No victory, No defeat: Is This a Way Out of The Geopolitical Zeitnot in the War in Ukraine?

By

-

May 22, 2024

Against the backdrop of the escalation of hostilities in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine by Russia, many people are asking questions about the West’s strategy in the war in Ukraine. Does the West consider a Ukrainian victory to be the desired outcome or not?

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy recently stated that “while his allies are calling for a swift end to the war,” Zelenskyy says “Ukraine will only accept a ‘fair’ peace solution.” Probably, by “fair peace,” Zelenskyy means the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity within the 1991 borders.

How to achieve this goal when the West is not willing to provide Ukraine with all the weapons it needs to try to restore its territorial integrity militarily? In this context, it should come as no surprise that the $32 billion lend-lease signed by President Biden on May 9, 2022, was not used until the lend-lease expired on September 30, 2023, triggering a nearly seven-month political battle for aid to Ukraine in Congress, thus having a very negative impact on the combat capability of Ukraine’s armed forces.

Ukraine is awaiting the $60 billion in U.S. military aid that was approved last month, which includes rocket launchers, artillery rounds, infantry vehicles and other military equipment.

At the same time, representatives of the US administration do not make public statements regarding the timing of the delivery of weapons. Only announcements of upcoming events of a general nature.

“The principal desire of the United States is for Ukraine to win the war against the Russian Federation,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said at a May 20 briefing. “We fundamentally want Ukraine to win this war, and I think we’ve made that clear, including by providing billions of dollars in security assistance,” Miller said.

At the same time, Miller did not name the criteria of Ukraine’s victory – he did not mention anything about returning to the 1991 borders, i.e. restoring territorial integrity. When asked whether the United States wanted Russia to lose the war, Miller said that the United States “wants to see Ukraine win and that by its very nature means Russia losing the war.

What criteria for Russia losing the war did Miller cite? Miller stated that “we would like Russia to just end the war”.”Just end the war” is the basic message for the end of a war, i.e., when the war stops along the battle lines. It is neither victory nor defeat. Ukraine does not lose the war by defending its sovereignty and independence, and the territorial issue is moved to the political square after the end of hostilities, which will mean that Russia has not lost the war either, i.e. it is a war where there will be neither victory nor defeat for both sides.

“We are in a nonsense situation where the West is afraid that Russia will lose the war,” President Zelensky said. “And it does not want Ukraine to lose it.” President Zelensky publicly repeated the first part of the well-known thesis of Sullivan, the White House National Security Advisor: “Ukraine must not lose and Russia must not win”.

Ukraine must preserve its sovereignty and independence, and the issue of territorial integrity should be the subject of post-war international debate and political, not military, instruments.

This is the basis of the plan to end the war by presidential candidate Trump and Chinese President Xi, which was announced in May. This is exactly what President Zelenskyy is talking about when he mentions soft power, i.e. the political tools that Ukraine’s Western partners want to use to end the war. Putin quickly recognized this development and made a statement in which he agreed to this development, i.e., to stop the war and switch to political instruments.

In early May, the deputy head of Ukraine’s foreign intelligence service, Skibitsky, said that Ukraine understood that returning to the 1991 borders using military tools, i.e. restoring territorial integrity, would not end the war. Only the front line will change, and the war will continue, so negotiations will begin before Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored. This is a hint of understanding Sullivan’s thesis in Ukraine.

Ending the war with a military victory for Ukraine would imply not only the restoration of the 1991 borders but also fundamental political changes in Russia – either a radical change of power in Russia or the collapse of Russia as a state. Here the main question arises: “Does the West have a strategy for changing the fundamental political landscape in Russia – either a radical change of power in Russia or the collapse of Russia as a state, and does it even seek to do so?” The leaders of the Western world have not made such statements. President Biden has made the opposite statement, emphasizing that the United States is not seeking this. It is worth recalling the experience of the past.

In 1989, after his inauguration as President of the United States, President Bush asked James Baker, the US Secretary of State, what strategy should be chosen for the USSR against the background of various changes in President Gorbachev’s policy towards the West aimed at openness and improvement of relations. The strategy was called “Pause,” meaning to watch the developments in the USSR.

At the same time, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the opening of democratic processes in Eastern Europe, the Bush administration simultaneously did everything it could to support Gorbachev in his efforts to preserve the USSR during political and economic reforms.

Immediately after the August 1991 coup in the USSR, James Baker asked President Gorbachev what the United States was most concerned about: “Where was Russia’s so-called nuclear suitcase during the coup?” President Gorbachev replied that he did not know, which shocked both Baker and Bush, forcing them, as well as the Clinton administration, to virtually immediately take control of the fate of nuclear weapons in the USSR during its collapse and the rise of Yeltsin’s government in Russia.

At present, the strategy for Russia’s collapse, or even a radical change of power in Russia, must necessarily include mechanisms for controlling nuclear weapons and nuclear materials, which are of interest to international terrorist organizations in their quest to obtain a dirty nuclear bomb. Does the United States have such mechanisms now? Partially, that is, about strategic nuclear weapons, yes – the New START treaty, which expires in February 2026. Sullivan has repeatedly stated the relevance of its extension, but Russia has set a condition: the end of the war in Ukraine through political means and by reducing arms assistance to Ukraine.

Without this treaty, the only thing left is shuttle diplomacy, i.e. constant communication in Russia with those who will have the actual ability to control Russia’s nuclear weapons. But how can this be done against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine? The relationship between the US and the USSR (Russia) in the days of Gorbachev and Yeltsin and the relationship between the US and Russia now cannot be compared – operational and effective communications are extremely difficult, if not impossible.

So, the fate of the nuclear suitcase, nuclear weapons and nuclear materials: in whose hands will they be? Likely, the Biden administration does not have an answer to this question. Just as there is no answer to the question that follows from Baker’s statement addressed to President Bush during the August 1991 coup in Moscow: What will replace the USSR?

The U.S. administration eventually decided to support the collapse of the USSR and to facilitate this process politically because of the presence of a powerful, large-scale democratic movement in the USSR, particularly in the Russian Federation.

How powerful is the democratic movement in Russia today and is it ready to take on this challenge? It is not. Waiting for the emergence of such a movement in Russia while Ukraine is bleeding in the war is not justified either from the point of view of security in the region, i.e. the spread of the war to Europe, or from the point of view of the fate of millions of Ukrainians.

Therefore, Western partners’ calls for President Zelenskyy to end the war and move to a political post-war settlement can also be summarized as not only ending the war in Ukraine but also addressing larger security issues in the region as a whole. The war needs to be put on a permanent pause, and the major geopolitical players should use this to engage in an active dialogue that would address the main security issues in the region and correct the mistakes of the 1990s regarding Ukraine’s security status. Until the issue of Ukraine’s security status is resolved, it is impossible to build a reliable security architecture in Europe.

Bulldozing US Dollar

By

Noor Ahmed

-

May 22, 2024

0

Russia, one of the founding members of the BRICS alliance, is hosting the 16^th summit in the region of Kazan, where for the first time nine member states, including four new members, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE, will be a part of that summit due to the extension. BRICS is advancing towards further expansion, where many new nations will be given invitations to join.

The larger the BRICS grows in 2024, the bigger the US dollar faces peril as the bloc is trying to reduce reliance on the US dollar. The main objective of the coming summit is further expansion and de-dollarization.

According to the latest update for April 2024, 40 new developing countries are willing to join the alliance this year. Russia’s state secretary and deputy minister of foreign affairs has confirmed that BRICS has received 40 applications for membership. The alliance is taking de-dollarization activities, calling on other countries to break links with the USD. Before launching a new currency, it seems to be busy strengthening the local currencies for cross-border trade. Keeping the local currencies in the driver’s seat of the global economy will push the US dollar into the back seat.

