Support Us

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

Writers Pool
About Us

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Home Blog Page 27

The Moral Imperative Of The Collective West And The Ukraine War

By
Professor Alexander Kostyuk
-
0
Bucha Ukraine

Since 2014, Ukraine has been knocking on the doors of the EU, and NATO too, quite persistently. Membership in these organizations is not only a matter of economic development, but also of national security. So far, there has been little progress, although the West says that Ukraine will eventually become a member of these organizations. The only question is when this will happen and what price Ukraine will have to pay.

It is probably worth going back to the early 1990s and the main episode after the collapse of the USSR in the post-Soviet space – Ukraine’s giving up its security tool, the nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in exchange for integration with the West – this is what the US offered to Ukraine looked like in the early 1990s:

“Finally, Ukraine cannot exercise the nuclear option without damaging its relations with the United States and other Western states, all of whom are steadfastly opposed to nuclear proliferation. Although Western states, without exception, want good relations with Ukraine, most will make nuclear Ukraine pay a price, if only to discourage other potential proliferators. Further, at least in the United States, Congress is so strongly opposed to nuclear proliferation that the Clinton administration would probably be unable to avoid imposing sanctions even if it wanted.”

Nuclear weapons in exchange for integration with the West – this is what the US offered to Ukraine looked like in the early 1990s.

This is an article in Foreign Affairs dated June 1, 1993. In fact, this is Washington’s foreign policy line on Ukraine and nuclear weapons. It is a tough line, where coercion of Ukraine by the United States takes a leading place:

“For Ukraine, then, there will be a tension, if not a trade-off, between the nuclear option and its basic grand strategic impulse to integrate with the West.”

Thus, under pressure from the United States, Ukraine was forced to give up nuclear weapons, its instrument of nuclear deterrence. Ukraine made a choice, albeit a kind of pressure, in favor of a “great strategic impulse to integrate with the West” by giving up nuclear weapons.

A question is worth mentioning here: In the 30 years since Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons, has it integrated with the West? In what way? Has Ukraine become a member of the EU? No. Has Ukraine received an invitation from NATO to join the alliance? No. So what kind of integration was the West talking about back in 1993?

In general, did President Clinton at that time have any idea how and when this integration of Ukraine should take place? Is it really responsible for politicians of this level to let the issue of Ukraine’s integration languish for 30 years? Of course not. It is absolutely irresponsible.

It was then, in 1993, that the famous political scientist Mearsheimer predicted how this story of taking away Ukraine’s nuclear weapons would end – with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Probably, against the background of such irresponsibility, the so-called security instrument of Ukraine, the Budapest Memorandum, could have appeared in 1994. What did it guarantee Ukraine? Territorial integrity on the part of the guarantors?

It was then, in 1993, that the famous political scientist Mearsheimer predicted how this story of taking away Ukraine’s nuclear weapons would end – with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Peter Hilpold in his recent paper gave an excellent description of one of this historical episode: “To read today Professor Mearsheimer’s analysis of ‘The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent,’ published nearly 30 years ago, might leave a somewhat ghastly impression: How is it possible that a political analyst, shortly after Ukraine had become independent, developed such an accurate prediction of the events that would unfold, slowly but inevitably, in the following decades? A development that would end up in the disastrous Russian aggression against Ukraine? At the center of Professor Mearsheimer’s prophecy stood the prescience that abandoning her nuclear deterrent capacity would expose Ukraine, sooner or later, to an invasion by her ancient nemesis Russia.”

In other words, the West has actually failed to fulfill two of its promises to Ukraine. The first was to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the second was to integrate Ukraine into Western structures – the EU and NATO. At the same time, in the early 1990s, having stated that Ukraine should be happy doing so, below is a phrase from the last paragraph of that article in Foreign Affairs:

“Fortunately, Ukraine has already opted for the nonnuclear path. This choice enables Kyiv to avoid the great costs and risks of nuclear acquisition”.

“Yes, there are three of these red lines. The first is Georgia. The second is Kosovo, and the third is Ukraine, and the latter is the biggest of the red lines.”

It’s also worth mentioning an article by Steven Pifer written in 2011: “After the Trilateral Statement and Budapest Memorandum were signed, implementation proceeded relatively smoothly. By June 1, 1996, Ukraine had transferred the last of the nuclear warheads on its territory to Russia for elimination, and the last START I-accountable strategic nuclear delivery vehicle, an SS-24 missile silo, was eliminated in 2001. More broadly, Ukraine’s denuclearization opened the way to an expanded US-Ukrainian bilateral relationship. Among other things, by the end of the 1990s, Ukraine was among the top recipients in the world of US assistance. Denuclearization also removed what would have been a major impediment to Ukraine’s development of relations with Europe. In 1997, NATO and Ukraine agreed to a “distinctive partnership” and established the NATO-Ukraine Council.” Recently, we see that Ukraine’s denuclearization opened the way to the Russia invasion of Ukraine.

So, this war, the broken Ukraine, the crushed lives and destinies of people. Is this happiness that Ukraine received for giving up nuclear weapons in the 1990s? Hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed people, the country’s infrastructure shattered. Is this can be called a situation where Ukraine “avoided great costs and risks?”.

Here we should recall the largely crucial year of 2008, the NATO summit in Bucharest, and Russia’s infamous “red lines”.

“Does your country have any red lines that the West should not cross?” the ambassador asked the country’s leader. “Yes, there are three of these red lines. The first is Georgia. The second is Kosovo, and the third is Ukraine, and the latter is the biggest of the red lines.”

This conversation took place in 2008 between US Ambassador to Russia William Burns and Putin. It was during this conversation that the importance of Russia’s red lines in its relations with the West was first mentioned.

Washington, as the leader of NATO, is categorically against inviting Ukraine, because it could draw the alliance into a war with Russia.

William Burns described this conversation with Putin in detail in his memoir The Back Channel, conveying word for word the content of that conversation and his own feelings. A year later, in 2009, the next US president, Obama, introduced a new strategy in US relations with Russia, calling it “Reset”, which exhausted itself in 2012, after Putin replaced Medvedev as president of Russia.

But on February 8, 2008, two months before the infamous NATO summit in Bucharest, where Ukraine’s MAP was not approved, Burns wrote a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, noting that the approval of Ukraine’s MAP in April would provoke Russia to take drastic steps. Literally, Burns said that “Russia will invade Crimea and Southeastern Ukraine.”

This is ironic: Ukraine did not receive the MAP from NATO back in 2008, but Russia invaded both Crimea and Donbas in 2014 anyway. Obviously, this was a strategic mistake by NATO, and President Bush Jr’s MAP initiative for Ukraine collapsed under pressure from Germany and France.

After that, the next US president, Democrat Obama, starting in 2009, should have at least motivated Brussels to make a political decision on accelerating Ukraine’s accession to the EU, which would have improved Ukraine’s institutional stability and increased the country’s defense capabilities. But Obama did not do even that. He was completely absorbed in the topic of the new strategy of relations with Russia – Reset, completely forgetting about Ukraine.

Back in 2016, Obama explained to The Atlantic why the United States had not responded more assertively to the Russian annexation of Crimea two years earlier. He said that Ukraine was more important to Russia than it was to the United States, that Washington had no treaty obligation toward Kyiv, and that Ukraine was Russia’s neighbor but was far from the United States. These realities invariably limited the options available to Washington. It is an irony to hear such a statement of regret from Biden who was Vice-President to President Obama and who could influence the foreign policy in more appropriate direction during eight years.

