regions.

Despite territorial disconnects, both nations have substantial potential for supporting their shared economic plans in different regions. In this way, the initial meeting of the visit led the leaders of both states to conclude a $ 2 billion investment deal in diverse areas. This business deal instructed the state authorities of both states to develop various investment plans of shared trading values while upholding and supporting each other’s economic vision at the regional and international levels.

To endorse the vision of mutual engagement covering wide-ranging areas of economic collaboration, both nations signed fifteen different agreements and Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) in diverse domains during this visit. It aimed to untapped each other’s potential in highly valuable economic sectors. For the promotion of people-to-people contacts, the areas of cultural exchange, information technology, tourism, and literature and science remained prominent in the list of signed agreements and MoUs. The two-sided governments fundamentally introduce these agreements and MoUs to flourish their existing bilateral trading connections, parallel to exploring new avenues for future cooperation.

Fifteen different agreements and Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) were signed, covering economic collaboration, cultural exchange, information technology, tourism, literature, and science.

During the formal interaction of two-sided mainstream political authorities during this visit, the statements of Azerbaijani and Pakistani state authorities acknowledged the ongoing multileveled cooperation between Baku and Islamabad, which was parallel to defining the future of their cooperation. The initial round of two-day meetings showed the commitments of two-sided governments to appreciating and benefiting from each other’s potential of billions of dollars for future cooperation. Apart from witnessing landmark progress in the economic domain, the participating leadership also appreciated the political coordination between Baku and Islamabad during this meeting.

The genesis of political coordination can be traced in the history of Pakistan-Azerbaijan bilateral relations, a relationship that has weathered many challenges and grown stronger over time. Pakistan suffers from the Kashmir issue in the South Asian region and always tried to cultivate the widespread support of the international community against brutal Indian force deployments in certain areas of Kashmir. Akin to Pakistan, Azerbaijan has passed through similar circumstances on the former Karabakh issue.

In this way, the leaders of both nations realized each other’s suffering in their respective regions and adopted supportive policies on Kashmir and Karabakh issues. The increasing political coordination on the disputed territorial issues directed the strategic communities from Baku and Islamabad towards upgrading their bilateral collaboration in security and defence.

The expansion of cooperation in this domain resulted in the trilateral military exercise, Three Brothers-2021, among the formal conventional defence forces of Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. This military drill aimed to ensure the high growth of military cooperation parallel to improving the conventional war-fighting capabilities of their regular armed forces, which ultimately supports the broader framework of trilateral strategic partnership.

The formation of a strategic connection between three key players of the Muslim world, Azerbaijan (the resources-rich country), Turkey (a nation with advanced ideological values), and Pakistan (the only Muslim nuclear power), inflicted a sense of confidence in Baku’s strategic calculation and led Azerbaijan to secure an appreciable victory in its territorial clash with Armenia. In this way, the Karabakh and Kashmir issues were the prime forces for generating multi-layered cooperative bonds between the two states.

The trilateral military exercise, Three Brothers-2021, among Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, aimed to enhance military cooperation and conventional war-fighting capabilities.

The resolution of the Karabakh issue now demands the Azerbaijani authorities to extend their support of Pakistan on the Kashmir issue beyond conventional fixed frameworks of Pakistan-Azerbaijan bilateral cooperation. The Azerbaijani government is required to uphold the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue in its bilateral and multilateral dealings with New Delhi while highlighting the massive human rights abuses of the Muslim community living in occupied areas of Kashmir. It is pertinent to mention here that the Indian human rights violations of the Kashmiri Muslim population have been officially confirmed in the two reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2018 and 2019.

Further cooperative scenarios between Baku and Islamabad could be augmented by emphasizing the common problems of Islamic countries and the sufferings of the Muslim population living under specific occupational forces. The increasing focus on the Muslim world will enable two-sided leadership to empower their standings in the Islamic countries, parallel to cultivating massive diplomatic support of Muslim leaders in their respective regional politics. In addition to strategic considerations, the societal dimension of Pakistan-Azerbaijan ties must be recognized, as people-to-people contacts between both nations have flourished in the past few years.

Baku’s promotion as an appropriate and new tourist place in Pakistan witnessed a dramatic rise in tourism in Azerbaijan due to its rich cultural heritage, diverse landscapes, and fascinating historical places. Therefore, a high rate of Pakistani visitors has been recorded in Baku with the support of easy visa facilities in Azerbaijan for Pakistani citizens. The inclusion of Pakistan in the list of Azerbaijani e-visa services has already rationalized the countrywide spread of visa facilities to Pakistani travellers. This facility supported both states’ shared economic vision by increasing the avenues of foreign direct investment between the two nations.

Furthermore, the recent initiation of direct flights between Baku and Azerbaijan has become an admirable feature, increasing interconnectedness between two-sided business and tourist communities. Direct air connectivity started attracting more investments in various areas analogous to advancing cultural exchanges because direct flights generally fostered cooperative connections between states.

The only challenge in the social domain is language, which hinders the greater support of growing cultural collaboration between Baku and Islamabad. The language barrier hampers progress in several important sectors, such as diplomacy, investment, education, and tourism.

