The Visionary Bureaucrat

By

-

June 5, 2024

Following the foundation of Pakistan, a surge of innovative bureaucrats developed, each with the goal of implementing transformative reforms in their respective positions. These people gained recognition for their influential contributions and innovative techniques, with some even producing notable works. Over time, the once vibrant and progressive bureaucracy started to deteriorate. The number of revolutionary ideas decreased, being replaced by an increasing desire for money. The desire for financial wealth became more important than the original enthusiasm for serving the public, causing many talented individuals inside the system to be consumed by it.

During a visit to Gilgit-Baltistan last year, an unexpected and promising discovery was made: Chief Secretary Mohiuddin Wani. The residents commended him for his groundbreaking transformation of crucial areas such as healthcare and education. Their profound affection for Wani was both touching and unexpected, serving as evidence that visionary leaders still existed in society.
Government appointments are often short-lived, and Wani’s exceptional period of service in Gilgit-Baltistan was no different. He was relocated to Islamabad to serve as the Federal Secretary of Education, a high-ranking job that gave him control over many esteemed educational institutions in the capital.

Confronted with the huge contrast between prestigious private universities and poorly supported government schools, Wani envisioned closing this gap.

With a strong will to ensure that government school students have the same possibilities as their more affluent peers, Wani spearheaded several innovative initiatives. One of the first steps he took was to introduce a free meal initiative for all public elementary schools in Islamabad, which provided over 87,000 students with benefits. The objective of this effort was to improve academic performance by promoting an optimal diet.

Wani’s vision also included the digital domain. In 200 government educational institutions, initiatives were undertaken to build IT labs and smart classrooms. Not only would this provide children with crucial digital literacy skills, but it would also prepare them for a technology-focused future. Wani took the lead in establishing 100 early childhood education centers, each with 100 instructors and teaching helpers, to emphasize the significance of early education and provide a solid basis for young students.

With the aim of fostering economic independence, a curriculum centered on business and financial literacy is scheduled to be implemented in the next academic session. This progressive approach seeks to provide students with practical knowledge that goes beyond conventional academic topics.

To handle the growing student population, a total of 200 more rooms are being constructed across many campuses. In addition, five prestigious institutions in Islamabad will serve as hosts for software technology parks, providing complimentary access to the internet and power.

To prioritize the welfare of students, 25 colleges will establish compact health centers, while 100 educational institutions will include mental sports rooms to cultivate strategic thinking and mental agility.

Physical fitness is a top concern as well. Twenty-five educational institutions are now establishing gyms, and as part of this initiative, elementary school students will be provided with complimentary sports equipment, such as tracksuits and joggers. The libraries at these institutions will provide a hospitable atmosphere for students to investigate and enhance their understanding.

The Federal Board of Schools plans to use artificial intelligence-assisted test evaluations next year as part of its efforts to modernize the school system. Sixteen-degree institutions in Islamabad have been transformed into high-impact IT institutes, offering sophisticated technology courses during the nighttime hours.

The comprehensive reforms have completely overhauled government educational institutions in Islamabad, putting them on par, if not surpassing, private universities. Students now benefit from a superb educational setting that includes state-of-the-art technology, complimentary meals, and extensive healthcare amenities.

This atmosphere fosters the comprehensive growth of children, propelling them towards a trajectory of achievement.

Mohiuddin Wani is resolute in his goal: to raise the status of government educational institutions to a point where even wealthy families choose them over costly private schools. It seems that Islamabad is now seeing the adoption of a paradigm that is similar of the changes introduced by Kejriwal in Delhi.

Contemplating this renewed rise of revolutionary bureaucracy, one cannot not but recall the profound words of Rashid Mahmood Langriyal, an exceptional bureaucrat, whose lasting influence remains a source of inspiration. Ultimately, individuals such as Wani serve as a reminder of how visionary leadership can profoundly impact and advance society.

Tracing the Resurgence of Islamic State Khorasan under Afghanistan’s New Rulers

By

Dr. Muhammad Nauman Akhter

-

June 4, 2024

0

After the defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), what remains of ISIS has gone underground in the Middle East. Still, it has a strong presence in other regions with different denominations. Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) is the regional branch of ISIS, identified after the ancient Khorasan province that existed during different Muslim empires. It covers parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.

Despite the Taliban’s repeated crackdowns, ISKP currently poses one of the pressing transnational security threats for the world.

ISKP initially derived its hireling from defectors of already existing militant groups, including Al-Qaeda, Tehrike-e-Taliban (TTP), Central Asians and Arab fighters. The official announcement of ISKP’s formation was made in 2015. The former commander of TTP, Hafiz Saeed Khan, became the first emir of ISKP. Since the U.S. withdrawal, ISKP’s numerical strength is estimated to have grown from 4000 to 6000, including fighters from Pakistan, Central Asia, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and a handful of Arab fighters

The conflict between the Taliban and ISKP is mainly focused on the implementation of Sharia law, as ISKP wants an even stricter version of Sharia law. Contrary to its name implying that ISKP is only active in the Khorasan region, they adhere to the general principle of ISIS to establish a transnational Caliphate. To undermine the authenticity of the Taliban, ISKP’s Al-Azaim calls it an ethnic Pashtun nationalist group rather than a legitimate religious authority and accuses the Taliban of colluding with the enemies of Islam, such as Russia, China and America.

ISKP also started conducting domestic and foreign operations, claiming responsibility for the deadly attacks in Pakistan, Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. ISKP perpetrated the deadly suicide attack outside Kabul airport. In 2022, it also attacked Pakistan and Russian embassies and hotels of Chinese nationals in Afghanistan. In early 2024, ISKP also attacked the Qasim Solemani memorial anniversary in Iran, killing more than 100 people. On 22 March 2024, multiple armed men claimed by ISKP stormed Moscow’s Crocus Hall, leaving 115 dead.

Political analysts indicate that the Taliban’s ability to fight ISKP without international support appears inadequate and questionable. While operating from a region far from access to modern technology, the group seems to project itself in a way never seen before.

Effective counterterrorism efforts often require intelligence sharing among different security agencies, both domestically and internationally.

The Ambassador Nathan Sales statement is particularly important in this regard. As a result, “our ability to monitor terrorist threat in Afghanistan has been significantly degraded by the withdrawal, and we are no longer able to conduct a sustainable kinetic campaign against groups active there”.

President Biden also said that the U.S. developed counterterrorism “over the horizon capability” that will allow strikes against terrorist organizations from bases outside Afghanistan. Despite this claim, questions are being asked about this strategy, although it does not have intelligence-gathering capabilities.

ISKP is reported to have no territorial control in Afghanistan; however, the operational capacity of the group is rapidly increasing. In Afghanistan, ISKP has exploited many weaknesses of the Taliban, including its inability to control the large territory of Afghanistan, its limited presence on roads and insufficient funds to pay soldiers.

Youngsters are turning to terrorism because, for some money, that is the only option to support their families. The Taliban are facing a dire humanitarian crisis and deep economic woes. Knowing the challenges faced by the Taliban government, ISKP has threatened to attack humanitarian organizations and foreign commercial interests in Afghanistan. That is designed to deter the outside help that may strengthen the Taliban’s position.

The Turkish authorities vigorously launched a crackdown on extremist organizations, including ISKP. Before the crackdown started, Turkey was a major financial hub for all branches of ISIS. Even here, the Taliban’s check on the informal banking sector remains hollow and superficial.

The Taliban seemingly don’t want to disrupt the sector, which is vital for the Afghan economy and the Taliban themselves.

It was reported that tension is simmering between the Afghan and Tajik sections of the Taliban due to their close connection with ISKP. The Yuldash faction of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Uyghurs are also unhappy with the Taliban, and a few of them are now left under the Taliban’s protection. ISKP and TTP are cooperating in Pakistan. The Haqqani network has had links with ISKP in the past, and in the opinion of former Afghan officials, those ties have continued.