Now, during a full-scale war in Ukraine, Washington, as the leader of NATO, is categorically against inviting Ukraine, because it could draw the alliance into a war with Russia. Washington defines this argument as categorical. At the same time, a fair question arises: Why isn’t Ukraine in the EU yet? It is not a military-political bloc, and member states will not be involved in a war in Ukraine. It is a matter of following the EU’s moral imperative. The longer it takes for Ukraine to join the EU, the faster you devalue the moral imperative of the collective West.

George Kennan and George Shultz, two titans of geopolitics, compared diplomats to gardeners who diligently tend to the “plants” – partners and opportunities – and are constantly busy pruning, weeding and replanting the “trees” – problems. Obviously, the “great geopolitical garden” is now in a very poor state, and the West’s unsuccessful, haphazard diplomacy is one of the reasons why. A case of Ukraine’s security in long-run is an exam the West cannot pass.

Nuclear Weapons: India Is Increasing Risk of New Arms Race

By
Dr. Zafar Khan
-
0
Indian Nuclear

As part of its Nuclear Notebook, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists annually produces reports primarily describing the number of nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads, and the related delivery systems of all nine nuclear weapon states. More recently, it produced “Indian Nuclear Weapons, 2024” while describing the number of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, fissile materials production, nuclear warheads, and the related delivery systems.

India continues to ‘modernize its nuclear weapons arsenal and operationalize its nascent triad.

The report claims that although the Indian government “does not publish numbers about the size of its nuclear weapon stockpile”, through different reliable sources India continues to “modernize its nuclear weapons arsenal and operationalize its nascent triad.”

The report estimates that New Delhi currently has “eight different nuclear-capable systems: two aircrafts, five land-based ballistic missiles, and one sea-based ballistic missile.” It is reported that India has been working on five more delivery systems, on which the report remains substantially silent.

This report mentions that India has an estimated 172 nuclear weapons, which may be delivered through air, land, and sea-based delivery systems. At the same time, multiple nuclear power plants in India do not fall under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) where the South Asian country can produce lots of fissile materials, including the fast breeder nuclear plants for producing a huge quantity of plutonium.

India has “eight different nuclear-capable systems: two aircrafts, five land-based ballistic missiles, and one sea-based ballistic missile.”

It fails to mention that 1) India has been working on the project to test a thermonuclear weapon (the H-bomb), 2) Brahmos, a joint Russia-India supersonic missile project where India is now trying to turn this into hypersonic missile capability for enhancing its offensive capability, 3) Prahaar, a tactical nuclear weapon that India tested even before Pakistan tested Nasr, 4) the Cold Start Doctrine to wage a limited war against Pakistan with integrated battle groups, 5) aircraft carriers, 6) Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems that India may use as a shield to strike first, 7) S-400 sophisticated air-defense system affecting the policies of India’s military and nuclear strategies, and more importantly 8) its increasing strategic partnerships with Russia, France, Israel, and the US while supplying lots of new technologies that India is integrating both in the conventional and nuclear domains.

The Nuclear Notebook describes India’s Agni series of ballistic missiles in not much detail. Rather, it transcribes the Agni V as the “near intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a warhead to a distance of less than 6,000 kilometers.” To that end, it shies away from calling Agni V and/ or Agni VI ICBMs covering most parts of Europe, the American continent, and the Middle Eastern region including Israel.

Such missiles can be turned in any direction at any time since international relations dictum teaches us that there is no permanent friend and no permanent enemy in the international system. It is only the vital national security interest that matters for a state.

The report estimates that India currently has 172 nuclear weapons.

Therefore, India will not only continue to modernize its delivery systems and increase its warheads, but also increase the ranges of its missiles in land, air, and sea to help achieve sufficiency in its deterrent force capabilities.

All that being noted, this will greatly affect the nuclear policies of India. One, it will provide India the incentives for escalation dominance opting for a first-strike counterforce targeting, which will further impinge upon its so-called No-First Use (NFU) doctrinal posture. India will no longer follow the NFU option.

Pakistan never trusted India to practice this posture, and it appears to be correct. NFU is already affected by its 2003 Draft Nuclear Doctrine (DND) when it says that India can use nuclear weapons if its forces are attacked anywhere.

Two, with such juggernaut deterrent force development under the auspices of Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), India is getting away from minimum deterrence it earlier conceptualized. Although the minimum may never be quantified, India falls into a new commitment trap, that is, what is minimum against China cannot be minimum against Pakistan.

India’s Agni V is described as a ‘near intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a warhead to a distance of less than 6,000 kilometers.

With such deterrent force development for offensive purposes and an aggressive policy for escalation dominance, India is increasing the risk of escalation, crisis instability, and a new arms race in South Asia. This in turn is affecting the broader strategic stability of the region. The risk of escalation gets even more serious when India and Pakistan have many unresolved outstanding issues including the issue of Kashmir.

Most of the CBMs are at a standstill position. The rivals are not talking to each other. The mistrust continues to prevail. There is little chance for the South Asian rivals to institutionalize the risk reduction mechanism.

The Nuclear Notebook while mentioning the nuclear forces reflects that India will continue to modernize its deterrence forces and modify deterrence force posturing in accordance with its choosing and calculations.

This will only spiral the risks of more military crises between the two rivals. Resultantly, Pakistan may continue to produce effective countermeasures as part of its competing strategy to deter Indian conventional and nuclear strikes.

Hasina Is Toast, But Will There Be An Election in Bangladesh?

By
Saleem Samad
-
0
Sheikh Hasina

Chief Adviser to the Interim Government Dr Muhammad Yunus parried a question by the German news organization Deutsche Welle (DW) recently to mention specific timeframe for holding elections.

In a much-awaited address to the nation in the second week of September, coinciding with 30 days of the interim government (Sheikh Hasina fled the country on August 5), Yunus, delivered a timely, thoughtful, and comprehensive message to the people of Bangladesh.

Political observers believe that the fresh elections would only be held after the planned series of reforms are carried out. It means forget about the elections for a year or two.

The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize laureate said the interim government advisers would hold dialogue with political parties to determine how to make decisions regarding holding elections.

“We are committed to formulating an outline of a democratic Bangladesh for our children so that we don’t fall into the hands of any dictatorship and we can say we live in a democratic country…so that we all can claim that this country is ours – we’re working towards this goal,” he remarked.

He emphasized the need to implement various reforms to institutionalize democracy in the country, attending to the most pressing demands of our people.

Reforms are necessary to stop centralized power constitutionally, which will prevent creation of a Frankenstein or another elected dictator.

All the constitutional and democratic institutions have collapsed during the 16 years of autocratic regime. The judiciary, bureaucracy, law enforcement agencies, Election Commission, parliament, education, media, local governments, decentralization, good governance, capacity building and other institutions – the pillars of democracy – crumbled in this period.

“However, we would like to remind the interim government that it has not one but two urgent tasks at hand. The first is to administer the country in these turbulent times and, simultaneously, to pursue reforms — both of which form a mammoth task,” says the editorial of The Daily Star, an independent newspaper.

Also read: Muhammad Yunus Has Read The Writing On The Wall

Yunus said holding elections was a political decision and that he would leave it up to the people. “Here, we would like to commend him for reminding the nation where the power truly lies – with the people,” says the paper.