Throughout the last year, the group didn’t seem shy about its ambitious initiatives. They have embraced the expansion, which made the bloc twice its initial size. Moreover, it seems to challenge Western economic dominance. The alliance is moving forward to abolish the US dollar in all of its global trade and transition this year. It is also willing to strengthen its native economies and businesses while putting local currencies ahead of the U.S. dollar. China and Russia have signed an agreement to use their local currencies Up to $260 billion. This deal is initiated to settle payments in exchange for commodities purchased between two neighbours.

Both states have decided to settle payments in the Chinese Yuan and Russian Rubles instead of the US dollar, where 95% of the $260 billion trade worth will be in the Chinese Yuan and 5% in the Russian rubles and Euro. The developments indicate that the BRICS bloc is taking serious steps and will do everything on the agenda of de-dollarization. There is no doubt that the US will not keep itself down without fighting and will respond.

According to the Financial Times report, Alliance is planning a remarkable $13.5 billion oil investment. The investment will include the United Arab Emirates, one of the four new members of the bloc.

The country is ready to invest the funds in Brazil; the majority of them will be invested in the biofuel sector. However, it is part of a much larger investment strategy. Also, there are plans for a new stock exchange to be set up in the country.

The relations could eventually lead to the establishment of a new stock exchange in Brazil. The continued relationship will be based on both countries’ strengths, with Brazil’s agricultural prowess helping the UAE’s oil and vice versa. BRICS is focusing on controlling the global oil sector and bringing the US dollar down using local currencies for trade.

The alliance has been somewhat successful in the agenda of de-dollarization in the last 24 months and is trying to push further. The bloc has inducted four new oil-producing countries. An invitation is also sent to the top oil exporter, Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is focusing on its option of joining the alliance. There are chances that Saudi Arabia could accept local currencies for oil and reduce the US dollar for payments. If Saudi Arabia enters an alliance, it can change the supply dynamics of the global oil and gas industry. Whereas 20% of all oil transactions were settled in local currencies in the last year, Saudi Arabia’s entry into the BRICS can change this number.

The alliance already dominates 43% of the global oil supply, threatening the prospects of the US dollar. These developments will affect many financial sectors in the U.S., leading to a market decline in the coming years. If developing nations, including the BRICS alliance, ditch the dollar for trade, the USD currency will return to the homeland.

Three U.S. sectors will be directly affected if BRICS dumps the dollar for trade Banking and Finance, Technology and Fintech and Consumer Goods and Retail.

First and foremost, the banking and financial sectors will be in difficulty as foreign exchanges will begin to decline. The forex markets run on supply and demand, and if the demand for the USD dips, the U.S. Central Bank will find it difficult to import the dollar. If the Central Banks of BRICS members don’t assemble the dollar, the U.S. will see its currency returning home and this return of the currency will lead to hyperinflation in the homeland. Then the technology sector will suffer as inflation in the United States causes employment losses. Furthermore, Multinational corporations have to spend more money to keep enterprises afloat and stay on top without drowning.

Lastly, everyday consumer goods in the retail sector will see uncontrolled prices. Also, inflation will take a grip on the US markets, leading to the prices of day-to-day commodities turning expensive. Moreover, the Biden administration must find options to stop the decline of the U.S. dollar. BRICS has the power to bring down the US economy if they cease taking the dollar as payment.

Regional And Global Responses to AUKUS

By

Hajira Ahmed

-

May 21, 2024

0

AUKUS; a three-way defense-alliance finalized and eventually signed between the three States; the United States(US), the United Kingdom, and Australia on September 15, 2021 by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Scott Morrison, and Joe Biden has grown into a popular subject in the South Asian region.

This Alliance came into existence for providing consultations as well as necessary equipment to Australia for manufacturing nuclear propellant submarines and work in the Indo-Pacific Region where the rise of Chinese Actions is alarming for certain international actors typically being perceived as a threat.

Later on, it is planned to extend the cooperation for the development of wider technologies such as artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, Innovation, Electronic Warfare, Information sharing and quantum computing. Hereafter, some South Asian states are perceiving US’s growing influence in the region to be favorable in terms of maintaining peace and security within the region whereas some are pessimistic about its role. The pessimistic ones are of the view that US presence in the region shall cause arms race within the players of the international arena particularly within this region which shall ultimately cause distress, uncertainty and destruction of peace within the region as every state is aware of Chinese behavior having potential to turn more aggressive in case of growing outer interference such as recent AUKUS announcement.

Southeast Asian States Opposed to AUKUS:

Malaysia has consistently expressed disapproval of the dynamics pertaining to regional peace and security, and its response to AUKUS was undoubtedly unappreciative. After a phone call that happened after AUKUS finalization between Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his Malaysian counterpart Ismail Sabri Yaqoob, a statement was released on part of Yaqoob that the suspectible defence alliance could spark arms race in the region and may force some actors to take aggressive actions especially in South China Sea. He expressed Malaysia’s stance to keep the South East Asian Region as a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality(ZOPFAN) and maintaining the region free of Nuclear weapons. He also emphasized that Malaysia shall never allow any outside state to enter its territorial waters for any reason. In addition, the former Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad also expressed concerns to the finalization of AUKUS as declaring South Asian Region, a place of conflict for major powers. Moreover, the defense Minister Hissamuddin announced to go one step forward and visit China for consultations on this matter of urgence. But, instead of physical visit discussion happened on a video call by Hishamuddin and Chinese Defense Minister General Wei and no further statement was made by the two about AUKUS.

Not only AUKUS but Malaysia has also been critical of China’s nine dash line in South China Sea and has always been concerned over major powers actions’ stimulating military confrontations in the region.

Simultaneously, Malaysia has good relations with Australia, US and UK and has retained close defense arrangement with the states in the form of a pact named Five Powers Defense Arrangement(FPDA) and is critical of China’s Aggressive behavior in Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zones(EEZs). Hence, its evident that Malaysia is not willing to take a side among major beneficiaries, but is also not willing to give up on its stance of keeping the South Asian Region free of any future military stand offs that ultimately threatens the peace and stability in the region.

Indonesia is another state that is critical of AUKUS. In a statement released in September 2021,Indonesian Foreign Minister stressed on the fact that Jakarta is very much concerned over the increasing arms race and (presumably big players) power projection within the South Asian Region. Indonesia also called on Canberra to align its action with the agreement such as Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in the Southeast Asia(TAC) to rules and obligations of which it should abide by. In the about phrase “arms race and power projection”, Indonesia not only pointed to the AUKUS partners but to the other regional players such as China as well. A further assessment of AUKUS by an Indonesian diplomat pointed the fact that arms race in the region is a practical implication of cause –effect paradigm. For instance, China’s military buildup solely in 2020 was approximately 6.4% increased than before which was more than combined defense spending of all South Asian States. Hence, Canberra, Washington and UK had to counter this rising Chinese upgrading. Hence, it verifies that Indonesia’s response to AUKUS is nuanced observing each state’s intentions.

Philippines, another nation whose reaction to AUKUS needs to be discussed. After President Rodrigo Duterte took office in 2016, the relations of American and Philippines strained as he chose China and Russia to build closer ties with instead of US. It happened as during COVID-19, some of the US-Philippines bilateral agreement were put on backend resulting in Philippines withdrawal from Visiting Forces Agreement (1999) but then it remained intact after the US Defense Secretary visited Manila. But still, the relations became bitter. Hence, Philippines declared AUKUS to spark nuclear arms race in the region.