ISKP follows a hardline Salfi ideology. While the majority of Afghanistan follows the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. ISKP propagates these competing ideologies as impure, superstitious, and idolatry, which leads to variance in their geographical scope, ethnic composition, and nature of attacks. The higher profile at the international level attracts idealistic young recruits, thus starving the Taliban of the potential for a new generation of recruits. The Salafi community, which has been a major source of support for ISKP, is still far away from the integration into the Emirates structure.

Despite the rigorous counterterrorism campaigns, the Taliban still appear far away from containing ISKP. Certain economic, political, and religious issues majorly contribute to the sustainability of ISKP as a security architect in Afghanistan.

Pulling out of the 90s Geopolitical Drawer the Postponed Issues of European Security

By

Professor Alexander Kostyuk

-

June 4, 2024

0

The war in Ukraine is a challenge to the developed countries of the world to use their experience and geopolitical weight to bring the war to an end, build a new European security architecture, and finally give Ukraine the security status that would allow the people of Ukraine to look to the future with confidence.

Major geopolitical players, primarily the United States, must be ready for a frank dialogue, which is impossible without a retrospective analysis of previous decisions regarding Ukraine.

So, after the collapse of the USSR, the main goal of the US policy towards the post-Soviet countries was to establish and support democracy in Russia. It was about supporting Russian President Yeltsin personally. This allowed the United States to hope for the successful implementation of NATO’s expansion strategy to the East, where Yeltsin would be more loyal than any other politician in Russia at the time. He disclosed in his memoirs that Strobe Talbott, an adviser to President Clinton, was very certain about this official position in the US administration.

Against this backdrop, Washington’s view at the time was that Ukraine’s independence and nuclear weapons created additional problems for Yeltsin in Russia itself. Communists and nationalists, such as Zhirinovsky, played the card of Russia’s imperial ambitions, hinting at Russia’s territorial expansion within the borders of the USSR. At the time, President Clinton was doing everything possible to strengthen Yeltsin’s position in Russia.

The pressure on Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons eventually yielded results: in January 1994, a trilateral statement was signed between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States on Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament. Ukraine agreed to transfer its nuclear warheads to Russia and accepted U.S. assistance in dismantling missiles, bombers, and nuclear infrastructure. Ukraine’s warheads would be dismantled in Russia, and Ukraine would receive compensation for the commercial value of the highly enriched uranium.

Ukraine ratified START on February 3, 1994, repealing its earlier preconditions, but it would not accede to the NPT without further security assurances. Finally, in December 1994, the famous Budapest Memorandum was signed between Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and Britain, according to which Ukraine received security guarantees from these countries. Time has shown that this was a flawed U.S. strategy that merely postponed the security problem for Ukraine but did not solve it.

In fact, these U.S. efforts to disarm Ukraine were used by the U.S. to ensure controlled influence on Russia by strengthening Yeltsin’s position there.

This also secured his approval of the 1994 withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltic States and Yeltsin’s approval in 1993 after meeting with Polish President Walesa for Poland’s accession to NATO.

After the last nuclear warhead left the territory of Ukraine in 1996, public debate began in the United States about the strategy for NATO’s further eastward expansion. It was no longer a question of whether or not the expansion would take place but rather how fast it would take place and which countries in Eastern Europe would be the first to join NATO. The hearings on NATO’s eastward enlargement were noteworthy in the Senate in 1997. The hearings were informative, with strong analyses of the costs of enlargement, risk assessment, and tactics for expansion.

As a senator, President Biden was a member of the Senate committee and took part in those hearings, too. Ukraine’s prospects in NATO were not considered in those crucial debates – after nuclear disarmament, Ukraine was not on the agenda of NATO’s eastward expansion. Under no circumstances could the Budapest Memorandum be considered a reliable instrument for Ukraine’s security. Thus, after nuclear disarmament in the 1990s, Ukraine became a geopolitical buffer zone between the West and Russia.

So, what geopolitical role did Ukraine play in the early 1990s? In the early 1990s, Ukraine became a tool for solving European security problems and relations between the United States and Russia. Moreover, Ukraine was used to adjust the internal political pressure in Russia. At the same time, security in Europe was achieved by postponing Ukraine’s geopolitical challenges. Postponement, but not solution. The weakening of Ukraine’s security through its nuclear disarmament in the absence of an effective compensator – Ukraine’s membership in NATO – solved the security problems of some European countries and allowed NATO to expand to the East.

Then President Clinton made a mistake that is now obvious: By not solving but only postponing the security problem for Ukraine, he also failed to solve but also postponed the security problem for Europe because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine showed that neither the United States nor Brussels could de-escalate quickly and without damaging their own reputations. In the ’90s, the decisions of President Clinton toward Ukraine were too straightforward, at least.

The large-scale war in Ukraine is now in its third year, and every day it continues could spread the flames of war to Europe, paving the way for World War III.

Washington and Ukraine’s other partners, who, by the will of fate or consciously, became geopolitical beneficiaries of that security experiment over Ukraine in the 1990s, must now take responsibility for Ukraine’s future and security. There are sufficient tools for this, including post-war security guarantees with clear and meaningful commitments, an effective plan for Ukraine’s recovery similar to the Marshall Plan, including the development of the defence industry, and Ukraine’s invitation to join the EU and NATO. The mistakes of the past, if not corrected, will remind us of ourselves again and again, but with much greater consequences for Europe and the world.

When it comes to Ukraine’s security guarantees, it was President Biden who gave the green light to the process of negotiations between Western partners and Ukraine on its guarantees. More than ten months have passed since Biden’s July 7, 2023 statement. The West has demonstrated progress in this regard – fifteen Western countries have already signed relevant security agreements with Ukraine. The United States is still waiting. Hopefully, this will be done solemnly before or during the NATO anniversary summit in Washington in July this year or even before the upcoming peace summit in Switzerland. At least the US does not deny this development.

The United States and Germany are unanimously against the prospect of receiving an invitation to the NATO summit. At the same time, public dialogue on this topic between NATO members is not encouraged. This issue will likely be next in line after Ukraine’s accession to the EU, which will give the United States time to manoeuvre in rebuilding public communications with Russia.

That is probably why the restoration of Ukraine and the further implementation of systemic reforms in Ukraine, i.e., what will essentially have the features of the Marshall Plan after World War II, is a matter of the EU’s responsibility. At the same time, Ukraine’s possible accession to the EU is not a security tool for Ukraine.

The rapid accession of two EU countries, Finland and Sweden, to NATO against the backdrop of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine shows that NATO is a reliable security mechanism for European countries.

This means that only the United States, on behalf of the West, will have to solve the security problems of Europe, and thus Ukraine, inherited from the 1990s. To do so, the United States will need to engage in an effective dialogue not only with Russia but also with China, which, as Zbigniew Brzezinski noted in the 1990s, will become a geopolitical player in the 20s of this millennium that the United States will not be able to ignore in resolving security issues even in parts of the world far from China.

What does this mean? It means that President Biden and his successor have an even more difficult task than President Clinton had in the 1990s that will require an approach based on the art of geopolitics based on the sophisticated long-term strategy and consecutive decisions called “a responsible geopolitics”. The cornerstone of the US strategy toward Ukraine could become reliable Security Guarantees (assurances).

Nuclear Dimension of Global Power Contestation and its Impact on Strategic Stability in South Asia

By

Dr. Zafar Khan

-

June 3, 2024

0

Global power contestation can have different dynamics, including geoeconomic, geopolitical, and geostrategic competition between the leading powers. Each of these terms is loaded in the broader studies of international politics. All these terms are interconnected, though one may not have a fixed definition.