Yunus assured that a free, fair and participatory election would be held after necessary reforms were completed in the administration, judiciary, Election Commission, law and order, and information systems to ensure the success of the student uprising.

Yunus, who took oath on August 8, said the timing of the elections was a political decision that must be determined through political discussions.

The number of reforms needed may seem endless. However, pursuing all of them sounds neither realistic nor achievable in the short to medium term.

Moreover, the chief adviser added that the Election Commission would be reformed as part of the government’s broader reforms.

He also expressed a desire to involve all stakeholders in discussions about the interim government’s tenure. But he did not make it clear how that could be achieved.

“Here, we believe the interim government needs to form a comprehensive framework for communicating with all stakeholders in society,” says the editorial of an influential newspaper the Daily Star.

Given the present state of the nation, the number of reforms needed may seem endless. However, pursuing all of them sounds neither realistic nor achievable in the short to medium term.

The interim government has decided to form six commissions to reform the judiciary, election system, administration, police, Anti-Corruption Commission, and the constitution.

The reforms aim to have a state system based on public ownership, accountability, and welfare, observed Yunus.

It has become essential to carry out some national reforms to prevent the re-emergence of fascistic or authoritarian rule in Bangladesh. At the core of these reforms is the establishment of a fair electoral system and good governance, said the Nobel laureate.

Nevertheless, the chief adviser mentioned that his administration has planned wide-ranging reforms that resonate with the demands of the student-led mass upsurge – the Monsoon Revolution that brought down the autocratic government of Sheikh Hasina on August 5.

The inventor of microcredit and empowering millions of disadvantaged rural women, Yunus has also called for comprehensive reforms in education, the empowerment of local government bodies, and many other initiatives including taking action to ensure press freedom and freedom of expression.

The Bangladesh constitution was authored by reputed jurist Dr Kamal Hossain, who was also the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs. He is regarded as an icon of secular democracy in South Asia.

After 52 years, the interim government announced to amend the constitution, while civil society, academicians and concerned of the citizenry are demanding to rewrite the constitution to break free from the cycle of centralized power and its misuse.

Distinguished professor of politics and government at Illinois State University, Ali Riaz, has said the constitution needs to be rewritten even through a constituent assembly if the democratic institutions are to be fixed.

He recently remarked, “We are talking about rewriting the constitution as there is no scope for amending the constitution. The possibility of amendment of the constitution is limited as one-third of the constitution is written in such a way that there is no room to change that. There are such matters here, you can do nothing if those are removed. As a result, the word ‘rewriting’ is being discussed. I am talking about the constituent assembly as a way of rewriting.”

“We are talking about the rewriting of the constitution as there is no scope for amending the constitution.”

A rewritten or new constitution will not allow the same person to become the party chief, leader in the parliament and prime minister. This was the case of the two Begums – Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia.

The reforms are essential to prevent a return to a police state and a one-party rule, which would be a devastating outcome given the terrible suppression that people have endured for 15 years and the sacrifices made by so many to end fascistic rule.

At the same time, reforms are necessary to stop centralized power constitutionally, which will prevent creation of a Frankenstein or another elected dictator.

The people of Bangladesh eagerly await to see how institutional reforms can be safeguarded and how civil rights for the citizens can be protected from such egregious crimes in the future.

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

By
Info Desk
-
0
Radio Pakistan Peshawar

ISLAMABAD – New evidence has emerged about a centralized PTI social media team, as the messages exchanged between Raoof Hasan and Jibran Ilyas reveal an organized effort to target the state functionaries and institutions.

Raoof was the former PTI information secretary while Jibran operates the party media cell from the United States, as they have been trying to divert the blame to others to escape the justice in the cases related to May 9.

The army has already started military trial of former ISI chief Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed over violating the Army Act, while there are clear signs that the incarcerated PTI founding chairman, Imran Khan, may also be involved in the episode.

Ironically, Raoof has claimed on multiple occasions, including during TV talk shows, that neither he nor the PTI has anything to do with the overseas media cell, which has been spreading disinformation through lies and twisted facts. The sole objective is to discredit the state institutions and the people trying to act as a bulwark against the PTI’s fascist agenda.

MERCENARIES, NOT VOLUNTEERS

The close collaboration means that those within Pakistan are directly linked to the execution of these heinous designs through the PTI social media team. In fact, it leads to the conclusion that Imran is heading the entire operations.

In case anyone disagrees with this statement must recall Imran’s refusal to cooperate with the FIA officials who visited the Adiala jail to interview him over a recent post by his X account.

Through this statement, Imran had once again asked to come to the streets and levelled baseless allegations against Chief of Army Staff Gen Asim Munir and Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, thus inciting violence to repeat the May 9 events.

Meanwhile, it is not first such post, as Imran’s X account has become one of the main weapons to create anarchy in the country.

At the same time, this Raoof-Jibran nexus shows that targeting the Pakistani state is lucrative business that the PTI social media head demanded payment of salaries for those operating the social media. It is a proof that they are mercenaries, not volunteers.

This leaves us with the question: who is funding the PTI social media.

GOEBBELS OF PAKISTAN

Role of media in the organizational structure of any far right or fascist organization in the world has always been of prime importance. They always make controlling media and thus the narrative. The PTI isn’t an exception.

The messages exchanged between Raoof and Jibran not only show close coordination but also the party’s internal working.

Hence, Jibran gave special instructions to Raoof on the completion of one year since the May 9 violence for spreading the party propaganda, sources say. In this connection, he also sent social media hashtags and videos to the PTI’s ex-information secretary from December 2023 to May 2024.

So, Jibran shared the screenshots of the remarks passed by Chief Justice Isa and Justice Athar Minallah, about the May 9 events as well as one about Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in which he talked espionage. It is the best example of presenting half-truth to further their agenda through lies and deceit as part of the ongoing disinformation campaign.

The sources also highlighted one of the social media trends [hashtags] which claimed that the May 9 was a “false-flag operation”.

“We have developed a Google drive where all the data about the false-flag operations is saved, which can be used,” said Jibran in a message, as he called for promoting the hashtag.

On May 7, the PTI social team lead person told the former information secretary, “Everyone has done an excellent job during the past seven days. It seems that our May 9 false-flag operation campaign has been very effective.”

PAID ANTI-STATE PROPAGANDA

On May 14, Jibran asked Raoof, “Can you help in releasing the salaries of social media [members]? They feel insulted whenever their pays are withheld.”

It is yet another proof that the hateful propaganda is actually an organized scheme and the entire narrative revolves around the violent actions taken on May 9.

Many experts believe that the Zionist and Indian lobbies are behind this exercise and that Jibran has been managing the affairs to execute their agenda, which is evident in the pro-Imran reports published in Israeli media.

That’s why both Jibran and Raoof have been involved in making controversial the facts related to the May 9 events.

Hence, they even used the Supreme Court justice’ remarks passed during the hearings of political cases to their advantage.

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

By
Sudheendra Kulkarni
-
0
Narendra Modi

The more things change, the more they remain the same. This, sadly, is the apt description of the relations between India and Pakistan.

What changed in 2017, with a flicker of hope, is that both India and Pakistan simultaneously became full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), one of the most important multilateral forums in Asia. This made many observers think that participation in SCO summits, at least, might nudge the leaders of the two countries to begin a normal dialogue.