Southeast Asian States in Favor of AUKUS:

In addition to the states that oppose AUKUS, there are still several that offer some support for this effort.. Singapore has adopted a positive reaction to AUKUS and has perceived the deployment of the US fleets in the region as a contribution towards peace and stability in the region. As the Australian Prime Minister explained to his Singaporean counterpart Lee Hsein Loong over the basic idea behind this initiative (i.e. to secure the region), Singapore is confident that the US presence along with his allies i.e. UK and Australia in the region shall work constructively to make the region peaceful, stable and prosperous in terms of communication and trade.

Singapore has always advocated balance of power in the region.

It has close relations to all three members of AUKUS and as Chinese assertiveness in the region is rising, Singapore is anxious about balancing major powers equation of global influence. Hence, Singapore is pretty much positive about the US role in the region that shall ultimately balance geo-strategic prowess . Therefore, US-China competition to be balanced in the South-Asian Region is the foremost preference of Singapore.

Another player in the area is Vietnam, which takes a similar tack to Singapore. Since the announcement of AUKUS, A Foreign Ministry Official from Vietnam spoke about how different entities needs to work together for peace in the region and the Australian Nuclear submarines received as part of AUKUS should be used for social and economic development as well as for the safety and security of the humans and environment. This stance of Vietnam is a result of some incidents that strained Chinese-Vietnamese Relations. For instance Hanoi and China has an old dispute within the South China Sea that has made Vietnam to prioritize the US over China. Additionally, Hanoi if not openly supported Free and Open Indo-Pacific(FOIP) Strategy drawn by US, but it has expressed affirmation to the fundamental postulates of the theory that advocates freedom of navigation and rules based order in the Indo-Pacific Region.

Another state whose response to AUKUS is significant is Thailand. It basically is a treaty ally to US whereas a close partner of China as well. Thailand does not want to strain its relations with Washington and Beijing at any cost. Actually AUKUS is not that much serious concern for Thailand as much as its domestic political environment is hence, the regional peace and stability is definitely not the foremost preference of this State. There has been no official statement made about AUKUS but Thai current affairs observers filled the void and expressed their concerns over the finalization of AUKUS. In this regard, journalist Choongkittavorn expressed anxiously that the US led alliance is provoking arms race in the region and is forcing the regional entities to make a difficult choice between the US and China. In contrast, the former government official named Kasit Piromya stated that the US presence in the region is important to guarantee peace and stability in the region and to counter growing Chinese assertiveness especially when no other state exhibit the power to challenge China in this critical time.

French and European Union(EU) Reaction to AUKUS Finalization:

AUKUS Finalization has caused many grievances not only for China but also for the states such as France. Prior to AUKUS announcement, in 2016 Australia and France signed an agreement worth $90 Billion in which twelve diesel propelled submarines were to be acquired by Australia. In fact, two weeks before AUKUS was revealed (in June 2021), Australian President Scott Morrison met French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron and assured that all the arrangement were in place for the diesel propellent submarines purchase but even before that ,in March 2021 ; Australia was trying to convince UK to make US share their extremely critical nuclear technology with Australia and eventually that happened in the form of AUKUS. As AUKUS got announced to the world, Australia cancelling that agreement mentioned before and was not only perceived as a betrayer by France but was also accused for not respecting and ultimately violating the international law i.e Pacta sunt servanda ; agreements must be kept among world actors(states).

Now this cancellation of deal by Australia broke the trust as well as violated the international norm of trust prevailing in the international society. Originally, the agreement signed between Australia and France was a not merely a defense Pact but was an initiator for a 50 years long strategic partnership between the two contracting parties. Anyhow, Australia was smacked of betrayal and there was a series of interviews that reflected grave anger of French officials to the Australian act. For instance Le Drian ,the French Defense Minister during whose presence the2016 French-Australian deal was signed, said

“Allies do not treat each other with the amount of unpredictability and such brutality as Australia did”.

He further added that it was a major violation of trust and extreme duplicity of actions that happened behind their back for six months.

Moreover, this betrayal by Australia was not a surprise as for the last 70 years, United States is a major ally of the former and has a key importance in the Australian Foreign Policy dynamics as well as approach towards Indo-Pacific. Moreover, ANZUS treaty(which allowed Australia to acquire sophisticated technology on US backing),Five Eyes Network(of which Canada, New Zealand and UK are also a part of other than Australia and the US) and Quad(partnership shared by the US, Australia, Japan and India) are only a few examples of Australia-US deep relationship. Hence, its easy to conclude that AUKUS is nothing more than a continuation of this long-term strategic Alliance.

AUKUS emerged as a pain point for the EU members as well. AUKUS got finalized at time when EU was preparing to unveil their “common Indo-Pacific Strategy” and at that crucial moment, AUKUS appeared no less than a betrayal to the EU members as well , as they were kept in dark about AUKUS. Hence a sharp criticism came from there for Australia by the backing of France who was majorly affected as explained before. As a response, the EU officials called for a more robust and autonomous Indo-Pacific Strategy that was free of any US leading and a unified approach of all EU members in terms of their foreign policy initiatives. This phenomenon was already explained in the Global EU strategy in 2016 but didn’t got any popularity among the members at that time. But, after AUKUS, this idea got a new traction. The EU senior official Joseph Borell stated in this regard: “We must know how to survive on our own feet just like others do”.

This unifies EU approach towards Indo-Pacific is justified as the record to US-EU relations is not much appreciative since the last few years. For Instance, EU members claimed that AUKUS is just another example of failed US approach towards harmony and unity in the region as already what US Presidents did as of Iraq Invasion, the US conflictual policies towards Syria and also US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. EU members’ officials stated that the basic need for a successful alliance are loyalty, transparency and collective advantage and in EU-US case all three was lacking.

Consequently, it illustrates how the US is seeking to spearhead the new global order, how all of its major allies are now vocal about the US’s aggressive methods, and how the US has so far drawn criticism from the majority of states.

Book Review – China and Russia: Four Centuries of Conflict and Concord

By

Zaheen Qureshi

-

May 21, 2024

0

a book review, relation between China and Russia

Philip Snow’s work, “China and Russia: Four Centuries of Conflict and Concord,” diverges from recent historical tendencies that either seek “relevance” or adopt an exhaustive focus on specific characteristics of the Sino-Russian relationship.

The distinctive strength of Snow’s book lies in its meticulous attention to detail, offering a wealth of information spanning countless of subjects.

The narrative includes not only battles and political maneuvers but also investigates into diverse areas such as Russian attempts to replicate Chinese porcelain, the emergence of a Sino-Russia dialect along the border, and the nuances of Chinese and Russian proverbs.

Snow’s journey in crafting this work can be traced back to his academic roots, specifically to a paper titled “Sino-Russian Relations from 1644 to the Present” which was initially presented during his final exams at Oxford in the mid-1970s. Rooted in a unique background, marked by visits to Russia alongside his parents, the renowned novelists CP Snow and Pamela Hansford Johnson, Snow’s perspective gains a different dimension. These visits, arranged through the Soviet Writers’ Union, allowed him to engage with a diverse spectrum of Soviet literary figures, offering insights into the complexities of Soviet society.

Furthermore, Snow’s professional trajectory, including his role in the Sino-British Trade Council during the late 1970s, provided him with a front-row seat to witness China’s transformative journey. Facilitating Chinese technical study groups across the United Kingdom and aiding British trade missions in remote regions of China, Snow became intimately acquainted with China’s emergence from isolation and its initial ascent to power and wealth.

The amalgamation of Snow’s academic background, familial connections, and hands-on experiences in both Russia and China forms a multifaceted tapestry that undoubtedly shapes the depth and nuance of his exploration of Sino-Russian relations within the pages of this book.

Drawing on sources in Chinese, Russian and English, Snow gives a detailed and well-paced analysis of a contentious yet important geopolitical relationship. There is considerable scientific literature on this issue, and the author smartly puts his contribution as a narrative synthesis that aims “to take a panoramic view of the entire four centuries of Sino-Russian contact and to tease out any patterns which might emerge from that vista”.