For centuries, global power competition amongst the contending powers has been played out for primacy, power projection, and dominance. It is in the state of nature that many ruthless empires have risen and fallen, and the global power competition continues to triumph over the elements of non-traditional security paradigms such as international law, international institutions, economy, religion, mutual harmony, collective security, human rights, etc.

Global power contestation is played for one primary reason, which is to meet one’s vital security interest, a primary dictum of international relations that there is no permanent friend and no permanent enemy in the international system.

What ultimately remains supreme is the national interest. A nuclear dimension is one of the essential elements of global power contestation. Although security remains the predominant factor for a state’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, it is argued that without nuclear weapons, Britain would not remain Britain, and France would not remain France. To recall the history, they were once colonial powers.

Despite being the founding members of NATO and under Article 5 of NATO’s nuclear umbrella, both Britain and France opted for the road to weaponization after they observed how the US became the first to develop and use nuclear weapons and why the US unnecessarily would sacrifice Washington or New York for Paris and London. The elements of prestige and security contributed to Britain and France staying relevant in the global power competition.

Predominance of Realism

Linking up the nuclear dimension of great power competition with realism, It is very important to understand at least five essential ingredients of realism best reflected by John Mearsheimer in his often-quoted book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” where he simplifies the five assumptions of realism: one, the state is the principal actor in the international system that operates in an anarchic environment where there is no higher authority that sits above the state. Two, all states have some offensive military capability. Third, states cannot be certain about the intentions of other states. Because intentions are harder to see and measure than the capability a state may have.

Therefore, we discriminate between the intention and the capability of a state in international politics. Intentions can be malign or benign, but it is even harder for states to figure out what the future intentions of the states are against others. Fourth, the primary goal of a state is to survive in the international system because, without survival, a state may not effectively pursue other goals. Five, states are rational actors. They are strategic calculators that craft smart strategies to survive in an anarchic system.

Interestingly, when these five assumptions are blended with each other. One may end up with at least three sub-assumptions: 1) states fear each other in the international system, 2) they quickly come to know that it is a self-help system, and 3) states try to be as powerful as they can. Although convincing these core realist assumptions may be, the problem with these assumptions is that a state cannot be a global hegemon. Second, the state’s acquisition of material and economic sources against its adversary almost always leads to a quagmire. In a classic sense, this is called the security dilemma.

In the international system, when a state increases its power, it intentionally or unintentionally decreases the power of others, more especially when states are acute rivals to each other.

Domino Effect

That said, a state’s security is affected by what other states do in the international system. More academically, this may be termed as an extra-regional link factor. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by the US was out of the fear that Nazi Germany could endanger the US and its allies’ security through Germany’s missiles and possible development of its nuclear capability. As the Cold War rivalry intensified between the Soviet Union and the US after the end of WWII, the Soviet leadership that initially was not interested in getting the bomb later had to break the US nuclear monopoly.

As the Soviet Union expanded its security frontiers, both France and Britain got worried about their security and, therefore, acquired nuclear weapons without trusting much of the US-led NATO security umbrella. When the US threatened Chinese security with the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons during the Korean War (1950-1953), the Chinese speeded up to weaponize with sheer assistance from the Soviet Union. Since China and India had a short border war in 1962, the Indians got worried and tested their nuclear capability first in 1974, which they called the “peaceful nuclear explosion,” and later tested their nuclear weapons again in May 1998. Because of the acute security rivalry that existed between India and Pakistan, Pakistan had no other option but to test its nuclear weapon capability in response to the Indian nuclear tests to restore strategic stability in South Asia.

North Korea would surely not forget what happened in the Korean War and how the US consequently attacked Iraq and Libya after 9/11. The Koreans thought they could be the next in line to be preempted, thereby testing its nuclear capability in 2006 after getting away from the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). If the security tussle of Iran intensifies with the US and Israel, Iran may speed up its nuclear weapons capability.

Global Contestation and South Asia

Considering all this, we come to know that the nuclear dimension of global power contestation is affecting many regions of the world, and the South Asian region is no exception. Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we also come to know through reliable sources that all the established nuclear weapons states are modernizing their military and nuclear forces.

The New Start Treaty between the US and Russia is suspended. Russia has de-ratified the CTBT for obvious reasons. And there is no sign of arms control and disarmament between the nuclear weapons states. Recently, Germany indicated its aspiration for acquiring nuclear weapons for security purposes.

Finland and Sweden, which may not be allowed by the US to acquire their nuclear weapons, have joined NATO to get some form of security guarantee.

As part of the global power contestation, the US-led NATO expansion in Europe is encircling and containing the resurgence of Russia on the one hand, while the US has been strengthening its ties with its Asian allies in Asia to contain the regional rise of China on the other hand. That said, the US has been increasing its strategic partnership with India. The US-India nuclear deal in 2005, the QUAD in 2007, the NSG waiver in 2008, the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) in 2016; the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018, the Industrial Security Agreement in 2019; and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) in 2020 and the Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP) in 2024 are some of the important agreements reflecting the increasing US-India strategic partnership. Considering all these, the US balancing role in South Asia is being diminished as this is tilting towards India much more than Pakistan. India is exploiting the tilt to the best of its advantage by undermining the security of Pakistan. One may question if this benefits the US balancing security interest in South Asia.

Maximization of Power

In addition, India is also increasing its strategic partnership with other players amid the global power contestation. For example, with Russia, India plans to develop more nuclear-powered submarines. It has already acquired sophisticated air-defense systems such as the S-400. It is increasing the ranges and speed of BrahMos from supersonic to hypersonic capability. This missile was misfired in Pakistan on 9 March 2022, which could have unintended consequences. With France, India is building its strategic partnership in various fields such as nuclear energy, defense, space, cyber, conventional force capability, and technology for nuclear-powered submarines as a broader part of the Indo-Pacific component. With Israel, India has long been in a strategic partnership for developing India’s ballistic missile defense (BMD) system.

The India-Israel strategic partnership also includes transferring advanced technology that India may use for its conventional and nuclear forces development.

This reflects how the nuclear dimension of great power contestation is broadly affecting South Asian strategic stability by increasing India’s security while decreasing Pakistan’s security. The more the great power competition in the geoeconomic, geostrategic, and geopolitical domains is intensified, the more this affects regions of their vital security interest. Similarly, the more the leading powers modernize their conventional and nuclear forces with offensive doctrinal postures, the more they affect others in the systematic security system.

Aspiration for Limited War

India, with its economic advancement and increasing geostrategic partnership with a number of countries, tempts India to be the hegemon of its region. It does not only demonstrate its geopolitical hubris when it gets into contact with other leading players in the region, including that of the US, but also the increasing acquisition of high-tech components for its conventional and nuclear forces tempts India to be more aggressive in its military and nuclear doctrinal posturing. India now aspires for preemptive counterforce targeting strategies.

By closely reading India’s Draft Nuclear Doctrine (DND) of 1999 and 2003, one may observe modifications in its DNDs with policy implications. India has already shifted away from “retaliation” to “massive retaliation” strategy without learning a lesson from the flawed US nuclear strategy of “Massive Retaliation” in the 1950s against the Soviet Union. Although India still proclaims to follow the “no-first use” nuclear option, India has been aspiring to shift away from this doctrinal posture to “first use” nuclear option.

India has often omitted “minimum” from the credible minimum deterrence it initially conceptualized. Besides, what is minimum against China cannot be minimum against Pakistan.

Affected by the global power contestation, India has been in constant search for waging a limited war and counterforce preemptive strikes against Pakistan without realistically assessing how limited war can quickly spiral out of control, especially when Pakistan produces effective countermeasures by plugging the deterrence gaps. At the same time, Pakistan possesses credible conventional and nuclear forces, which can be used for its ultimate defense and survival.