The hope has been belied. Next month (October 15-16) Pakistan, after having taken up the rotating chairmanship of the SCO Council of Heads of Government (CHG), will be hosting the in-person summit in Islamabad. Naturally, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been invited. But he is unlikely to attend. He will most probably participate via video link, or send a representative.

Modi’s refusal to visit Pakistan to participate in the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation has made SAARC dysfunctional. SAARC had its last summit in Kathmandu in 2014. (The host of the next summit was going to be Pakistan.)

The failure of SAARC has increased the responsibility of SCO. The reality is that India-Pakistan hostility has not similarly crippled SCO. It cannot, because the dynamics of SCO are different from those of SAARC. SCO’s founding members ─ China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan ─ are in effective control of that organization. (Iran joined SCO later in 2023 and Belarus in 2024.) Therefore, Indo-Pak hostility cannot hold SCO hostage.

The history of SCO summits since India and Pakistan became its full members shows that our two countries have not made any use of it for bilateral talks. Modi and Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif participated in the SCO summit in Astana in 2017, but had no bilateral meeting. In 2018, Pakistan’s then President Mamnoon Hussain participated in the 18th SCO summit in Qingdao, but held no talks with Modi. In Bishkek in 2019, Modi and Imran Khan exchanged pleasantries in the Leaders’ Lounge, but that was all. Samarkand in 2022 also proved to be unproductive in this respect because there was no meeting between Shehbaz Sharif and Modi. India was the host nation for the summit in 2023, but Modi chose to hold it online, and Shehbaz Sharif spoke via video-link.

HOW DID WE LOSE THE UFA SPIRIT?

Interestingly, before India and Pakistan became full members of SCO and were participating in its summits as observers, there was one occasion that produced a substantive outcome through a face-to-face prime ministerial meeting. Not only did Modi and Nawaz Sharif have a bilateral meeting on the side lines of the SCO summit in Ufa (Russia) on July 10, 2015, but the two sides also issued a highly optimistic joint statement. It said:

“The meeting was held in a cordial atmosphere. The two leaders exchanged views on issues of bilateral and regional interest. They agreed that India and Pakistan have a collective responsibility to ensure peace and promote development. To do so, they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues.

Both leaders condemned terrorism in all its forms and agreed to cooperate with each other to eliminate this menace from South Asia.

They also agreed on the following steps to be taken by the two sides:

  1. A meeting in New Delhi between the two NSAs to discuss all issues connected to terrorism.
  2. Early meetings of DG BSF and DG Pakistan Rangers followed by that of DGMOs.
  3. Decision for release of fishermen in each other’s custody, along with their boats, within a period of 15 days.
  4. Mechanism for facilitating religious tourism.
  5. Both sides agreed to discuss ways and means to expedite the Mumbai case trial, including additional information like providing voice samples.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reiterated his invitation to Prime Minister Modi to visit Pakistan for the SAARC Summit in 2016. Prime Minister Modi accepted the invitation.”

Read this joint statement again. How different India-Pakistan relations would have been if the two sides had remained faithful to the commitments made in it ─ mutual cooperation “to eliminate the menace of terrorism from South Asia”; “facilitate religious tourism”; “expedite the trial” into the 2008 terror attack on Mumbai; and Modi’s acceptance of the invitation to participate in the SAARC Summit in Pakistan in 2016.

TIME FOR THE PEOPLE OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN TO SPEAK UP

This author has always believed that nations are bigger than their governments, and that the aspirations of the people are more important than the positions taken by their presidents, prime ministers and diplomats. The aspirations of the people of India, Pakistan, China ─ and, indeed, of all the countries in the region and beyond ─ seek peace, cooperation, friendship and collective progress. Therefore, regardless of the games politicians and diplomats play driven by their narrow understanding of national interests (in which narrower personal interests also often play a key role), it is important for intellectuals and experts to speak the truth.

The fundamental truth, as far as India and Pakistan are concerned, is that our two countries must not remain stuck inside the toxic circle of hostilities. Instead, we should neutralize this circle by drawing a larger circle of mutually beneficial and trust-promoting cooperation. Obviously, cooperation is only possible through dialogue. SCO, like SAARC, is a useful multilateral platform to initiate such dialogue.

SCO COOPERATION BRINGS MANY BENEFITS

The SCO’s very first goal, as enshrined in Article 1 of its Charter, is to “strengthen mutual trust, friendship and good-neighborliness between the member States”. India-Pakistan dialogue within the SCO framework can bring positive gains for our two countries ─ and also for the region as a whole ─ in several ways.

It will help New Delhi and Islamabad narrow their differences on Afghanistan. This will contribute to peace, normalcy, national reconciliation and reconstruction of a country whose people have suffered for so long due to external wars and internal strife.

Constructive engagement in SCO will promote connectivity between India and Pakistan. Here, it is instructive to recall what Modi himself had said at the SCO summit in Qingdao in 2018. “We have again reached a stage where physical and digital connectivity is changing the definition of geography. Therefore, connectivity with our neighborhood and in the SCO region is our priority.”

Modern physical, digital and energy connectivity will boost trade connectivity, business linkages, cultural exchanges and people-to-people contacts. Instead of divisive geo-politics monopolizing the Indo-Pak discourse, geo-economic, geo-cultural and geo-civilizational factors will take the center-stage. This enhances mutual security and builds mutual trust, which in turn can help our two countries find a peaceful and permanent solution even to the vexed Kashmir issue.

Therefore, the people of India and Pakistan must exert pressure on our leaderships to resume bilateral dialogue at the highest levels, both within and outside the SCO ambit, at the earliest.

IF INDIA AND CHINA CAN TALK, WHY NOT INDIA AND PAKISTAN?

India-China relations, too, are seriously strained. Nevertheless, signs of improvement are now clearly visible.

There is some cautious optimism that Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping may have a bilateral meeting when they attend the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, next month (October 22-24).

After prolonged talks at the military and diplomatic levels, the friction created by the military stand-off at Galvan Valley in June 2020 has been substantially resolved and troop disengagement at contentious points in eastern Ladakh has made considerable progress. The people of both India and China will greatly benefit if Modi-Xi meeting in Russia leads to reopening the closed doors of economic and other doors of cooperation as well as people-to-people contacts.

Why shouldn’t the leaders of India and Pakistan attempt the same by revisiting and reviving the commitments made at the meeting between Modi and Nawaz Sharif at the SCO summit in Ufa in 2015?

Sadly, the SCO summit in Islamabad next month will, in all likelihood, take place without India and Pakistan talking. Neither side appears keen to understand the other’s concerns and perspectives, and walk half the distance to meet the other. We do not know how long this logjam will continue. However, it is instructive to end this article with quote from a statesman-like speech by General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Pakistan’s former Chief of Army Staff, on 18 March 2021. He stated:

“It is time to bury the past and move forward…It is naive to apply the failed solutions of yesteryears to the challenges of today and tomorrow. [The choice between countries in the region is] whether to stay etched in the acrimony and toxicity of the past, continue promoting conflict and get into another vicious cycle of war, disease and destruction; or to move ahead, bring the dividends of our technological and scientific advancements to our people and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.”

Afghanistan: UN At A Crossroads

By
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Munir
-
0
Taliban

The third anniversary of Taliban control in Afghanistan reminds us that there is little prospect for circumstances on the ground changing anytime soon, especially the cruel treatment of women and minority members of the nation. While it carried out some of the greatest atrocities in memory, the former Taliban government in the late 1990s stayed in power. This was despite sanctions imposed internationally.