The main pattern that develops is a perpetual cycle of collaboration and conflict. Since the late 17th century, when Russian Cossacks first encountered the Qing Empire in the river valleys of Outer Manchuria, the relationship between Eurasia’s two largest states has resembled the incessant movement of a concertina, drawn together by shared interests and pushed apart by inter-imperial rivalry.

At the start of the book, Snow examines Sino-Russian connections back to the 1600s caravan trade and delves into the territorial push and pull between tsarist Russia and Qing dynasty China in the 1800s border areas of Manchuria, Outer Mongolia, and Xinjiang. Moreover, Snow delves into how at the end of the 19^th century, Russia began to modernise and Westernise, as China became the primary interest for the imperial and colonial struggle between European empires.

This era also witnessed significant growth in Russia’s sphere of influence in Central Asia and the Pacific area, putting the Russians in control of enormous regions that were previously under Chinese authority. Following a disastrous war with Japan and the devastation of World War I, the fall of the Romanov dynasty in the communist revolution marked the start of a critical new phase in the Sino-Russian relationship, with an increasingly dominant Russian Communist Party taking an active interest in Chinese affairs. Snow recounts how in the 1920s, the Soviets micromanaged the rise of China’s first political parties, the Nationalists and the Communists, and encouraged them to cooperate..

Although many people are familiar with the Sino-Soviet schism that began in the 1960s and provided the United States with the opportunity to begin its complicated relationship with communist China following decades of diplomatic hostility-with Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, the author provides a compelling narrative demonstrating that the relationship between the two communist powers was brittle for decades before then.

During the decade before the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, Stalin, ever the chess master, played off the Chinese communists under Mao Zedong and the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek against each other to maintain Soviet interests in the country, not completely supporting the communists until the end of World War II. The Korean War deepened these tensions as the Soviets pressured the Chinese to save their North Korean clients after the U.S. intervened in the war but did not initially give the material and air support the Chinese felt Stalin should provide.

As the Cold War progressed, the author convincingly demonstrated that the US’ conception of a monolithic global communist bloc was far different from the testy relationship between the two countries, notably after Stalin’s death and throughout Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

The concluding chapters on the present Sino-Russian relationship depict a strengthening strategic relationship that has now clearly shifted in China’s favour. The unsuccessful Westernization of Russia following the fall of communism, in contrast to China’s putative communist oligarchy managing the world’s fastest-growing economy during most of the 1980s and 1990s, has positioned China as the more dominant partner.

Embracing a longer durée lens and influenced by the Annales School, Snow’s approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of historical phenomena by extending the temporal horizon beyond conventional short-term perspectives to millennia and centuries. In doing so, Snow eschews simplistic narratives, opting instead for a nuanced exploration that captures the underlying continuities, transformations, and patterns shaping Sino-Russian relations over centuries offering a unique perspective on the Sino-Russian relations despite more than 1200 books that can be found in the Sino-Russian relations in the US Library of Congress.

But the book has certain obvious deficiencies and mistakes such as when Snow tells about the historical incident during the Sino-Soviet conflict in 1969, focusing on alleged communications between American diplomat Henry Kissinger and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. According to the account, Kissinger purportedly warned Dobrynin that the US would retaliate with a missile strike on Soviet cities if the USSR attacked China. However, the source of this claim is Mark O’Neill, a journalist who published the allegations without providing substantial evidence. Despite the lack of credible sources or archival evidence, Snow uses this as the only source of this meeting which is circumspect at best.

In another instance Snow’s argument regarding Beijing’s lingering concerns about Russia even after the normalisation of Sino-Soviet relations in 1989. Snow cites a Western academic’s observation in 1996 of Chinese missiles in Qinghai province seemingly pointed towards Russia, suggesting continued apprehensions. However, it raises scepticism about how missiles that are typically launched vertically, can be pointed towards USSR. Additionally, the timeline is also questionable, as Google Earth was not launched until 2001, casting doubt on the methodology used to reach this conclusion. Therefore, while the claim underscores enduring tensions, which was largely true, it prompts a need for further clarification on the evidence and methodology employed in making such assertions.

The book is resplendent with numerous anecdotes and historical quips that can further augment the understanding of Sino-Russian relations, one never feels that the book is objective in its entirety.

Nothing can be but one can easily feel that this book is written for a Western audience with Western sensibilities. His commentary about Tiananmen Square and the depiction of Mikhail Gorbachev is emblematic of how the West sees the world, discounting indigenous viewpoints.

It would have been even better for the book and the readers alike if the author had left his rose-tinted glasses of Orientalism and been more critical of the usual Western discourse set around the Sino-Russian relationship

Explainer: Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi Dies in Helicopter Crash

By

Amna Talha

-

May 20, 2024

0

Ebrahim Raisi, the President of Iran, tragically died on Sunday, May 19, 2024, due to a helicopter crash in the Varzaqan region of East Azerbaijan Province. Raisi was en route with several high-ranking officials, including Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, when the crash occurred. All passengers aboard the helicopter were killed.

Ebrahim Raisi, born on December 14, 1960, in Mashhad, Iran, had a notable career in the Iranian judicial system before becoming the country’s president. He held positions such as Deputy Chief Justice (2004-2014), Attorney General (2014-2016), and Chief Justice (2019-2021). Raisi was also known for his involvement in the 1988 mass executions of political prisoners, earning him the controversial nickname “Butcher of Tehran”.

Raisi’s presidency, which began in August 2021, was marked by a hardline stance on various issues, including nuclear negotiations with the United States and internal political dissent. His administration saw intensified uranium enrichment and a strained relationship with Western countries due to ongoing disputes over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Raisi’s tenure also witnessed significant domestic unrest, notably the widespread protests following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022.

Following Raisi’s death, the First Vice President, Mohammad Mokhber, assumed presidential duties as stipulated by the Iranian constitution. A new presidential election is mandated to take place within 50 days to elect Raisi’s successor.

Book Review – The Return of History and the End of Dreams

By

Ayesha Mirza

-

May 20, 2024

0

The Return of History, and the End of Dreams, a riveting hundred-page book, written by Robert Kagan, and published in 2009 delves into the complexities of the new emerging world order shaped by contemporary events. He proceeds to talk about how terrorism, genocide, war, economic crises, political turmoil, and failed revolutions have changed the order of the world.

He writes, “The twenty-first century has not even turned a decade old,” emphasizing the importance of the events that unfolded before him. Kagan asserts, through his book that the end of the Cold War was supposed to shift the world order from clashing democracies, and fighting states, to a far more peaceful and liberal way of life, however, it resulted in states, and clashing ideologies vying for influence and power.

With Russia trying to undo the damage and humiliation it suffered at the hands of America (p.19), non-nuclear states shifting to nuclear powers, subjugated countries seeking freedom; through war, battles, and changed ideologies, and China gaining a stronghold, history is repeating, and the world order that dominated the international system before the cold war, has resurfaced.

Kagan’s book provided the readers with a comprehensive analysis of the new route the world order may be taking, but it was simultaneously critiqued by many scholars and critics – mainly liberals, for being too leftist and narrow.

Many critics mentioned the book as one having no applicability in the contemporary world, because modern times are far different from those at the time of cold-war, with a range of factors affecting global politics. “The book’s deterministic view of history ignores the potential for human agency, contingency, and the ability of states and societies to shape their destinies in the face of global trends and challenges,” a critic added in their analysis.

Another critic wrote, “The book’s normative bias towards liberal democracy undermines its ability to offer objective analysis and consider alternative political systems and governance models.”

In this book, Kagan critiques all the liberal scholars including Francis Fukuyama who thought of the finalized world order as one based on liberal democracy, established post-Cold War. As a conservative, Kagan posits that nationalism and nation-state ideologies have resurfaced in the International System, and conflicting interests between larger States such as China, America, and Russia will have implications on the World order altogether.