The language challenge could be addressed productively by introducing various language training programs, improving professional language proficiency, and translating services to the business and tourist communities.

The creation of bilingual resource centres and the societal-level promotion of these resource centres in both states could empower the governments of both states to widen the scope of business and investment in their bilateral economic ties. Thus, the improved societal communication capabilities would help two-sided governments enhance and maintain collaborative solid connections between their respective business communities while empowering the broader scope of cultural exchanges between Baku and Islamabad.

Therefore, the present visit of Ilham Aliyev to Pakistan could be pivotal to empowering the ongoing matrix of Pakistan-Azerbaijan ties, which communicates ideological solid connections, healthy economic collaboration, diverse social interaction, and active strategic cooperation to the entire international community. This visit would augment the bilateral collaboration areas and contribute to the scope of regional stability and prosperity based on the shared values of mutual interest and common goals.

The Fallout from the Trump Attack

By
Dr. Fatime Mehdi
-
0
The recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the ongoing presidential election campaign in the United States.

The recent assassination attempt on former US President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the ongoing presidential election campaign in the United States. The attack, which left Trump with a bloodied face, was captured on footage and quickly broadcasted as breaking news by both American and international media outlets. In the aftermath, US President Joe Biden reached out to Trump via phone to check on his well-being and condemned the violence during a national address. Biden emphasized the importance of national unity and the need to promote decency, distinction, and respect within the political arena.

The attack on Trump has sparked widespread condemnation from politicians and citizens globally, including within the United States. However, it has also intensified the already deep divisions within American society. Some individuals have criticized Trump’s policies and actions in light of the attack, while others view the incident as an attempt to sabotage the ongoing presidential campaign. This polarization is evident in the social media reactions, where terms like “staged drama” quickly became top trends on X (formerly Twitter). Despite this, many users rejected such conspiracy theories and expressed solidarity with Trump.

The assassination attempt has exacerbated the rift in American society, highlighting the contrasting perceptions of Trump. For some, he is seen as a victim of political violence, while for others, he remains a controversial figure whose policies and behavior have contributed to the current state of the country.

This incident has also fueled online rhetoric, with some elements exploiting the situation to push one-sided narratives for personal gain.

Adding to the complexity, American media organizations have questioned why Iran’s rulers have not issued any condemnation statements following the attack on Trump. Several Western media reports have openly implicated Iran in the attack. According to these reports, American intelligence agencies had received information about an alleged plan to assassinate Trump orchestrated in Iran. Prominent newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times published articles about threats to Trump’s life, citing sources from American security officials, though the identities of these sources remain undisclosed.

The media’s focus on Iran stems from an event during Trump’s administration over four years ago when a US airstrike in Baghdad killed Iran’s top military commander, Qassem Soleimani, and his colleagues. This attack, carried out under Trump’s direct orders, led to vows of revenge from Iran. In February of last year, Amir Ali Hajizada, a leader of the Revolutionary Guards’ Air Force, reiterated intentions to avenge Soleimani’s death by targeting Trump.

Despite these accusations, Iranian officials have vehemently denied any involvement in the recent attack. Representatives of the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York and the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson have both dismissed the US media’s allegations as baseless and malicious. They maintain that there is no evidence to suggest a foreign hand behind the assassination attempt.

The assailant who attempted to kill Trump was reportedly killed on the spot, and no official evidence has emerged to confirm foreign involvement. Nevertheless, this incident has raised significant concerns about the safety of political figures in the United States and the potential for political violence within American society. It has also heightened fears of diplomatic conflict, particularly with Iran’s newly elected leadership.

An escalation in diplomatic tensions could have far-reaching international ramifications, further destabilizing an already troubled global landscape.

In response to this crisis, it is crucial for the United States to conduct a fair and transparent investigation to bring those responsible for the attack to justice. As a global superpower, the US should avoid blame-shifting and instead focus on stepping up its diplomatic efforts to address the situation constructively. Ensuring the integrity of the investigation and maintaining a commitment to justice will be vital in navigating the political and diplomatic challenges that have arisen from this violent incident.

The implications of the attack on Trump extend beyond immediate political concerns. It highlights the vulnerability of public figures and the potential for escalating violence in the polarized climate of the United States. The attack underscores the urgent need for enhanced security measures for candidates and elected officials, ensuring their protection during an already contentious election season. This incident also calls into question the broader issues of political discourse and the role of media in shaping public perception.

In the wake of the assassination attempt, there is a need for introspection within American society regarding the nature of political engagement and discourse. The attack on Trump has revealed the dangerous potential of political rhetoric to incite violence and deepen societal divisions.

Political leaders, media organizations, and citizens must foster a culture of respectful dialogue and reject all forms of violence as a means of political expression.

Internationally, the attack has the potential to strain diplomatic relations, particularly with Iran. The accusations and counter-accusations between the US and Iran could lead to increased tensions and undermine efforts toward diplomacy and conflict resolution in the region. The global community will be watching closely to see how the US handles this crisis and whether it can navigate the delicate balance of seeking justice while maintaining international stability.