Eventually, it was pushed from power in a US-led military assault connected back to the Afghan territory used by Osama bin Laden to organize the disaster after the daring 9/11 attacks on New York and other locations. Supported by an international coalition, it was a component of a larger “war on terror,” aimed at changing Afghanistan’s government.

The patterns of the last three years have some similarities to those of the previous Taliban government in the 1990s.

More than out of concern for the awful suffering of the Afghan people, the post-9/11 military drive was a reaction to America’s targeting by the Afghanistan-based al Qaeda. If the past Taliban leaders had refused bin Laden room on their territory and not hosted worldwide terrorist networks on their territory, then the prior their rule would have presumably persisted uninterrupted.

The patterns of the last three years have some similarities to those of the previous Taliban government in the 1990s. The reclusive Taliban commander Mohammed Omar issued directives back then prohibiting women from working under circumstances comparable to Afghanistan now. According to reports from 1990s Kabul, poor widows and unmarried women were allegedly compelled to wed Taliban militants as the hard-liners were knocking on their homes to probe their moral dedication. The effects were horrible. Many women gave birth without professional supervision, frequently at the hands of hardly literate women from their families; hospitals were left without female physicians and nurses. Family members standing close may plainly hear the cries of delivery moms.

Poor widows and unmarried women were allegedly compelled to wed Taliban militants as the hard-liners were knocking on their homes to probe their moral dedication.

Unless their families could afford to bring them over the border to hospitals in Pakistan or Iran, babies requiring caesarean sections were regarded as dead before their birth. After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the 1990s’ intolerable circumstances reflected a protracted struggle. Seeking to mend the “bleeding wound” of Afghanistan, late Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev publicly declared the end of the war in 1989. Sadly, however, the wound still blebs now. Before the Taliban came, the 1990s saw periodic shifting of power from one warlord to another. And the next two-decade American-led assault cost more than $2 trillion, making it the costliest war waged in history. But the hurried 2021 US departure, similar of Washington’s 1973 departure from Vietnam, created a power vacuum the Taliban once again seized.

Under Taliban control, the US and other Western nations made the horrible error of implementing sanctions that virtually stopped all economic flows into Afghanistan.

Under Taliban control, the US and other Western nations made the horrible error of implementing sanctions that virtually stopped all economic flows into Afghanistan, including a significant portion of the humanitarian aid scheduled to be sent there. Remember two equally important lessons from the past as Afghanistan suffers diplomatic isolation now.

First, mindlessly applied economic restrictions run the danger of harming those who external forces are meant to safeguard. Furthermore, penalties again and again have shown to be only semi-useful in aiming the forces supposed to be punished in the first place. To do a cost-benefit study of incidents of sanctions during the 20th century, a thorough worldwide evaluation is absolutely required. Many times, the outcome has been more a further hardening of the behavior of targeted forces rather than a pushing towards more compliance.

Second, employing the bait of economic instruments while enforcing strict policies of control is equally risky. Once the Taliban was driven to the brink, bin Laden and his al Qaeda network became to be the main financial supporters of the government in the 1990s. Information of yearly donations of $100 million or more from bin Laden to keep the Taliban viable then spread around the circles of Afghan warlords.

Although the Taliban have acted with the sharpest contempt for human dignity over the last three years, punishment imposed upon Afghanistan must guarantee the security of common people. It is imperative that a new worldwide humanitarian project led directly by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres give financial assistance for the Afghan people.

It is imperative that a new worldwide humanitarian project led directly by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres give financial assistance for the Afghan people.

Now, Afghanistan’s often devastated infrastructure’s rebirth to provide economic possibilities for its people — especially women — must assume much more importance. A good lesson from the 1990s amply illustrates the pressing requirement of stopping Afghanistan’s leaders from ever depending on another nonstate player with harmful intentions. More crucially, however, the empowerment of the Afghan people while the nation is still under diplomatic isolation might ultimately assist to propel the well-meaning aspirations of many both within and outside Afghanistan.

Beginning a high-profile conversation with the Taliban, a new UN-led humanitarian operation might convince them to embrace objectives that are well within their strict worldview. One approach to provide technical training while following the established government guidelines is education of women at home utilizing social media platforms. Another may be building institutes to assist young women operated entirely by already competent Afghan women.

Likewise, important areas worth investigating may be crucial services like food distribution centers geared only for women and hospitals manned by women. The Taliban leaders of Afghanistan today are unlikely to show a behavioral modification anytime soon. Still, the reason of helping the Afghan people ought to be given top priority.

Constitutional Amendments: Voters Will Now Elect Mexico Judges

By
Info Desk
-
0
Lopez Obrador

MEXICO CITY – Mexico has introduced a new system that will totally transform the country’s judiciary, as the judges are going to be elected through popular vote.

In this connection, outgoing President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador signed a decree which was followed by publication of constitutional changes in the government gazette on Sunday, meaning that the judicial reforms have officially taken effect.

The latest development is major victory of Obrador who would be replaced by President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum on Oct 1.

Meanwhile, the Mexican voters will elect the federal judges, including that of the Supreme Court, in June next year.

THE PROCESS

On Wednesday, the Senate had approved the sweeping judicial reforms by 86 to 41 votes, which removed the last hurdle in executing the plan championed by Obrador.

The approval followed a tense final legislative debate and high political drama as the ruling coalition began Tuesday one seat short of the supermajority needed to write the reform into the constitution.

But an opposition lawmaker broke party ranks to vote in favor of the bill, while another was absent amid allegations that he had been detained to stop him from voting.

Earlier, the legislation had sailed through the Lower House with a majority of 359 against 135, after over 12 hours of debate, as the ruling Morena party and its allies managed to secure the required numbers.

Besides, electing judges being elected through ballot, the constitutional amendments also mean the number of Mexico’s Supreme Court judges has been reduced to nine from 11, their terms to 12 years and the required work experience by half.

Changing Security Dynamics of Middle East and Pakistan

By
Dr. Nazir Hussain
-
0
Middle East

The Middle East has great historical importance and religious reverence for all Abrahamic followers; however, the region has not seen a lasting peace in the last century. Due to its immense strategic importance in military, economic, and political spheres, it has become the geopolitical pivot of the world. Its regional security dynamics make a significant impact on all great and regional powers. Pakistan due to its heavy reliance on energy resources, foreign remittances, and financial support from the Arab Gulf States, is always dependent on the Middle East.

Pakistan has a sentimental affiliation with the Palestinian cause, rooted in its anti-colonial struggle.

Likewise, given Pakistan’s military prowess and unprecedented support in the socioeconomic development of the region, the Arab States are equally dependent on Pakistan. Thus, close geopolitical proximity and mutual interdependence always keep Pakistan involved in the regional security dynamics.

In the wake of the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, heightened tension between Iran and Israel, and prospects of a wider regional war, Pakistan is strategically poised to be affected by the changing security dynamics of the Middle East. Therefore, this essay highlights the contemporary security environment of the Middle East with future trends and the involvement of Pakistan.

GEO-POLITICS SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MIDDLE EAST

Middle East is a geo-politically unique region that has three sub-regions; each having its own internal security complex and affecting and being affected by the wider regional security environment. The Persian/Arab Gulf region consists of the GCC States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE), Iraq and Iran. Security issues dominating in this sub-region are, energy politics, competition/rivalry between Iran and the Arabs, and among the Arabs, besides heavy military/naval presence of the United States.