India’s temptation to waging a limited preemptive strike is becoming an escalatory risk for a serious military crisis between the South Asian nuclear rivals, endangering the use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, in the realm of strategic and tactical nuclear forces, the strategy for waging a limited war will be flawed risking escalation to a dangerous level.

Strategic Restraint

Since nuclear war cannot be won thereby it must never be fought reflects the value of credible nuclear deterrence between the two nuclear rivals. Nuclear weapons played a significant role in deterring rivals from waging direct large-scale wars, and they will continue to play a similar role despite the arrival of emerging technologies. The components of emerging technologies may become “force multipliers” enhancing the conventional power potential for a decisive role, but they may not make the old methods of fighting in the battlefield and for that matter the classic theorem of nuclear deterrence irrelevant by throwing everything nuclear related out of the window. In other words, artificial intelligence may not produce a supreme field commander winning wars without the human-in-the-loop supported by tactical and operational military strategies.

What is much needed is to reduce the intensifying global power competition amongst the major powers by turning the severe competition into cooperation. Cooperation may be possible under the security dilemma.

Countries do cooperate for many things despite the rivalry. In doing so, this will reduce the pressure on other nuclear rivals including that of India and Pakistan.

What is required in South Asia is a timely contribution towards crisis prevention and crisis management institutionalization between the South Asian nuclear rivals when it comes to the notion of nuclear responsibility. Such imperatives may include several measures to prevent developing war-fighting strategies, reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, practicing nuclear moratorium, mechanism for preventing accidental nuclear war, restricting to the essentials of credible minimum deterrence, and improving means of communication for risk reduction. South Asian rivals should continue to have hotlines, nuclear CBMs, effective utilization of the third-party role between the acute nuclear rivals, measures for retaining nuclear balance rather than parity.

Of course, it must also include the strategic restraint regime, efforts for peaceful uses of nuclear technology, participation in the international discussion on non-proliferation, de-mating nuclear warheads from delivery systems, and undertaking stringent safety and security mechanisms. More importantly, South Asian security leadership need to practice advance notices before carrying out nuclear and missile tests, and immediate reporting on an accidental firing of any missile directed against each other to prevent retaliatory nuclear strikes. Most if not all these measures can be applicable and doable between the South Asian nuclear rivals to prevent the possibilities of accidental war and promote strategic stability.

Higher Education in Pakistan

By

Dr. Ghulam Mujaddid

-

June 2, 2024

0

The future of higher education in Pakistan is once again endangered. Amidst the current period of technological growth, where both developed and developing nations are prioritizing advancements and outcomes in higher education by increasing financial resources, the decision to substantially reduce the budget for the 2024-25 fiscal year is highly concerning. The budget has been reduced from 65 billion rupees to a meager 25 billion rupees. This significant decrease is not only inadequate to fulfill the requirements of the educational sector but is also limited exclusively to federal universities, putting several institutions in a state of extreme difficulty.

The Ministry of Finance has corresponded with the Higher Education Commission (HEC) on their proposal for 126 billion rupees to be allocated to over 160 government universities in the country. The significant disparity between the money sought and the monies given highlights the profound budgetary limitations experienced by higher education institutions.

In addition, the Planning Commission has decreased the development budget of the HEC from 59 billion rupees to 21 billion rupees, dealing another setback to the higher education sector.

Higher education institutions serve as bastions of knowledge and consciousness. These educational institutions generate young graduates in many disciplines who possess the skills and knowledge to make valuable contributions to emerging developments in all sectors, including the economy, industry, medicine, agriculture, and the business world. Through the cultivation and advancement of skill and potential, these establishments provide prospects for growth and advancement. Thus, it is crucial to guarantee that these establishments have a stable financial foundation while upholding stringent academic criteria and fostering robust research endeavors. Higher education institutions have a crucial role in promoting innovation and stimulating economic development. Alumni from these educational schools join many industries and provide innovative ideas and solutions, driving forward progress and growth. By jeopardizing the financial solvency of higher education institutions, we run the danger of impeding the development of these sectors and, therefore, hindering the general advancement of the nation.

The significant reduction in funding has several detrimental impacts on higher education. First and foremost, they impede the capacity of universities to provide high-quality education and uphold research standards. Universities need financial resources to compensate teachers, maintain infrastructure, and acquire essential resources for research and development. A diminished budget has a direct impact on these domains, resulting in a deterioration in educational excellence.
Universities often allocate a significant portion of their budget on faculty wages and benefits, which frequently constitute the highest expenditure. Institutions may be compelled to implement salary reductions, halt recruitment activities, or perhaps terminate employees due to budget cutbacks. This may result in attrition of experienced and highly skilled staff, thereby impacting the grade of education that students get.

Insufficient financing for infrastructure upkeep may lead to the deterioration of facilities, which negatively affects the learning environment.

Furthermore, funding reductions limit the prospects available to students, especially those hailing from underprivileged homes. Given the limited access to higher education overseas for most individuals in Pakistan, particularly those from less privileged backgrounds, it is crucial to provide exceptional education and training to talented young people who have little finances. The future of our country relies on the education these young individuals get, since it directly impacts their growth and success.

Scholarship programs, vital for assisting students from low-income households, are also under jeopardy as a result of budget reductions. In the absence of financial aid, several gifted kids may face financial barriers that prevent them from pursuing further education. This might result in a squandering of their potential and contribute to the growing disparity between the affluent and the underprivileged.
The enduring ramifications of reductions in funding for higher education may be significant. Insufficient financial support for research may impede the progress of innovation and technological development. Research initiatives sometimes need substantial financial resources, and institutions may have difficulties in doing state-of-the-art research without sufficient financing.

This might lead to a deceleration of technological advancement and a decrease in the country’s competitiveness on the international arena.

Moreover, higher education institutions have a crucial role in tackling social concerns. Research undertaken at universities has the potential to provide answers for pressing problems, including public health, environmental sustainability, and social inequity. Reduced funding may curtail the ability of institutions to make meaningful contributions in these crucial domains, thereby impacting the overall welfare of society.

Higher education institutions are crucial for the development of a country. They have a crucial role in promoting innovation and stimulating economic development. Alumni from these establishments engage many industries and provide novel concepts and resolutions, driving advancement and growth. By jeopardizing the financial solvency of higher education institutions, we run the danger of impeding the development of these sectors and, therefore, hindering the general advancement of the nation. Higher education institutions not only contribute to economic prosperity but also play a crucial role in fostering a well-informed and aware populace. Universities serve as hubs for the cultivation of critical thinking and intellectual conversation, providing students with the skills to scrutinize intricate matters and participate in reflective discussions. This cognitive advancement is essential for a robust democracy and a dynamic society.
While it is important to tackle the internal obstacles encountered by higher education institutions, it is equally necessary to seek external assistance. Pakistan has a number of amicable nations that may provide support in the enhancement and reformation of numerous sectors, such as the education system. Requesting such assistance may assist in closing the financial disparities and implementing necessary changes in our higher education industry.

Judgment Against Israel: A Global Call for Justice

By

Dr. Nhien Tran

-

June 2, 2024

0

Starting from October 7, 2023, the Gaza Strip has seen an unparalleled level of aggression, resulting in the death of over 35,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, due to Israeli military strikes. Complete residential areas have been destroyed, resulting in images of indescribable destruction. During this chaos, a ray of hope has sprung from the halls of global justice.