This is quite a reductionist approach toward the explanation of the ‘emerging world order’ as he defines it, overlooking and foregoing the importance of transnational relations. These include the increase in immigration of citizens to larger, and more offering countries in terms of security, employment, and general welfare. A huge number of immigrants have found homage in America, in attempts to escape from oppression, violence, and economic crises back home.

Additionally, the coalitions and agreements between States help the relatively struggling countries, with increased trade opportunities, and economic benefits, but Kagan does not take these into account. An example of these coalitions is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Kagan, given his emphasis on power dynamics, would interpret this project as China seeking to gain dominance in the Arabian Sea, to have a competitive advantage over America. He adds in his piece of research, “National ambition drives China’s foreign policy today.”

The CPEC project has opened newer opportunities in terms of employment, and trade for Pakistan. With the emphasis on power dynamics, and conflicting interests, Kagan ignores how non-state actors have a bearing on the International System, and that influence is different than the state of affairs, present before the Cold War.

It is also evident through his piece of writing that he (Kagan) considers military and military assets to be the sole determinants of influence in global politics.

While the military is an important asset for any country to safeguard National Security, it is not the only determinant of global politics. Ever since the end of the Cold War, terrorism, cyber warfare, instances of genocide, and even pandemics have shifted the strategies of States in the International System, depending on how each variant bore repercussions.

With the world evolving, strategies, and politics are also evolving. Taking the military as the sole bearer of global politics, Kagan downplays the contemporary global landscape. History may be cyclical, but with evolving practices, many other variables affect how countries portray themselves, and the International System. States have human security, and non-military concerns to worry about.

Terrorism, poverty, combating epidemics, and pandemics require multilateral approaches, in addition to military decisions, but considering the actions of States to be based entirely on the military is a wrong approach to understanding the world order. Alongside these factors, increased globalization, trade, and diplomacy have paved ways for States to gain influence in ways that do not include military, or military force.

An overemphasis on military force can perpetuate a worldview that prioritizes conflict and forceful intervention over diplomacy and peace agreements. Kagan’s perspective was limited and narrow, as he concluded without fully considering the diverse range of factors that shaped the post-Cold War global system.

It is worth noting that Kagan’s analysis is rooted in a European observation framework, reflecting his Western radical conservative viewpoint.

This Eurocentric point of view prevents his analysis from being representative of the entire International System. Thus, his perspective of World Politics undermines the aspects of colonialism, and imperialism, that predominantly affected non-western countries. Colonialism had lasting effects on the economic, social, and political aspects of the colonized regions, that are apparent to this day.

Therefore, with a limited worldview, Kagan cannot make claims about the entire global order, granted just the experiences of colonized non-western countries have a huge bearing on how the world order works today.

Furthermore, Kagan’s analysis of European Countries and America means that he overlooked significant events in the history of non-western countries, as Kagan mentions in his book, “China had its “century of humiliation.” Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on. This statement posits how he foregoes and ignores the years, and empires of glory Islam saw, only for them to be destroyed, first by Genghis Khan, and then by colonizers. This makes his analysis of history non-applicable, skewed, and biased.

The book was a good read, with quite a thrilling outlook toward the world as we know it. I saw the world through the eyes of a conservative radical; and enjoyed it. However, in my opinion, the global system is shaped by a wide array of factors that exceed, and are more complex than the dominant, and emerging powers. Coming from a country that was previously colonized, I think that every evaluation of global politics should consider the repercussions, and spillovers of colonialism, and imperialism.

Although it might not provide conclusive solutions, this book is an essential tool for anybody trying to understand the forces that are currently influencing our world. “The Return of History and End of Dreams” is a must-read that will leave you considering the profound ramifications of our constantly changing world, regardless of whether you are an experienced scholar or an inquisitive reader.

The Power of AI, E-Governance, and Cybersecurity

By

Noureen Akhtar

-

May 20, 2024

0

Amid the exponentially rapid progression of technology, in the ever-changing and evolving world of the 4th industrial revolution, deterring cyber-threats against computer systems and networks has become an undeniable imperative. The greater probability of the emergence of a high level of threats has rendered cybersecurity into a domain of national or global security which demands our attention where every innovation ushers a new set of cyber challenges. This explains the significant escalation in the current level of urgency in this security domain.

Like a deadly virus in a human body which can devastate on its own or unleash a complete health crisis by compromising the immune system from within, cyber threats are complex and compounded by nature and are becoming more so with the evolution of technologies.

The impact of modern cyber threats ranges from damaging critical infrastructure altogether or compromising it by providing unauthorized access by breaching credentials checking mechanisms by the spread of stealthy malware or cunning phishing attacks.

As the cyber realm is a constantly evolving phenomenon in the technological sense, the emergence of new ideas and paradigms of computing is natural, and the latest arrival in this realm is Artificial Intelligence (AI) which holds revolutionary power of some level of conscious decision-making by machines after learning from their experiences just like humans have evolved.

This distinct trait of AI made it ever more captivating for imagination presenting a plethora of eventualities. Consequently, AI now has become an integral partner in all emerging technologies in advancing Industry 4.0 through its various forms. The revolutionary potentials of AI in various statecraft, governance and security of a nation-state, local government, or non-state entity are immense.

The emergence of AI in the cyber realm has made it even more complex by offering such potentials on both sides of the cyber security equation; I.e. cyber troopers and cyber criminals both are going to get benefits from AI.

So, as a natural consequence of this evolution, we own cyberspace that has electronic governance (E-Governance), cyber security systems, cyber threats and AI; all the explosive elements in one single realm that’s contiguous, has no physical boundaries and, is constantly evolving. These elements are interconnected and the intricate interplay of these elements closely depends on the particular environment in which they interact with each other.

This article offers an examination of the intricate dynamics that characterize this relationship. This argumentation aims to shed light on the complexities and give readers more extensive knowledge of these complexities, thus improving the reader’s ability to perceive the full potential of it.

AI’s Role in Cybersecurity

The argumentation of the controversy goes to the core of the issue of the application of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity. It is a special skill, that allows us to process and analyze a huge amount of data in real-time. This function helps in the precise identification of any oddities and likely attack scenarios which thusly stops and blocks the threat in its way. By utilizing the machine learning algorithms AI can adjust to the new attack types, learn from its previous mistakes and thus improve its network defense. Also, besides its primary purpose, which is to protect us, this entity is vigilant and is always on guard, thus, it is the guardian of our digital fortress, and it can foresee and prevent security breaches.

Artificial intelligence can process new information at breakneck speed and rapidly recognize unfamiliar and emergent cyber threats. This covers a range of activities, including spotting anomalous network activities, recognizing existing patterns of malicious software behaviour, or identifying potentially exploitable vulnerabilities before the risks emerge. The AI can also instantly respond to a cyber-attack by sling-shotting. compromised systems, isolating the threat, and assisting the victim in recovering.

The system can quickly compare hundreds of potential attack patterns and suggest the best biologically-based antiviral response. Furthermore, through the detection of trends in former data, it can assess historical data to forecast prospective dangers and permit organizations to act in advance against future cyber threats. Using AI to automate many time-consuming security tasks can reduce the burden for cybersecurity professionals and ensure that protection is persistent.

The Mediating Role of E-Governance

Artificial intelligence by itself is insufficient to fully realize its potential in the field of cybersecurity. E-Governance is a crucial agent as a link in this context. which is defined as the integration of governance principles with the efficiency and innovation which the digital age has to offer.

When the data is the main component of governance, the E-Governance systems become the key link between the artificial intelligence and cyber security systems.