The other sub-region is the Levant/Fertile Crescent having Palestine/Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. This area is dominated by the Palestine issue, Arab-Israel conflicts, and proxy wars. The third sub-region is Maghrib/North Africa having Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya. This region is embroiled in its security issues mainly the Darfur conflict, dispute over western Sahara, and the Libyan civil war.

The Saudi-Iran rivalry has long shaped Pakistan’s geopolitical balancing act due to its economic and geographical realities.

As the global power rivalry has shifted from Europe to Asia, particularly in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, the Middle East has become the global geopolitical pivot. It has immense energy resources and strategic choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb, 80% of the global trade passes through the Middle Eastern Sea Line of Communications (SLOCs).

The Arab-Israel wars (1948, 1956, 1973), Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), Kuwait Crisis (1990-91), Iraqi Invasion (2003), and internal wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen have made the Middle East as one of the most militarized regions with ever-increasing conflicts. The October 2003 Hams-Israel war, the Israeli genocide in Gaza, the heightened tension between Israel and Iran, and prospects of a wider regional war are worrisome security issues detrimental to regional peace and stability, and their wider implications to other areas/states, especially Pakistan.

MIDDLE EAST SECURITY AND PAKISTAN

Pakistan has remained involved in the Middle Eastern security dynamics due to geographical proximity, historical bonds, religious commonality, politico-military cooperation, socioeconomic dependence, and energy requirements.

From political issues to financial dependence, Pakistan has always looked towards the region and vice versa. Following are some of the crucial political and security issues that affect Pakistan.

The Palestine Issue

This is the core problem that started as a Palestine-Jewish issue but expanded into an Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of a Jewish state (1894), the Balfour Declaration (1917), the British Mandate (1916-1948), Jewish migration (1917-1948), and the neo-colonist approach of the Zionists made the Palestinians homeless in their homeland.

For the last one hundred years, Palestinians have been suffering at the hands of Zionist zealots the latest being the Palestinian genocide since October 2023. Israeli continued occupation of Arab lands, refusal to accept the ‘two state’ solution, and ignoring the global outcry of the public against the Palestinian massacre, are further fueling the fire.

Pakistan has a sentimental affiliation with the Palestinian cause, as the Muslims of the Subcontinent struggled and sacrificed for their independent homeland from the imperial British occupation. The Muslim leaders, especially Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were very supportive of the Palestine issue. His statements through the All-India Muslim League manifest the political support of the Indian Muslims towards the Palestinian struggle.

The Middle East remains a geopolitical pivot, influencing global military, political, and economic systems.

Subsequently, all successive governments in Pakistan have supported the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and its resolution through a ‘two state’ solution. Since October 2023, Pakistani people, government, and all other institutions have vehemently voiced the Palestinian cause, as the parliament passed unanimous resolutions showing its unflinching support for Palestine.

In 2024, Pakistan forcefully fought the case of Palestine in the United Nations Security Council, which was appreciated by Palestine and the Arab States. Pakistan wants an early end to the issue culminating in an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

Regional Wars  

Pakistan has been an important Muslim state and the Arabs always looked to it for military cooperation and support. From limited participation to military cooperation and strict neutrality, Pakistan remained involved in the regional wars. Pakistan got involved in a limited manner during the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars. Since 1980, Pakistani troops are deployed in Saudi Arabia and it has military cooperation with many Arab States.

Pakistan also trained or raised the military and air force of many Arab States. It sent limited troops during the Kuwait Crisis (1990-91) as part of the International Coalition Force. However, Pakistan showed strict neutrality during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) but continued to provide food supplies and essential items to both sides. During the Yemen Civil War (2015), Pakistan was asked to provide military force but the Pakistani parliament refused to get involved in intra-Arab conflicts.

During the Iran-Israel military strikes (April 2024), Pakistan supported the Iranian right to defend its national security. Therefore, Pakistan aspires for the Middle East to be a conflict-free region that provides peace dividends to the adjoining regions/states, including Pakistan.

Saudi-Iran Rivalry 

The Arab-Persian rivalry has historical and religious roots that intensified during the Muslim rule in the Arab world; especially the battle of Qadisiya (636AD) between the Arabs and Persian Sasanian Empire. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Iran were part of the US ‘Twin Pillar’ policy in the Gulf region but since the Islamic Revolution (1979), the politico-ideological rivalry between the two has been rekindled.

The subsequent regional competition resulted in proxy wars in many states including Pakistan. The entire decades of the 1980s and 1990s saw Pakistan as a battleground of KSA-Iran rivalry, and the country suffered heavily in socio-political fragmentation and sectarian violence.

Pakistan has tried hard to balance its relations with the two regional rivals. Iran is a geopolitical compulsion having a long 909 kilometers common border with trade and supply of electricity; whereas, KSA is a geo-economic reality with around 4 million Pakistanis working in the Gulf region contributing much needed $10-12 billion remittances, besides oil supplies on deferred payments and loan guarantees.

Both KSA and Iran want to develop oil refineries in Balochistan with investments; Iran wants to enhance regional trade and connectivity and increase the electricity supply manifold. The Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline project that can meet 35% of Pakistan’s energy needs still hangs in balance. Therefore, the KSA-Iran rivalry has compromised many of Pakistan’s national security interests such as Afghanistan, counter-terrorism, internal security, and socio-economic development.

Importantly, the Saudi-Iran peace agreement brokered by China (2023) is a welcome development that can see lesser tension/competition and much-needed respite for regional peace and stability. Pakistan can also benefit from this peace agreement by safeguarding its national security interests without jeopardizing relations with KSA and Iran; however, Pakistan would remain vulnerable to the Saudi-Iran rivalry and competition in the Middle East and beyond.

Partners In Peace And Development

Pakistan using its diplomatic/political clout, has been instrumental in promoting regional peace and reconciliation among various Middle Eastern states. Pakistan was chosen to head the Ummah Peace Mission to end the war between Iran and Iraq; Pakistan hosted the extraordinary OIC Summit in Islamabad (1997) and helped ease tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan played a key role in rejuvenating the OIC after the 9/11 terrorist attacks being labeled as ‘Islamic Terrorism.’ Likewise, Pakistan played the initial part in rolling the Saudi-Iran Peace Agreement brokered by China. Pakistan supports all political and diplomatic efforts of the OIC and Arab League in promoting regional peace and stability. Pakistan’s election as the non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (2025-26) would provide further avenues to play its role as a partner in peace for the region.

Pakistan’s role in the socioeconomic development of the Gulf has cemented a deep interdependence.

Previously, Pakistan had played a key role in transforming the Arab Gulf States into an ultra-modern hub of socio-economic and financial activities. Since the oil boom of 1973-74 and petro-dollar savings, Pakistan devoted the entire 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to developing infrastructure, highways, aviation industry, transport system, banking, and education system of the entire Arab Gulf States to make it the ‘Jewel of the East.’

Conversely, Pakistan also benefited tremendously in the socio-economic uplift and emancipation of the masses. Therefore, Pakistan fully supports the Vision 2030 of Prince Mohammed bin Salman to transform Saudi Arabia into a modern, progressive, and vibrant state. His NEOM project to develop a modern and state-of-the-art city is an extraordinary visionary concept where every state is willing to get involved. Pakistan is also keen to utilize its technical/technological expertise and get mutual benefits from this massive project, and once again play its due role in the socio-economic development of the region.