The United Nations High Court has delivered a significant verdict, mandating Israel to promptly halt its military activities in Rafah. The court’s ruling requires the Rafah border to be opened to enable the transportation of immediate humanitarian assistance and to provide investigators entry into Gaza for the purpose of examining charges of genocide and confirming the actual situation. This verdict signifies a substantial advancement in tackling the humanitarian issue in Gaza and guaranteeing responsibility for the heinous acts perpetrated.

The decision has garnered extensive international acclaim, with Pakistan, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Belgium, Norway, and Hamas among the nations expressing their agreement.

These countries have praised the decision as a critical step towards fairness and have urged for its prompt execution.

The global reaction to the verdict of the UN High Court has emphasized a growing agreement on the need of prompt humanitarian involvement in Gaza. Nations such as South Africa, which submitted the petition that resulted in this ruling, have been instrumental in promoting the cause of justice. The engagement of South Africa is especially poignant due to its history of successfully overcoming apartheid and its unwavering commitment to human rights. The nation’s leaders have frequently made comparisons between their own battle and the difficult situation faced by the Palestinians, promoting worldwide unity in the fight against tyranny.

Countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, have also shown significant support for the court’s ruling. These nations have a history of engaging in regional diplomacy and attempts to resolve conflicts. Their support for the decision emphasizes the pressing need for a humanitarian settlement in Gaza.

The Palestinian government and organizations such as Hamas have expressed their approval of the ruling, seeing it as a crucial milestone in the effort to alleviate the hardships faced by their population.

Shehbaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, has strongly urged the international community to promptly implement the court’s ruling. “This decision serves as a guiding light of optimism for the residents of Gaza.” “The international community must take immediate action to ensure the administration of justice and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those in dire need,” he said. Pakistan’s longstanding endorsement of Palestinian self-determination and its proactive involvement in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) enhance its advocacy for action. The appeal made by Prime Minister Sharif highlights the wider consequences of the court’s decision. He stressed that the implementation of this decision is not only focused on delivering immediate assistance, but also on resolving longstanding injustices and establishing the foundation for enduring peace in the area. His words mirror a commonly held perspective among other nations that have seen the prolonged agony of Palestinians and the repetitive pattern of bloodshed in Gaza.
Notwithstanding the court’s ruling, both Britain and the United States have earlier declared their support of Israel. Despite the verdict, the White House has chosen not to reply, emphasizing the intricate and politically sensitive nature of the matter. This hesitancy highlights the geopolitical factors that often shape global reactions to events in the Middle East.

The United States and Britain’s backing of Israel is founded on a longstanding partnership that is influenced by strategic, political, and historical considerations. Nevertheless, the verdict of the UN High Court presents a compelling argument for these governments to reassess their position in front of compelling evidence of humanitarian catastrophes and possible war crimes. The White House’s hesitancy to reply definitively may suggest internal deliberations and the sway of different interest groups, but it also suggests a possible change in the worldwide discourse around Israel and Palestine.
The petition that resulted in this ruling was submitted by South Africa and was reviewed by a panel of judges from 14 nations, which included an ad hoc judge from Israel. The verdict puts substantial pressure on Israel, which is already experiencing growing international isolation, to adhere to the cease-fire directive, as demanded by its supporters, especially the United States.

The execution of the UN High Court’s ruling relies heavily on international pressure. The European Union, including nations such as Belgium and Norway, has also shown its support for the verdict, suggesting a possible move towards a more equitable approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

These countries acknowledge that the establishment of justice and accountability is the only way to attain long-lasting peace in the area.

The court’s verdict serves as a crucial reminder of the need to protect international law and the fundamental values of human rights. Furthermore, it highlights the pressing need for a settlement to the Palestinian issue, which continues to be a fundamental hindrance to attaining enduring peace in the area. It is imperative for the international community to acknowledge that global stability depends on resolving the underlying causes of the war and achieving justice for the victims. Humanitarian organizations have consistently advocated for the lifting of the embargo on Gaza and for unhindered access to aid. The court’s ruling agrees with these demands, highlighting the need of resolving urgent humanitarian issues while also establishing the foundation for a political resolution. The commencement of the Rafah crossing is a crucial measure in this trajectory, facilitating the movement of sustenance, pharmaceuticals, and other necessary goods to a besieged populace.

The evolving situation in Gaza will be significantly influenced by the implementation of this ruling by the United Nations High Court, which will play a crucial role in shaping the region’s future. It is imperative for the international world to come together and guarantee the enforcement of the verdict, as well as the provision of essential humanitarian relief and justice to the people of Gaza, who are in dire need.

The court’s verdict against Israel is not only a legal instruction, but also a summons for all countries dedicated to peace and justice. The resolution of the Palestinian conflict necessitates engaging in discourse, demonstrating compassion, and displaying an unwavering dedication to upholding human rights. Only until the globe attains enduring peace and security will there be hope for its achievement.
The Palestinian struggle epitomizes wider concerns of justice and human rights. By endorsing the court’s decision, the global community can showcase its dedication to these ideals and make a vital step towards resolving one of the most persistent disputes of our era. The verdict against Israel is a chance to reassert the principles of international law and the common humanity that unites us all.

Foreign Investment in Pakistan

By

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Munir

-

June 2, 2024

0

Over a year has elapsed since the founding of the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC) in Pakistan, a body created to facilitate and encourage foreign direct investment (FDI) in the nation. Throughout this time, the SIFC has been proactively interacting with the governments of amicable nations, leading to several declarations and commitments of significant investments. Nevertheless, despite these efforts, tangible advancements have been negligible. Foreign investment has seen a fall, reaching its lowest point in 50 years, rather than seeing a gain. The government’s target for foreign investment in the current financial year was above 15 percent. However, the National Accounts Committee revealed that real foreign investment accounted for just 13.1 percent of the GDP. This deficit emphasizes the urgent obstacles that must be addressed in order to attract and maintain international investment.

The presence of political instability, which is marked by frequent changes in leadership and political turmoil, continues to serve as a major obstacle to international investment. The volatility creates a sense of uncertainty, which is harmful to the kind of long-term planning and investment that international corporations usually engage in. Investors are cautious about entering areas where the political landscape may undergo significant changes, which might possibly affect their business operations and financial gains. Furthermore, despite recent improvements in the security situation, lingering historical concerns around terrorism and crime continue to influence investors’ risk assessments.

The persistent concerns over instability and violence lead to a cautious stance by prospective foreign investors.

The presence of contradictory economic policies, obstructive regulatory impediments, and unfriendly bureaucratic procedures results in an uncertain and volatile business climate. Investors need stability and transparency, and the absence of these factors deters long-term investment strategizing. Businesses cannot depend on a consistent regulatory framework due to the frequent alterations in economic policy, which are influenced by political changes. In addition, the intricate nature of legislation and the sluggish, unwieldy bureaucratic procedures provide challenges for international enterprises in terms of understanding the system and obtaining the required authorizations to do business.

Pakistan’s infrastructure deficiencies, including energy deficits, insufficient transport networks, and restricted technical framework, greatly impede investment prospects. These shortcomings not only escalate operating expenses but also impede effective corporate operations. The energy industry, specifically, is filled with difficulties. Consistent power outages hinder industrial operations and escalate expenses for enterprises that depend on a reliable energy supply. Insufficient transport infrastructure also complicates and increases the cost of logistics, which in turn hampers the entire business environment in the nation.

Significant levels of corruption and a dearth of transparency in commercial transactions pose significant barriers for international investment. Corruption has several manifestations, such as bribery and regulatory manipulation, and it escalates the expenses associated with doing business. The government’s inefficiency in enforcing legislation and the protracted legal procedures further complicate the economic climate. These inefficiencies often cause foreign investors to experience substantial delays in settling disputes and safeguarding their capital.

The absence of a comprehensive legal structure for safeguarding intellectual property rights also discourages investments that are driven by technology and innovation.