These systems, through the smooth transmission of information, make the decision-making process more efficient, and at the same time, they allow the users to respond to emerging threats promptly. so, E-Governance is the mode of communication through which the abilities of AI are employed and converted into practical tools for the protection of digital assets.

E-Governance encompasses various dimensions

Aspect	Description
Data Governance	Effective management, storage, and utilization of data as a valuable asset with safeguards.
Policy and Regulation	Definition of cybersecurity policies and regulations for secure digital environment operation.
Digital Identity Management	Establishment of robust identity management systems to ensure user identity in digital systems.
Information Sharing	Promotion of information sharing among government agencies, private sector, and international partners for enhanced cybersecurity efforts.

One should understand that the interaction among AI, E-Governance, and cybersecurity is a result of the differences of stakeholders with different levels of knowledge and expertise. Different actors, for example, governments, businesses, and individuals are in responsible for different things in this constantly changing environment. The level of their engagement can be either the reason for the progress or the reason for the obstruction.

The stakeholders who have deep knowledge of AI and cybersecurity can be the ones who will be the ones who will be the ones to speed up the change. Their active participation can be the cause of the creation of solid policies, the realization of AI-based security measures, and the development of a resilient culture to the threats of the cyber world. On the other hand, the absence of knowledgeable persons in the decision-making process creates a division between what is possible and what is realized, hence, the very successful implementation of AI for cybersecurity is hindered.

The Role of Governments and International Cooperation

Governmental organizations at both the national and local levels are the major players in AI, E-Governance and cybersecurity development and regulation. Their task is to make up the regulatory frameworks that will govern the ethical usage of AI in cyber security and to ensure the security and efficiency of E-Governance systems.

The joint efforts of the world nations are indispensable to effectively handle the cyber threats that have no national borders.

Cyberattacks, generally, are the result of a certain country attacking another, thus, the importance of international cooperation cannot be overemphasized. Institutions such as INTERPOL and the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime are the main promoters of global cooperation which is necessary to overcome the difficulties to deal with cyber threats.

The Business Imperative

Private enterprises are now more and more aware of the significance of artificial intelligence (AI) and electronic governance (E-Governance) which, in turn, help in the improvement of the cyber security system. Organizations are very eager to go to the counter of cyber threats, which is the financial institution’s duty to protect the customer data and tech companies need to protect intellectual property.

AI-driven cybersecurity solutions have made the transition from being a mere indulgence to a must-have item for businesses. Cybersecurity measures not only protect an organization’s digital assets but also serve the purpose of keeping its reputation intact and thereby ensuring the trust of its customers. On the other hand, in e-governance, one can find a well-organized system that enables businesses to obey best cybersecurity practices and thus, to comply with the regulatory standards and to decrease the legal risks.

The Role of Individuals

On the individual level, cyber security awareness and education are the most important factors. All the people who use digital systems for either work or entertainment have the responsibility to protect the data and the networks. This means, for instance, to comply with the given guidelines, such as using strong passwords, staying away from messy links and attachments, and reporting security breaches immediately to the rightful authority.

Besides, people have the power to use their authority to awaken governments and businesses to the meaning of cybersecurity.

Consumers are the ones who can make decisions to buy products and services that are designed for the protection of security and data privacy. This generates the incentives for the enterprises to allocate resources toward the research and the implementation of complete cybersecurity measures.

Challenges and Ethical Considerations

Challenge/Ethical Consideration	Description
Privacy Concerns	· Extensive data collection and analysis in AI cybersecurity raise concerns about individual privacy. · Balancing security needs with privacy rights is a significant challenge.
Ethical AI	· Ensuring AI in cybersecurity operates without bias and discrimination is crucial. · Unbiased AI algorithms are essential for fair and effective threat detection.
Cybersecurity Skills Gap	· Rapidly growing demand for skilled cybersecurity professionals. · Bridging the skills gap to manage AI-driven cybersecurity is essential.
Regulatory Complexity	· Evolving and complex regulatory landscape for AI and cybersecurity. · Organizations must navigate these regulations to ensure compliance.

The difficulties and ethics are intertwined and their intricacy can be different for each context and region. For AI, E-Governance and cybersecurity to be used responsibly, there is a need for organizations and policymakers to confront these problems.

The Future of AI, E-Governance, and Cybersecurity

As we draw closer to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, it becomes apparent that we should wholeheartedly embrace AI as a guardian of security, E-Governance as a catalyst of innovation, and the active participation of individuals who have the required knowledge and skills to adapt to this ever-changing situation. This voyage is set to redefine our approach to the protection of our digital domain and thus assure that the possibilities of Industry 4.0 shall be fully realized.

0 (zero) is not just a revolution, but a sign of safety in a highly connected and at the same time, more vulnerable digital environment.

The forthcoming face of cybersecurity is the amalgamation of AI, E-Governance, and the informants’ awareness. By the use of these technologies and the promotion of such teamwork across various sectors and international borders, we are capable of creating a more secure digital world.

Thus, one needs to resort to the use of the maximum of the Fourth Industrial Revolution resources and at the same time, make sure that the digital resources, the privacy, and the overall security are well protected.

India Takes Over Management of Iran’s Chabahar Port for 10 Years

By

Dr. Zukun Lyu

-

May 19, 2024

0

In a significant development for regional trade and geopolitics, India has taken over the management of Iran’s strategic Chabahar port for a decade. This move is the result of a 10-year agreement signed between India and Iran, which aims to enhance trade connectivity and economic collaboration between the two nations. The agreement, which was formalized in Tehran, marks a pivotal step in strengthening bilateral relations and creating new economic opportunities for both countries.

The Chabahar port, located in southeastern Iran on the Gulf of Oman, holds substantial strategic importance for India. Unlike the Karachi and Gwadar ports in Pakistan, Chabahar offers India direct access to the Central Asian region without the need to navigate through Pakistani territory. This strategic advantage is expected to enhance India’s trade reach and economic influence in the region. The port is seen as a gateway to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and beyond, providing a critical link in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). The INSTC is a multi-modal transportation network that aims to reduce cargo transit time and cost between India and Europe, through Iran and Russia.

Chabahar port is thus a key asset in India’s broader strategy to diversify its trade routes and reduce dependence on traditional maritime pathways.

Under the agreement, India will invest a substantial amount of 30 billion 88 crore rupees in the Chabahar project. This investment will be directed towards the construction and administrative affairs of the port, enhancing its infrastructure and operational capabilities. The development of Chabahar port is expected to boost trade and economic activities in the region, providing new avenues for growth and collaboration. Iranian officials have expressed optimism about the project, highlighting the potential for increased trade and economic integration with India. The port’s development is expected to create jobs, stimulate local economies, and foster greater connectivity between Iran and its neighboring countries.

Despite the potential benefits, the development of Chabahar port has faced significant challenges, primarily due to US sanctions on Iran. These sanctions have slowed the progress of the project, impacting investment and development activities. However, India and Iran have shown a strong commitment to overcoming these obstacles and moving forward with the port’s development. The agreement between India and Iran reflects a mutual determination to enhance bilateral relations and create new economic opportunities, despite external pressures. By taking over the management of Chabahar port, India is demonstrating its strategic interest in the region and its commitment to fostering stronger ties with Iran.

The takeover of Chabahar port by India has far-reaching implications for regional geopolitics. It represents a significant shift in the balance of power and trade dynamics in the region, providing India with a strategic foothold in Iran. This move is likely to enhance India’s influence in Central Asia and beyond, strengthening its position as a key player in regional trade and geopolitics. The development of Chabahar port is also seen as a counterbalance to China’s investment in Pakistan’s Gwadar port, which is part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

By enhancing its presence in Chabahar, India is positioning itself as a major competitor to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seeking to establish its own strategic trade routes and economic partnerships.