The attack on Trump is a stark reminder of the volatile nature of contemporary politics and the critical importance of upholding democratic principles and processes. It is a call to action for all stakeholders to work towards a more united, respectful, and peaceful political environment. The path forward must involve a collective commitment to justice, transparency, and the protection of democratic values, ensuring that such violent acts do not undermine the integrity of the political system.

India’s Subterfuge Abroad

By
Asma Khan Durrani
-
0

In an internationally themed state-sanctioned violence and a transnational killing shadow operation, India faces scrutiny over extra-judicial and extra-jurisdictional conduct. The incident of the plot to kill Sikh separatist leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York City has also brought to the fore the unlawful operations of the Indian government in an extraterritorial and extra-judicial conduct outside its territory similar to the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada.

A prominent activist of the Khalistan movement escaped a hit by Indian officials on his life. This sinister plot was exposed when Nikhil Gupta backed by Indian RAW.

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a man possessing dual citizenship of USA and Canada, a prominent activist of the Khalistan movement escaped a hit by Indian officials on his life. This sinister plot was exposed when Nikhil Gupta an Indian national was extradited from the Czech Republic to face charges in the United States. Gupta was charged with conspiring with Indian intelligence services to assassinate Pannun, where he offered $100,000 to a cooperative federal agent imaginary as a hitman.

The United States has been very clear and decisive in opposing assassination plots that were planned by India pointing to the fact that such acts are unlawful and inexcusable. This information is of paramount importance because the US State Department, through their spokesperson Matthew Miller affirmed that they have taken these allegations very seriously and so they expect India to investigate the allegations transparently. This issue has already been taken to the appropriate authorities in India through the White House, stressing that it is unacceptable to have people’s lives endangered in America. A Republican US congressman has joined the Democrats in moving the Secretary of State Antony Blinken to further demand accountability. US Attorney Damian Williams who is prosecuting Nikhil Gupta has vowed to pursue justice to the highest level, as the US reiterated its stand that it would not allow such acts of aggression and infringement of sovereignty and international laws.

Tried in a Manhattan federal courtroom the case against Nikhil Gupta was similar was as much high-profile. Gupta has denied any wrongdoings and currently is detained, To a degree, this is paradoxical since one cannot overemphasize the severity of the charges: conspiring to murder a US resident in the United States of America. According to the declaration of the US Attorney Damian Williams, “Nobody will be allowed to attempt to murder US citizens on US soil.”

US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller once again, stressed that these charges are being treated rather solemnly in the US.” We hope India does, too” Miller stressed, pointing to the belief that India should approach the issue seriously by conducting a comprehensible investigation. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs has slammed the charges of torture as ‘unwarranted and unsubstantiated’; however, the international community remains unconvinced having an apprehensive view in light of the history of Nijjar’s case.

A vocal proponent of the Khalistan movement, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, was killed in Canada in a gruesome manner, a kill that Canadian PM Trudeau connected to Indian secret agents.

A vocal proponent of the Khalistan movement, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent speaker for the movement was killed in Canada in a gruesome manner, a kill that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau connected to Indian secret agents. Its truth was vehemently denied by New Delhi Nevertheless, the said claim has worsened relations between India and Canada as well as compromised India’s reputation on the international stage.

The assassination of Sikh separatists in foreign nations is unlawful as well as a symbol of great risk to the increasing savageness of Indian state institutions in suppressing dissent. It is pertinent to remember that the United Nations Charter or other several human rights conventions disparage any such extrajudicial measures. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which India is a party requires that life be protected and that nobody’s life be taken arbitrarily. Any activity that is against these principles is likely to diminish the structures of international law and order.

The implications of these revelations have a direct connection to the legal processes that will be taken against the culprits. They concern state sovereignty, extension of protective measures of the domestic nations’ security, and ethical considerations when conducting espionage. In a world that requires the principle of the rule of law to be strictly observed and applied, these events indeed signify potential threats that may ensue from abuses of state power.

The implications of these revelations have a direct connection to state sovereignty, security, and ethical considerations when conducting espionage

The movement for a fundamental Sikh state in the Punjab area of India has its base in the middle of the 20th century with an escalation in the 1970s and 1980s. The movement aims at establishing an independent country, Khalistan for the Sikhs as they are the overly oppressed religious minority in India. While the internal situation has limited the movement and caused its supporters to be suppressed, the movement efficaciously continues its activity among the Sikh population in foreign countries such as Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Although the Indian administration regards the Khalistan movement as a terrorist organization and banned the group, Khalistan’s demand for independence complies with the principles of International Human Rights law. The UN frames the struggle as being based on the right of self-determination, provided in the UN Charter, thus posing a counter-discourse to the domineering Indian state’s narrative.

The people across the world are now observing that India has some concerns about explaining this issue transparently and fairly – and everyone prefers justice. That is what is necessary for international relations and human rights to be distinguished and protected.

The integrity of international relations and the protection of human rights demands nothing less. ‘It is said that it is dangerous to be right when authority is wrong’ Speaking of Voltaire; it is imperative to press for the truth in these episodes to uphold our world order.

1...232425...135Page 24 of 135

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