Investors have challenges in long-term planning owing to an unpredictable economic outlook resulting from inflation, currency volatility, and budget deficits induced by macroeconomic instability. The fluctuation in the economy discourages prospective investments that need a consistent and secure financial environment. For example, when the Pakistani Rupee loses value in relation to international currencies, it might diminish the worth of investments and earnings. High inflation rates also diminish the buying power of customers, hence decreasing the market size for goods and services provided by international enterprises.

Foreign enterprises have challenges in entering and operating in markets due to the presence of tariff and non-tariff barriers, as well as a complicated customs procedure. These obstacles amplify the expenses and intricacy of doing business in Pakistan, therefore diminishing its appeal to international investors. Stringent standards and regulatory requirements, which are non-tariff obstacles, might specifically discourage the participation of small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) in the market.

The onerous customs processes lead to delays and extra expenses, significantly disrupting the logistics and supply chain operations of multinational enterprises.

Pakistan, despite its substantial workforce, has a deficit of proficient labor necessary for contemporary technologies and businesses. The presence of a skills gap hampers attempts to attract foreign investment, as investors want a workforce capable of fulfilling the requirements of modern corporate operations. Several multinational corporations need expertise in technology, engineering, and management, which are often scarce in Pakistan. This scarcity requires more investment in training and development, which in turn raises the initial cost of establishing operations in the nation.

The unfavorable international view of Pakistan, which is shaped by political instability, security concerns, and economic issues, also impedes endeavors to attract foreign investment. Enhancing the nation’s reputation on the international platform is essential for recruiting and keeping investment.

Norway, Ireland, and Spain Recognize Palestinian Statehood

By

Chiara Cacco and Dr. Sahibzada Muhammad Usman

-

June 1, 2024

0

Norway, Ireland, and Spain Recognize Palestinian Statehood

The recent recognition of Palestine as a sovereign nation by Norway, Ireland, and Spain on May 25th has generated diverse responses worldwide, provoking both jubilation and disagreement. The implementation of this momentous ruling, scheduled to take place on May 28, has already resulted in notable diplomatic consequences. These include Israel recalling its ambassadors from the three nations involved and the expression of strong opinions from officials in both Israel and the United States.
The Prime Ministers of Norway, Spain, and Ireland, namely Jo Naas Gahrstor, Pedro Sanchez, and Simon Harris respectively, have shown a courageous action that is in accordance with the prior resolution of the United Nations General Assembly to confer full membership to Palestine in global institutions. This action is seen as a continuation of efforts to seek a diplomatic resolution to the enduring Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of Spain has been very engaged, making visits to other countries to secure support for the recognition of Palestine. He contends that this acknowledgment will enhance diplomatic endeavors that have been eclipsed by more assertive positions in the area. The Deputy Prime Minister, Yolanda Diaz, considers this symbolic acknowledgment as a first step towards more significant measures.

The Prime Minister of Ireland, Harris, has compared the acknowledgment of Palestine to the global recognition of the Irish state in 1919, highlighting the similarities between Ireland’s fight for independence and the Palestinians’ quest for self-determination. The decision has been praised by both the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas.

The PLO has described it as historic, while Hamas sees it as a vital step arising from the Palestinian heroic fight.

The acknowledgment has elicited a polarized response from the international community. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has criticized the decision, describing it as a kind of award for terrorism and stating that the newly acknowledged Palestinian state would be a terrorist organization. The US government has expressed the same feeling, considering the acknowledgment to be unacceptable.

Conversely, the Palestinian Authority emphasizes that 142 out of 193 United Nations members have already acknowledged the existence of Palestine. Many see this increasing global support as a confirmation of the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood and a progression toward peace and stability in the area.

France, while not explicitly opposing the recognition, has expressed that the time is suboptimal for such a decision. Germany advocates for a two-state solution but emphasizes that the recognition of Palestine should only occur via direct discussions between Israel and Palestine.
Analysts have observed that the announcement made by Norway, Ireland, and Spain represents a notable shift that has been impacted by the unwavering endeavors and hardships endured by the Palestinian population. This decision has a resemblance to the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, in which the first agreements were reached on a two-state solution with the help of Norwegian mediation.

Nevertheless, Israel’s following transgressions and severe actions have resulted in an enduring confrontation that continues to attract worldwide scrutiny and dissent.

The statement has triggered extensive responses, including large rallies and marches in solidarity with Palestine in other nations, including the United States. Even at American institutions, students have erected tents and organized protests to demonstrate their support for the Palestinian cause.
The acknowledgment by these three European countries is seen as evidence of the Palestinian people’s endurance and resolve. It is seen as a crucial first measure in attaining enduring peace in the Middle East. The aim is that this first occurrence will result in a more widespread approval and facilitate the path towards a harmonious settlement to one of the most persistent disputes of our day.
The judgment has significant and wide-ranging political and diplomatic consequences. The swift withdrawal of Israel’s ambassadors from Norway, Ireland, and Spain indicates a significant diplomatic disagreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s unequivocal denouncement underscores Israel’s apprehension about the possible ramifications of this acknowledgment. The Israeli administration is concerned that this action may strengthen Palestinian opposition and result in heightened global demands for a two-state resolution. The United States, Israel’s most unwavering supporter, has also conveyed its dissatisfaction. The White House has deemed the recognition as inappropriate, in accordance with Israel’s stance.

This position highlights the intricacies of the United States’ involvement in the Middle East, as it tries to maintain a balance between supporting Israel and addressing the problems of the Palestinians, all while striving for peace in the area.

The acknowledgment by Norway, Ireland, and Spain is a reason for jubilation among Palestinians and their advocates. This achievement symbolizes a momentous triumph in their enduring effort for self-governance and global acknowledgment. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has praised the judgment as a significant moment in history, while Hamas has characterized it as a noteworthy advancement. These replies emphasize the inherent need for self-governance and the conviction that obtaining international recognition is an essential milestone in attaining this objective.
The ruling has also had a significant impact on other nations and international organizations. It is widely regarded as a brave and principled stance in favor of the rights of Palestinians. The recognition of Palestine by 142 out of the 193 member nations of the United Nations highlights the increasing global agreement on this matter. Nevertheless, there are still notable dissenters, especially among Western countries, who want a diplomatic resolution instead of unilateral acknowledgment.
The recognition of Palestine by Norway, Ireland, and Spain represents a crucial turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has the capacity to redefine the diplomatic terrain and impact the next discussions. Although the first responses have been varied, the potential long-term consequences might be significant. The recognition of the Palestinians serves as a vindication of their ongoing fight and represents a significant advancement toward the realization of their ambitions. It offers a ray of hope that their difficult situation is being recognized and that there is global backing for their cause. Israel sees this as a warning of the increasing global pressure to address the problem by implementing a two-state solution.

The Humanitarian Cost of Israel’s Failed War

By

Prof. Andrea Francioni

-

June 1, 2024

0

The Humanitarian Cost of Israel's Failed War

Israel, after a prolonged period of intense fighting and violence lasting seven-and-a-half months, has come to realize that it has experienced enormous obstacles in its battle against Hamas. Israel, by its use of ground and air attacks in Gaza, caused tremendous damage. The acknowledgment of failure is made by Israel’s national security advisor, who publicly admitted that the war did not accomplish any strategic goals.

Israel’s primary objectives at the beginning of the war were two-fold: to secure the release of Israeli captives detained by Hamas and to topple the Hamas administration. Nevertheless, as the advisor highlighted, Israel has been unsuccessful in both aspects. Despite the significant military operations, Israel has failed to achieve the release of its detainees or the dismantling of the Hamas leadership. The failure is clearly emphasized by the persistent and strong presence of Hamas in Gaza, as it continues to carry out its activities and maintain its power without any reduction.