The Chabahar port project is expected to bring substantial economic benefits to both India and Iran. For India, the port provides a direct and cost-effective trade route to Central Asia, bypassing the traditional route through Pakistan. This is expected to reduce transportation costs and enhance trade efficiency, providing a significant boost to India’s export and import activities. For Iran, the development of Chabahar port represents an opportunity to enhance its economic connectivity and attract foreign investment. The port is expected to become a major hub for regional trade, providing new opportunities for growth and development. The investment from India is seen as a critical factor in overcoming the economic challenges posed by US sanctions and stimulating economic activities in the region.

The 10-year agreement between India and Iran marks a significant milestone in their bilateral relations. The collaboration on Chabahar port is expected to foster greater economic, political, and strategic ties between the two countries, enhancing their partnership on multiple fronts. The agreement is also seen as a reflection of India’s commitment to maintaining strong ties with Iran, despite external pressures and geopolitical challenges.

By investing in Chabahar port, India is demonstrating its long-term strategic interest in the region and its commitment to fostering a mutually beneficial relationship with Iran.

The takeover of Chabahar port by India represents a significant development in regional trade and geopolitics. The 10-year agreement between India and Iran marks a critical step in enhancing bilateral relations and creating new economic opportunities for both countries. Despite the challenges posed by US sanctions, the commitment of both nations to the project reflects a mutual determination to enhance connectivity and foster economic growth. The strategic importance of Chabahar port, coupled with the substantial investment from India, is expected to transform the regional trade dynamics and create new avenues for economic collaboration. The development of the port is seen as a critical factor in strengthening India’s influence in Central Asia and beyond, positioning it as a key player in regional geopolitics and trade.

As the project moves forward, the successful development of Chabahar port will serve as a testament to the resilience and strategic vision of India and Iran, paving the way for a stronger and more integrated regional economy. The collaboration on Chabahar port is not just a bilateral agreement but a strategic partnership that has the potential to reshape the future of regional trade and geopolitics, providing new opportunities for growth and development for both nations.

The Reason for the Deterioration of Niger-US Relations

By

Dr. Sahibzada Muhammad Usman and Fatime Mehdi

-

May 19, 2024

1

The geopolitical landscape of Africa has been a complex tapestry woven with intricate diplomatic relationships, strategic alliances, and, at times, contentious interactions. One of the most recent and notable examples of this complexity is the deteriorating relationship between Niger and the United States. Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Al-Amin Zine of Niger has attributed this decline to the threatening behavior of US officials. This article examines into the factors that have led to the strain in Niger-US relations, highlighting the statements made by Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Al-Amin Zine and the broader implications for international diplomacy and regional stability.

Historically, Niger and the United States have shared a cooperative relationship, particularly in the realms of security and counterterrorism. Niger, located in a region plagued by terrorist activities, has been a strategic ally for the US in its efforts to combat extremist groups in West Africa. The presence of American troops and the establishment of military bases in Niger were seen as vital components of this partnership.

However, this relationship has always been underpinned by a delicate balance of power and mutual interests.

In a recent interview with an American newspaper, Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Al-Amin Zine candidly expressed his dissatisfaction with the conduct of US officials. He pointed out that the threatening behavior and pressure tactics employed by US representatives during negotiations were primary contributors to the souring of bilateral relations. This accusation is significant as it sheds light on the often-unseen diplomatic interactions that shape international relations.

According to Prime Minister Zine, American officials not only threatened but also attempted to exert undue pressure during discussions, which created an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility. Such behavior is contrary to the principles of diplomatic engagement, which are supposed to be grounded in mutual respect and understanding. The Prime Minister’s revelations bring to the forefront the human element in diplomacy, where the demeanor and conduct of officials can have profound impacts on international relationships.

Prime Minister Zine also criticized the US military presence in Niger, stating that despite the deployment of American troops, terrorist attacks continued unabated. This criticism is particularly poignant as it questions the efficacy of the US’s strategic military objectives in the region. The expectation was that the presence of US forces would significantly curb terrorist activities and provide a sense of security for Niger.

However, the continued prevalence of terrorism has led to disillusionment and frustration within the Nigerien government.

The Prime Minister’s assertion that the US military did not intervene to stop terrorism in Niger further compounds the issue. This lack of intervention raises questions about the operational goals and priorities of the US military in Niger. If the primary objective was to combat terrorism, the failure to achieve noticeable results undermines the rationale for their presence and fosters a perception of negligence or ulterior motives.

Another critical point raised by Prime Minister Zine is the perceived lack of American assistance when Niger needed it the most. This sentiment reflects a broader concern about the reliability of international partnerships. For countries like Niger, which face significant security and developmental challenges, the support of powerful allies like the United States is crucial. The Prime Minister’s comments suggest that in critical moments, the US failed to provide the necessary support, thereby straining the trust and reliability essential for a strong bilateral relationship.

Prime Minister Zine did not mince words when he stated that the purpose of America’s presence in Niger was not rooted in friendship. This statement underscores a growing skepticism about the true intentions behind US foreign policy in Africa. If the relationship was perceived as mutually beneficial and grounded in genuine cooperation, the current narrative suggests otherwise.

The implication that the US had ulterior motives casts a shadow over the entire diplomatic engagement and fuels anti-American sentiments within Niger.

The breakdown in relations between Niamey and Washington has significant implications. Despite the suspension of military aid, the US insists on maintaining its troops in Niger. This insistence, despite the lack of support and the deterioration of diplomatic relations, can be interpreted as an imposition on Niger’s sovereignty. The presence of foreign troops without mutual agreement and cooperation can lead to heightened tensions and resentment.

From a broader perspective, the deterioration of Niger-US relations could have ripple effects across the region. It may embolden other countries to re-evaluate their relationships with the US, particularly if they perceive similar patterns of behavior. Furthermore, the instability in Niger could potentially exacerbate regional security issues, making it more challenging to combat terrorism and maintain peace.

The current state of Niger-US relations serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of diplomatic conduct and the need for genuine partnerships. To mend the relationship, both parties must address the underlying issues candidly. For the US, this means reassessing its diplomatic strategies and ensuring that its representatives engage with respect and understanding. It also necessitates a clear and effective approach to its military presence in Niger, ensuring that its actions align with its stated objectives of combating terrorism and supporting Niger’s security. For Niger, it involves continuing to voice its concerns on international platforms and seeking alliances that respect its sovereignty and address its needs.

The international community can also play a role by facilitating dialogue and supporting efforts to rebuild trust between Niger and the United States.

The deterioration of Niger-US relations, as articulated by Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Al-Amin Zine, highlights the profound impact of diplomatic conduct on international relationships. The allegations of threatening behavior by US officials, the ineffectiveness of the US military presence, and the perceived lack of assistance in times of need have all contributed to the current state of affairs. Moving forward, it is imperative for both nations to engage in open and respectful dialogue to rebuild trust and cooperation. The lessons from this situation extend beyond Niger and the US, offering valuable insights into the complexities of international diplomacy and the importance of maintaining genuine and respectful partnerships.

The Battle for Karachi’s Streets

By

Sohail Javed

-

May 18, 2024

0

Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan and an economic hub, has been grappling with a persistent and escalating street crime problem. In recent years, the nature of these crimes has taken a more violent turn, with robbers increasingly targeting their victims with lethal force. This disturbing trend has resulted in a significant rise in fatalities and injuries during street robberies, challenging the local law enforcement agencies and creating a climate of fear among the residents.

Historically, Karachi has faced a high number of street robberies, but the level of violence associated with these crimes has surged dramatically in recent years. According to authoritative sources, the first three months of this year alone saw 55 people killed as a result of resisting robbery. This is a troubling continuation of a trend from previous years, with 126 such fatalities reported last year and 111 the year before that. These figures starkly illustrate the increasing boldness and brutality of street criminals in the city.