FUTURE SECURITY TRENDS

Pakistan cannot divorce itself from the security dynamics of the region as these affect it directly in terms of heightened tension, disruption of oil supplies and well-being of Pakistani working in the Gulf region. Therefore, future regional security trends are detrimental to Pakistani security.

Pakistan wants an early end to the Israeli genocide in Gaza and supports every effort for a permanent ceasefire there. Being a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (2025-26), Pakistan would like to play its due role in brokering a lasting ceasefire and ultimately the resolution of the Palestinian issue into an independent and sovereign state.

However, two crucial security trends are paramount to regional peace and stability; 1) the possible Iranian retaliation of the assassination of Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, by Israel in Tehran; 2) the dangerous prospects of a regional war involving regional and extra-regional forces. There is a great danger of such an eventuality that would engulf the entire region and beyond.

The planning for the coordinated attack against Israel is already in the offing; the ‘Axis of Resistance’ comprised of Iran, Syria, Hamas, Houthis of Yemen, and Hezbollah of Lebanon are contemplating collaborated attacks. Importantly, the new hardline Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, has written a letter to the Hezbollah Chief, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, thanking and praising his group’s unflinching support in the conflict with Israel (Reuters, September 13, 2024).

A regional war in the Middle East could have devastating impacts on Pakistan’s already fragile economy.

A regional war in the Middle East would be a dreadful escalation, which would enflame the entire region. Already the war in Ukraine heightened tension in the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula, which is greatly affecting the global economy and trade. The transformation of global security/political/financial order are nightmare for the weak economies.

Therefore, for Pakistan, disruption of oil supplies and halting of trade would be a severe blow to its already fragile economy. Moreover, Pakistan may not remain aloof from a wider regional war, there would be intense pressure for its active/limited involvement that could be detrimental to its own national security.

On the other side, China has emerged as a new, reliable, and honest power broker in the Middle East; Pakistan being a close strategic partner of China can benefit from its regional involvement. The Saudi-Iran Peace Agreement (2023) and the Sino-Iran Trade Agreement (2020) of $400 billion provide bright chances for Pakistan in trade, investment, and regional connectivity.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the history of the Middle East, Pakistan has remained as an important player in the regional security dynamics either affecting or being affected. Regional peace and stability are of crucial importance for Pakistan’s security interests, and the ever-changing regional security dynamics of the Middle East are compulsively involving Pakistan to the detriment of its national security.

However, Pakistan cannot remain aloof/divorced from the Middle Eastern security issues; therefore, while being involved, Pakistan must safeguard its national security interests and harness the opportunities, and avoid unnecessary complicity.

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

By
Dr. Zukun Lyu
-
0
US China Trade War

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union ended, and ushered in a new era that came to be known as globalization. The world began to deepen its interdependence and appeared as one village. Thomas Friedman’s book ‘The World is Flat’ aptly described how every country was now connected with the other in multiple ways that were mutually beneficial. The United Nations began to weave together a global normative framework by organizing mega conferences on important subjects from rights of children and women to environmental protection and human settlements, followed by five-yearly and ten-yearly reviews.

Come 9/11, the day transnational terrorism struck the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the world woke up to a perverted side of globalization. The inter-connectedness had made it easy for the violent, extremist non-state actors to advance their destructive agenda across nations. As the world struggled to fight terrorism, the US first invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003 – the two wars that consumed the US firepower for nearly two decades. A process of regime changes in the Middle East, dubbed as the ‘Arab Spring’, was launched around 2011, which soon turned disastrous, often described as the ‘Arab Winter’.

In the third decade of the 21st century, the world appears deeply divided, miles away from the spirit of globalization that had enveloped it during the 1990s.

Meanwhile, multiple powers emerged on the global scene, particularly China, whose meteoric rise made it the manufacturing hub of the world. The US attention pivoted to Asia, essentially to push back a rising China. Sensing the loss of its unipolar moment, the United States chose to revise its national security strategy in December 2017, whereby the major power competition with China and Russia emerged as its top national security concern. Thus started the unravelling of globalization.

The US has since devised an Indo-Pacific strategy, and co-opted India, Japan, Australia and some of the East Asian nations to contain the further rise of China. India became a partner of choice for the US, which started investing in India’s economic and military prowess by signing a series of agreements, including transfer of technologies. The objective was to prepare India as a counter weight to China. A quadrilateral coordination group, called QUAD, was formed by the US, Japan, Australia and India to cooperate in the maritime space of Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Separately, the US formed an alliance called AUKUS with the United Kingdom and Australia, ostensibly to promote a free, open, secure, and stable Indo-Pacific region, and in turn to push back China.

For its part, China flexed its economic muscle and reached out to over 120 countries through its mega connectivity project, called Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China also established six economic corridors, two of which provided it an access to the Indian Ocean, one through Pakistan and the other through Myanmar. South China Sea, through which much of China’s trade passes, and Taiwan strait, where tensions have ratcheted up lately, have emerged as conflict-prone hot spots. China is also sensitive to West’s outreach to Taiwan, which it considers as a part of the mainland China in terms of its One-China policy. Some East Asian countries, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, have recently been agitating over territorial issues with China.

The Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia, are undergoing profound strategic, economic, and social transformation.

While the US-China competition is intensifying, several other theaters of global contestation have emerged. Russia, which had invaded Crimea and occupied it in 2014, has followed up by a second invasion of Ukraine in 2022, occupying its eastern part. The West’s support to Ukraine and economic sanctions on Russia, and the latter’s concerns about NATO coming to its borders, have created conditions for a devastating war in Europe. The Russia-Ukraine war has caused the energy and commodity prices to rise sharply. The war has also set a disturbing precedent of a bigger country invading its relatively smaller neighbor and occupying a part of it.

Another theater of global contestation is the Middle East, where Israel, provoked by Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, has unleashed untold brutalities on the helpless Palestinians living in Gaza. The US-led West continues to support Israel even though gross human rights violations are being committed by Israel against the people of Palestine. This has exposed the West for its double standards on universal human rights. Meanwhile, the Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia, are undergoing profound strategic, economic, and social transformation. These states are reducing their options on fossil fuel, diversifying their strategic options, and are increasingly looking towards Asia for economic and investment relations.

Most nations are resorting to regionalism in order to minimize their risks arising from the West’s policy of de-risking their economies from China’s economic outreach.

Given the global tensions and the attendant uncertainties, most countries are no longer relying on multilateralism under the UN framework, which has become a victim of unilateralism exercised by major powers with little regard for any mandate from the UN Security Council. Armed conflicts have erupted in various parts of the world. According to Stockholm based think tank (SIPRI), the number of states experiencing armed conflict has risen to 56. Consequently, multi-alignments are now being formed by states to protect their interests. Of particular significance is BRICS Plus, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which have been joined recently by Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Ethiopia.

The previously accepted global norms are also eroding. For instance, free international trade, which was achieved after decades of hard work, is under threat of tariff wars and trade protectionism. Migration, which was viewed as infusion of fresh blood into societies, is now being perceived as an economic or security threat. The forces of narrow nationalism are raising their head, giving rise to xenophobia and Islamophobia. Tech-wars are now afoot, seeking to deny each other the advantages of emerging technologies. All these trends have accentuated the unravelling of globalization.