The consequences of these unmet goals are significant. Israel’s failure to fulfill these objectives not only represents a military defeat but also a diplomatic and strategic loss. The Israeli government, which had pledged resolute measures and outcomes, is now encountering censure from both its own country and the international community.

The Israeli leadership’s credibility has been undermined by this circumstance, prompting a reassessment of its plans and policies towards Gaza and Hamas.

The magnitude of Israel’s failure is also reflected in the humanitarian disaster that has emerged in Gaza. The Israeli military’s assaults on people, hospitals, and schools have not only resulted in extensive destruction but have also triggered a surge of communications from residents of Gaza. These communications, often filled with despair and resistance, implore the world to remember their difficult situation: “If we perish, please remember that we were correct.” The world will undoubtedly remember the horrifying spectacles in which hospitals were transformed into graveyards, and no structure in Gaza was considered secure from the aircraft attacks.
Over the course of this seven-month duration, the number of human lives lost has been quite high. More than 35,800 Palestinians have been killed, and over 80,000 have been wounded. The survivors persist in enduring severe adversities, including torture, starvation, and dehydration. The current critical situation has sparked global indignation and support for the Palestinian cause, resulting in extensive protests worldwide.

The humanitarian effect extends beyond mere statistics; it encompasses the narratives of people and families whose lives have undergone irreversible transformations. The devastation of residences, the bereavement of cherished individuals, and the disturbance of everyday existence have generated a profound reservoir of pain and desolation among the populace of Gaza. Hospitals, traditionally seen as places of solace and recovery, have unfortunately transformed into scenes of calamity, as healthcare practitioners grapple with the overwhelming surge of victims and the scarcity of essential provisions.

The global world has seen these acts of extreme cruelty, and the reaction has been one of strong disapproval and demands for responsibility.

There has been a substantial worldwide reaction to the war. The resolution to confer full membership to Palestine in the United Nations General Assembly has been unanimously passed. This action signifies a crucial juncture in the global acknowledgment of the statehood of Palestine. Furthermore, since May 28, three European nations, including Ireland, Norway, and Spain, have formally acknowledged Palestine as a sovereign state. The rising number of countries recognizing Palestine highlights a changing diplomatic environment, which is gradually isolating Israel in the international arena.

The acknowledgment of Palestine by these nations is not only symbolic; it has significant political significance. This indicates an increasing recognition of Palestinian authority and a refusal to accept the current situation that has permitted ongoing occupation and violence. The endorsement from these governments also exerts influence on other countries to reassess their stances and perhaps align themselves with the push for recognizing the statehood of Palestine.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is anticipated to announce a verdict that has the potential to significantly influence Israel’s stance. The prospective verdict by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) might be compared to significant historical instances when influential states were compelled to reconsider their tactics and behaviors due to global public sentiment and international legal forces. If the court determines that Israel has violated international standards and human rights, its ruling might establish a precedent in international law and lead to further isolation for Israel.
This chapter in global history recalls instances of previous wars in which superior military force encountered resolute opposition and received widespread worldwide criticism. The similarities between the Vietnam War and the current situation are especially noticeable. In Vietnam, the invading troops, while having advanced weaponry and technical advantage, were forced to retire due to strong resistance and increasing international criticism.

In the same way, Israel, despite its strong military, is now dealing with the aftermath of a war that did not accomplish its goals and instead rallied international sympathy for the Palestinian people.

The influence of media in molding public opinion is of utmost significance. The extensive reporting on the crisis, namely the vivid and emotionally impactful photos from Gaza, has been important in rallying worldwide support for the Palestinians. Social media platforms have transformed into arenas for competing narratives, enabling voices from Gaza to rapidly reach a worldwide audience. The extensive proliferation of these narratives has resulted in heightened demands on governments and international organizations to implement measures.

Public opinion has a substantial influence on political choices. In democratic systems, where leaders are held responsible to the people who elected them, the widespread endorsement of Palestinian rights has the potential to cause changes in a country’s foreign policy. The widespread rallies in support of Palestinians seen in cities worldwide are evidence of the increasing popular awareness and demand for justice. This grassroots movement has the capacity to exert influence on policymakers and instigate transformative shifts at the most authoritative echelons of government.
The acknowledgment of Israel’s defeat in its conflict with Hamas is a momentous and thought-provoking occurrence. Israel has a bleak outlook due to its unfulfilled strategic objectives, significant humanitarian consequences, and the changing global diplomatic environment. Amid worldwide attention, the story of this war is being shaped not just by military actions, but also by the determination of the Palestinian population and the increasing number of international voices advocating for justice and recognition of Palestine. This historical event will be remembered as evidence of the unwavering strength of human resilience and global unity in the face of tyranny.

The lessons derived from this struggle are evident: sheer military strength is insufficient to address entrenched political problems, and the collective voice of the international community has significant influence in effecting change. The predicament of the Palestinians and the worldwide reaction to their distress underscore the need for a fair and enduring resolution to the conflict. Historical evidence demonstrates that both public opinion and international law have the power to significantly influence the outcomes of deeply rooted conflicts.

The Persistent Threat from Afghanistan

By

Dr. Fatime Mehdi

-

June 1, 2024

0

Following the departure of foreign military personnel from Afghanistan and the formation of an interim government in August 2021, there was an optimistic anticipation for a forthcoming period of tranquilly and progress in the area. — Taliban fighters stand guard along a roadside near the Zanbaq Square in Kabul on August 16, 2021 as the Taliban were in control of Afghanistan after President Ashraf Ghani fled the country and conceded the insurgents had won the 20-year war.

Following the departure of foreign military personnel from Afghanistan and the formation of an interim government in August 2021, there was optimistic anticipation for a forthcoming period of tranquility and progress in the area. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan were expected to gain advantages from this newfound stability. Nevertheless, the actual situation has significantly deviated from these anticipations, especially for Pakistan, which has seen a sharp increase in cross-border terrorist occurrences.

The Pakistani government and security services have constantly identified the proscribed Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as the main perpetrator of these terrorist actions. The TTP, now taking shelter in Afghanistan, is suspected of masterminding these assaults, therefore compromising the peace and security of Pakistan. As to Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), there has been a significant rise in terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. Terrorists are now making regular and persistent efforts to enter Pakistan via the easily penetrable Afghan border.

The Pakistan Army has been undertaking continuous operations along the border, namely in the volatile region of Baluchistan, as a reaction to these threats. The objective of these operations is to eliminate the terrorist networks and proactively prevent any further infiltration.

For one month, a total of 29 terrorists have been eliminated because of these border operations, which serves as a clear indication of the very violent and continuous warfare in the area.

The Pakistani security forces have shown an unrelenting dedication to protecting the nation’s borders and residents, however, this devotion has come at a high cost. The troops’ sacrifices, especially the recent death of Major Babar Khan on May 14, highlight the serious dangers encountered by those at the forefront. The courage and sacrifice of Major Khan exemplify the Pakistan Army’s commitment and determination to eliminate the terrorist threat.

The ISPR has restated its expectation that the Afghan government would take resolute measures to prevent terrorists from using Afghan territory as a base for launching assaults on Pakistan. This expectation is based on the notion of maintaining positive ties between neighboring countries and showing reciprocal respect for the sovereignty of each country. Nevertheless, despite several pleas and diplomatic endeavors, including a high-level team from Pakistan providing substantial proof of these assaults to the Afghan authorities, there has been little progress in suppressing cross-border terrorism.

The ongoing nature of these assaults has been further substantiated by instances of gunfire directed at Pakistani territory and efforts to breach the security barrier along the border. These acts of hostility not only breach international rules but also present a substantial risk to Pakistan’s national security. Pakistan’s political and military leadership has continuously urged the Afghan government to take decisive measures to halt the influx of terrorists.