Despite claims by the government of having a handle on the situation, the reality on the ground suggests otherwise. The number of street crimes continues to rise unabated. Inspector General of Sindh Police, Ghulam Nabi Memon, acknowledged in a recent media interaction that incidents of killings and injuries due to resistance during robberies are on the rise.

He provided alarming statistics, revealing that around 400 street crime incidents are reported daily in Karachi, amounting to an astonishing 80,000 cases annually.

IG Memon described street crime as a significant challenge for the police force, noting that a rigorous crackdown on criminals is ongoing. According to him, many suspects have been arrested, and 64% of cases involving the killing of citizens during robberies have been traced. Additionally, 67 officers have been specifically allocated for the investigation of these crimes. While these measures indicate a proactive approach, they have not yet translated into a substantial decrease in crime rates.

The provincial police chief has also acknowledged an increase in vehicle theft and drug trafficking, assuring the public that steps are being taken to improve police performance. However, similar assurances have been made in the past without yielding significant improvements. The persistent rise in street crimes points to deep-rooted issues within the law enforcement system. A critical examination of the police system reveals fundamental defects such as bribery, favoritism, and nepotism. These systemic problems have allowed operatives of influential crime lords to infiltrate the police force, thereby undermining its effectiveness. As long as these issues remain unaddressed, efforts to curb street crimes are likely to be ineffective.

The human cost of street crime in Karachi is devastating. Families are left grieving for loved ones who have been killed over a mobile phone or a few thousand rupees. The fear of falling victim to street crime has permeated daily life, affecting people’s willingness to go out for work, education, or leisure. The psychological impact of living under constant threat cannot be overstated. For instance, a resident recount the harrowing experience of witnessing a robbery that turned fatal when the victim resisted.

Such incidents not only highlight the brutality of the criminals but also the desperation of the victims who feel compelled to resist due to the economic hardship and the perceived inefficacy of the police.

Addressing the street crime epidemic in Karachi requires a multi-faceted approach. First and foremost, there needs to be a comprehensive reform of the police force to eliminate corruption and enhance accountability. The recruitment process should be transparent and merit-based to prevent the infiltration of criminal elements. Additionally, improving the socio-economic conditions of the populace can play a crucial role in reducing crime. Many individuals turn to crime out of economic necessity. Providing better employment opportunities, education, and social services can help address the root causes of crime.

Moreover, modernizing the police force with better training, equipment, and technology is essential. Implementing community policing strategies can also foster trust between the police and the public, encouraging cooperation in crime prevention efforts. Lastly, there should be a concerted effort to tackle the broader criminal networks involved in drug trafficking and vehicle theft. Breaking the supply chains and financial networks of these organizations can significantly disrupt their operations.

The challenge of street crimes in Karachi is a complex issue that requires urgent and sustained action. While the police have made some strides in addressing the problem, much more needs to be done to ensure the safety and security of the city’s residents. Eliminating corruption within the police force, improving socio-economic conditions, and modernizing law enforcement are critical steps toward creating a safer Karachi. Ultimately, the fight against street crime is not just a battle for law enforcement but a collective effort that involves the government, civil society, and the citizens. Only through a united and determined approach can Karachi hope to overcome this pervasive challenge and reclaim its status as a thriving, safe metropolis.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Ukraine is awaiting the $60 billion in U.S. military aid that was approved last month, which includes rocket launchers, artillery rounds, infantry vehicles and other military equipment.

Ukraine must preserve its sovereignty and independence, and the issue of territorial integrity should be the subject of post-war international debate and political, not military, instruments.

At the same time, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the opening of democratic processes in Eastern Europe, the Bush administration simultaneously did everything it could to support Gorbachev in his efforts to preserve the USSR during political and economic reforms.

The U.S. administration eventually decided to support the collapse of the USSR and to facilitate this process politically because of the presence of a powerful, large-scale democratic movement in the USSR, particularly in the Russian Federation.

The larger the BRICS grows in 2024, the bigger the US dollar faces peril as the bloc is trying to reduce reliance on the US dollar. The main objective of the coming summit is further expansion and de-dollarization.

According to the Financial Times report, Alliance is planning a remarkable $13.5 billion oil investment. The investment will include the United Arab Emirates, one of the four new members of the bloc.

Three U.S. sectors will be directly affected if BRICS dumps the dollar for trade Banking and Finance, Technology and Fintech and Consumer Goods and Retail.

Southeast Asian States Opposed to AUKUS:

Not only AUKUS but Malaysia has also been critical of China’s nine dash line in South China Sea and has always been concerned over major powers actions’ stimulating military confrontations in the region.

Southeast Asian States in Favor of AUKUS:

Singapore has always advocated balance of power in the region.

French and European Union(EU) Reaction to AUKUS Finalization:

“Allies do not treat each other with the amount of unpredictability and such brutality as Australia did”.

The distinctive strength of Snow’s book lies in its meticulous attention to detail, offering a wealth of information spanning countless of subjects.

The amalgamation of Snow’s academic background, familial connections, and hands-on experiences in both Russia and China forms a multifaceted tapestry that undoubtedly shapes the depth and nuance of his exploration of Sino-Russian relations within the pages of this book.

As the Cold War progressed, the author convincingly demonstrated that the US’ conception of a monolithic global communist bloc was far different from the testy relationship between the two countries, notably after Stalin’s death and throughout Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

The book is resplendent with numerous anecdotes and historical quips that can further augment the understanding of Sino-Russian relations, one never feels that the book is objective in its entirety.

Kagan’s book provided the readers with a comprehensive analysis of the new route the world order may be taking, but it was simultaneously critiqued by many scholars and critics – mainly liberals, for being too leftist and narrow.

It is also evident through his piece of writing that he (Kagan) considers military and military assets to be the sole determinants of influence in global politics.

It is worth noting that Kagan’s analysis is rooted in a European observation framework, reflecting his Western radical conservative viewpoint.

The impact of modern cyber threats ranges from damaging critical infrastructure altogether or compromising it by providing unauthorized access by breaching credentials checking mechanisms by the spread of stealthy malware or cunning phishing attacks.

The emergence of AI in the cyber realm has made it even more complex by offering such potentials on both sides of the cyber security equation; I.e. cyber troopers and cyber criminals both are going to get benefits from AI.

When the data is the main component of governance, the E-Governance systems become the key link between the artificial intelligence and cyber security systems.

The joint efforts of the world nations are indispensable to effectively handle the cyber threats that have no national borders.

Besides, people have the power to use their authority to awaken governments and businesses to the meaning of cybersecurity.

0 (zero) is not just a revolution, but a sign of safety in a highly connected and at the same time, more vulnerable digital environment.

Chabahar port is thus a key asset in India’s broader strategy to diversify its trade routes and reduce dependence on traditional maritime pathways.

By enhancing its presence in Chabahar, India is positioning itself as a major competitor to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seeking to establish its own strategic trade routes and economic partnerships.

By investing in Chabahar port, India is demonstrating its long-term strategic interest in the region and its commitment to fostering a mutually beneficial relationship with Iran.

However, this relationship has always been underpinned by a delicate balance of power and mutual interests.

However, the continued prevalence of terrorism has led to disillusionment and frustration within the Nigerien government.

The implication that the US had ulterior motives casts a shadow over the entire diplomatic engagement and fuels anti-American sentiments within Niger.

The international community can also play a role by facilitating dialogue and supporting efforts to rebuild trust between Niger and the United States.

He provided alarming statistics, revealing that around 400 street crime incidents are reported daily in Karachi, amounting to an astonishing 80,000 cases annually.

Such incidents not only highlight the brutality of the criminals but also the desperation of the victims who feel compelled to resist due to the economic hardship and the perceived inefficacy of the police.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.