In the third decade of the 21st century, the world appears deeply divided, miles away from the spirit of globalization that had enveloped it during the 1990s. A question then arises as to what would emerge in place of the rule-based international order that was created after the end of the Second World War? It is evident that the world is passing through a transition period of great uncertainty and tensions. The contours of the new world order have not yet emerged. Given that several new powers are asserting their presence on the world stage, a new balance of power will have to be evolved, which would then set new rules of the international order.

To choose one major power over the other is not a choice that countries like Pakistan can afford.

Meanwhile, most nations are resorting to regionalism in order to minimize their risks arising from the West’s policy of de-risking their economies from China’s economic outreach. South Asia is the only exception, being the least integrated region even though it, too, gets profoundly impacted by the US-China competition. There is a serious concern that the world might get divided into camps, reminiscent of the camp politics of the Cold War period. Although the leadership of both the US and China has assured the world that their competition would not veer towards conflict, the atmosphere of uncertainty continues to polarize the international community.

For most countries, geoeconomic disruptions are becoming a matter of growing concern. Chief amongst them is the politicized market access and technological bifurcation between the data bases hosted by the US and China. Another matter of grave concern is disruption of global supply chains. The West is keen to re-wire these supply chains away from China towards other emerging economies of the world, particularly India and South East Asian nations. Accelerated automation of industries is also a major challenge for populous countries like Pakistan, which has millions of untrained young people. The currency competition has also begun to challenge the dominance of US dollar though it will not be easy to replace the USD as the lynchpin of global economy. Another major challenge that the world will face is the constant build-up of arms and arms races by all major powers. The US military spending is larger than that of the next eight countries combined. China and India are playing catch up. Many of the disarmament agreements between the US and Russia are losing effectiveness.

Like any other country, Pakistan, too, is profoundly impacted by the unravelling of globalization, particularly the impact of competition between the US and China. For Pakistan, China has been a steady friend throughout the seven decades of their bilateral relationship. China has invested in Pakistan even when the country was in the throes of terrorism. China is also an important voice that supports Pakistan’s stance on international forums. The United States, too, has remained engaged with Pakistan for sustained periods, and is country’s large trading partner. Students of Pakistan are attracted to the US universities, the physicians to US healthcare industry, and IT experts to the Silicon Valley of the US. To choose one major power over the other is not a choice that countries like Pakistan can afford. The country is, thus, well advised to set its own political and economic house in order, encourage self-reliance, and then predicate its foreign relations with all major powers on its own national interests, including with the US and China. This balancing act may not be easy, given the increasing rivalry between the two, but this is the best option available to the country.

Weaker Currencies Mean Higher Fuel Prices Despite Cheaper Oil

By
Arsalan Raja
-
0
US Dollar

The Middle East tensions and the continued tensions between Russia and the West – due to the Ukraine war – haven’t jacked up the oil prices. Why? Because the post-Covid economic slowdown continues, which some believe could lead to recession.

In fact, there is a constant decline.

Persistent inflation and higher interest rates have reduced oil demand as an economy like China too is experiencing slower economic growth.

As the business week ended on Friday, Brent had closed at $71.61 per barrel and the US crude West Texas Intermediate (WTI) at $68.65.

The weekly loss for Brent stood at 0.49% while the correspondent monthly figures [last 30 days] show the prices dropping by 12.22%. Meanwhile, the Brent price is down 13.14% for the three-month period.

It is certainly a trend, further explained by a 5.12% decline since January 1 and a massive 17.04 drop over the past year.

Although, WTI gained 0.13% over the week, it has experienced a 12.56% monthly decline while being down 12.08% in three months. The drop in the WTI prices is 3.39% since Jan 1 and 16.18% over the past year.

COST OF DOING BUSINESS

A combination of Covid-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war triggered a global economic crisis by disrupting supply chains and raising prices of both raw materials and finished goods.

The rising prices not only hampered economic activity, but also started reducing consumers’ purchasing power – a vicious circle that affected the poor and developing nations most. However, even the developed economies couldn’t escape the effects.

It is the traditional approach of interest rate hikes that was employed by the central banks around the world to arrest the trend. Japan remained the only exception. Turkiye started following the same path after President Erdogan earlier challenged the traditional wisdom unsuccessfully.

It meant that the cost of doing business was propelled to new highs. Businesses were hit badly as not only the energy tariffs and raw material prices had skyrocketed, but also the higher borrowing costs made expanding the existing setups or establishing new ones almost impossible.

CURRENCY DEVALUATION

Coming back to the oil, the drop in prices should have started benefitting the poor and developing countries. For example, we, in Pakistan, would have been getting cheaper petrol and diesel. But unfortunately, it isn’t the case thanks to the strong and dominant US dollar.

Weaker currencies are both a product of the economic crisis all the countries have been witnessing across the globe.

However, some would rightly argue that the weaker currencies are both the reason and the product. They also argue that the one-size-fit-all – interest rate hikes – wasn’t and isn’t a solution for every country because of the domestic issues, ranging from the level of industrialization to the overall socioeconomic development.

In short, they think that the currency devaluation had already triggered economic crisis in Pakistan and the pandemic plus Ukraine war only exacerbated the situation.

So, a weakened rupee means the imported fossil fuels are expensive and their prices at gas stations [petrol pumps] only reflect that.

Pakistan is just an example. Other countries with weaker currencies are also dealing with the same challenge.

Meanwhile, even Japan – one of the world’s top economies – felt the devastating effects of currency devaluation. Tokyo couldn’t afford a sliding yen which reached a record low exchange rate of 162 against the US dollar. It happened on July 11 this year.

However, the Japanese yen managed to stop the slide thanks to a vigilant Bank of Japan. The US dollar was available for 140.82 on Friday.

Meanwhile, any Federal Reserve rate cuts would make the world’s top currency less attractive to those who remain in search of a safe haven to protect their investments.

NO ONE WANTS OIL GOING TOO HIGH

Economic slowdown and the threat of recession mean everyone is looking to reduce expenditures and cost of doing business. That’s why even the oil producing nations – OPEC, OPEC+ and others – cannot afford skyrocketing prices.

The reason is simple. It will worsen the prevailing economic crisis, thus the rush for energy security visible everywhere.

Hence, the Gulf States like Saudi Arabia, which is striving hard to implement Vision 2030 set by pragmatic Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, needs more money for executing the ambitious plans. But Riyadh too understands that higher oil prices will further reduce demand and worsen the global economic crisis.

It is believed that they would be happy if oil stays over $80 or thereabout in the longer run.

To tackle the effects generated by reduced oil revenue, Saudi Arabia is aiming at even more rapid economic diversification. But how to balance the income vs expenditures equation remains a challenge.

Meanwhile, the share of non-oil economy in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is now more than 50% and 70% respectively, a clear sign that economic diversification is producing the desired results.

SLIDE PREDICTED

On the other hand, Morgan Stanley in August cut the oil price forecast to $80 from $85 per barrel for the last quarter of the year. It has again revised the estimates to $75.

Meanwhile, Citi is seeing oil prices dipping to $60 per barrel next year if OPEC+ fails to implement more production cuts.

One would also have to see whether the expected US rate cuts would bolster the market sentiments globally, thus generating more oil demand.

As far as the “owners” of the weaker currencies are concerned, they would love to see a massive decline in oil prices so that fuel prices become affordable to consumers in their countries. One can’t see stronger currencies amid the prevailing crisis and the IMF calling for sticking to the formula of market determining the exchange rates.

1...262728...152Page 27 of 152

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