The main factor contributing to the ongoing terrorism in Pakistan is the haven granted to the TTP and other extremist organizations in Afghanistan. After the United States withdrew, these organizations took advantage of the power vacuum to re-establish their strongholds and reorganize.

The Afghan transitional government, now facing internal difficulties and striving to establish legitimacy and authority, has so far been unable to successfully counter these organizations or prevent them from using Afghan territory as a base for launching operations on Pakistan.

The involvement of the international community, namely neighboring nations, and major global players, in tackling this issue is of utmost significance. Ensuring regional stability is a shared obligation, and it is imperative for nations to cooperate and assist one another in the fight against terrorism. This includes the exchange of information, collaborative military activities, and synchronized diplomatic endeavors to exert pressure on the Afghan government, compelling them to adopt more robust measures against terrorist organizations operating inside their territory.

The permeable characteristic of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which extends across 2,600 km, presents a substantial obstacle in thwarting the transit of terrorists. Although there have been attempts to construct a barrier along the border and improve monitoring, the challenging terrain and interconnected tribal loyalties on both sides provide significant obstacles to achieving total closure of the region. The geographical circumstances need a comprehensive strategy for securing borders, which involves the use of physical barriers, modern technology, intelligence operations, and community involvement to identify and prevent terrorist activity.

Terrorism has had a significant and far-reaching effect on Pakistan, not only resulting in the loss of human lives but also causing extensive social and economic consequences. The persistent menace of terrorist attacks has placed significant pressure on the nation’s resources, redirected cash from developmental initiatives toward security expenses, and fostered an environment characterized by apprehension and ambiguity among the public.

The socio-economic progress of the impacted areas, namely Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has been significantly impeded, leading to a vicious cycle of poverty and underdevelopment that may exacerbate extremist views.

The Pakistani people and its security forces have shown impressive resilience in confronting these issues. Nevertheless, the persistent fatalities and the continued danger to the nation’s security emphasize the imperative need to discover a permanent resolution to the problem of transnational terrorism. An all-encompassing approach is necessary to tackle the immediate security issues as well as the fundamental socio-political elements that lead to the continued existence of terrorism.
Education and economic growth are crucial elements of this overarching goal. By offering educational and career prospects, we can reduce the attractiveness of extremist ideology, especially among the young who are most susceptible to radicalization. Implementing development initiatives that enhance infrastructure, healthcare, and social services in the impacted areas may fortify resistance against terrorist influences and cultivate a feeling of inclusivity and national cohesion.
Organizations such as the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) may have a crucial impact in assisting Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts. This aid may be provided via the provision of technical support, the enhancement of the capabilities of law enforcement agencies, and the facilitation of discussions between Pakistan and Afghanistan to tackle the underlying factors contributing to cross-border terrorism.

Ultimately, the ongoing terrorism originating from Afghanistan poses a substantial risk to the stability and security of Pakistan. The continuous acts of terrorism carried out by the TTP, and other extremist organizations underscore the intricate and diverse character of this problem. To properly tackle the issues presented by cross-border terrorism, a collaborative endeavor is necessary including Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the international community. The area can only achieve permanent peace and stability by engaging in continuous collaboration, implementing strong security measures, and pursuing comprehensive socio-economic development. The courageous troops’ sacrifices and the Pakistani people’s perseverance demonstrate the nation’s steadfast dedication to conquering this threat and ensuring a peaceful future for its residents.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Confronted with the huge contrast between prestigious private universities and poorly supported government schools, Wani envisioned closing this gap.

To prioritize the welfare of students, 25 colleges will establish compact health centers, while 100 educational institutions will include mental sports rooms to cultivate strategic thinking and mental agility.

This atmosphere fosters the comprehensive growth of children, propelling them towards a trajectory of achievement.

Despite the Taliban’s repeated crackdowns, ISKP currently poses one of the pressing transnational security threats for the world.

Effective counterterrorism efforts often require intelligence sharing among different security agencies, both domestically and internationally.

The Taliban seemingly don’t want to disrupt the sector, which is vital for the Afghan economy and the Taliban themselves.

Major geopolitical players, primarily the United States, must be ready for a frank dialogue, which is impossible without a retrospective analysis of previous decisions regarding Ukraine.

In fact, these U.S. efforts to disarm Ukraine were used by the U.S. to ensure controlled influence on Russia by strengthening Yeltsin’s position there.

The large-scale war in Ukraine is now in its third year, and every day it continues could spread the flames of war to Europe, paving the way for World War III.

The rapid accession of two EU countries, Finland and Sweden, to NATO against the backdrop of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine shows that NATO is a reliable security mechanism for European countries.

Global power contestation is played for one primary reason, which is to meet one’s vital security interest, a primary dictum of international relations that there is no permanent friend and no permanent enemy in the international system.

In the international system, when a state increases its power, it intentionally or unintentionally decreases the power of others, more especially when states are acute rivals to each other.

Finland and Sweden, which may not be allowed by the US to acquire their nuclear weapons, have joined NATO to get some form of security guarantee.

The India-Israel strategic partnership also includes transferring advanced technology that India may use for its conventional and nuclear forces development.

India has often omitted “minimum” from the credible minimum deterrence it initially conceptualized. Besides, what is minimum against China cannot be minimum against Pakistan.

Countries do cooperate for many things despite the rivalry. In doing so, this will reduce the pressure on other nuclear rivals including that of India and Pakistan.

In addition, the Planning Commission has decreased the development budget of the HEC from 59 billion rupees to 21 billion rupees, dealing another setback to the higher education sector.

Insufficient financing for infrastructure upkeep may lead to the deterioration of facilities, which negatively affects the learning environment.

This might lead to a deceleration of technological advancement and a decrease in the country’s competitiveness on the international arena.

These countries have praised the decision as a critical step towards fairness and have urged for its prompt execution.

The Palestinian government and organizations such as Hamas have expressed their approval of the ruling, seeing it as a crucial milestone in the effort to alleviate the hardships faced by their population.

These countries acknowledge that the establishment of justice and accountability is the only way to attain long-lasting peace in the area.

The persistent concerns over instability and violence lead to a cautious stance by prospective foreign investors.

The absence of a comprehensive legal structure for safeguarding intellectual property rights also discourages investments that are driven by technology and innovation.

The onerous customs processes lead to delays and extra expenses, significantly disrupting the logistics and supply chain operations of multinational enterprises.

The PLO has described it as historic, while Hamas sees it as a vital step arising from the Palestinian heroic fight.

Nevertheless, Israel’s following transgressions and severe actions have resulted in an enduring confrontation that continues to attract worldwide scrutiny and dissent.

This position highlights the intricacies of the United States’ involvement in the Middle East, as it tries to maintain a balance between supporting Israel and addressing the problems of the Palestinians, all while striving for peace in the area.

The Israeli leadership’s credibility has been undermined by this circumstance, prompting a reassessment of its plans and policies towards Gaza and Hamas.

The global world has seen these acts of extreme cruelty, and the reaction has been one of strong disapproval and demands for responsibility.

In the same way, Israel, despite its strong military, is now dealing with the aftermath of a war that did not accomplish its goals and instead rallied international sympathy for the Palestinian people.

For one month, a total of 29 terrorists have been eliminated because of these border operations, which serves as a clear indication of the very violent and continuous warfare in the area.

The Afghan transitional government, now facing internal difficulties and striving to establish legitimacy and authority, has so far been unable to successfully counter these organizations or prevent them from using Afghan territory as a base for launching operations on Pakistan.

The socio-economic progress of the impacted areas, namely Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has been significantly impeded, leading to a vicious cycle of poverty and underdevelopment that may exacerbate extremist views.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.