Support Us

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

Writers Pool
About Us

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Home Blog Page 6

The Failure of Middle East Peace Efforts

By
Waqas Abdullah
-
1
Middle East

The mortar attack of December 3, 2024, by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the subsequent blatant violation of the ceasefire reveals one more conspicuous ineffectiveness of international organizations that are striving for the establishment of peace in the Middle East. On the same day, news appeared regarding the Israeli statement that supplies to Gaza were frozen and more than 300 trucks waited at the entry point to deliver the humanitarian assistance.

The mortar attack by Hezbollah on December 3, 2024, underscores the ineffectiveness of international organizations in maintaining peace.

These events underline the ongoing instability of ceasefires and the inability of global organizations to fix essential causes of the conflict and control sustainable reforms. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains terrible after many years of warfare and political turbulence, and no international organization has provided any assistance.

These blockades by Israel aggravated by a lack of proper intervention by the international community have left the region hopeless. Different humanitarian organizations estimate that up to 80% of residents in the Gaza Strip depend on some humanitarian assistance, a significant part of the area’s infrastructure is destroyed because bombings continue and reconstruction is insufficient.

Although the various international actors lay the groundwork for temporary ceasefires and secession of hostilities, they are not anchored on the social and economic conditions of an almost failed society. Alms and hunger keep pushing people to radicalization, thus ensuring that violence remains ‘the order of the day’ in the region. However, there is always doubt about the position of the international community, which acts as a mediator in most such cases.

Most of the actors involved in peacemaking are deemed to have political prejudices, which hurts confidence between two warring factions. For instance, the United States, one of the most successful mediators in that area, is often accused of public support for Israel, which weakens the reliability of its peace initiatives.

Even more, other global organizations like the United Nations have often failed to implement resolutions largely because of internal conflicts and the power of veto by permanent members of the Security Council. Such bias has caused a halt in constructive negotiations, which are all that make up peace-making processes that instead become crisis-solving processes.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire, with 80% of residents dependent on aid amid ongoing blockades and violence.

It is the same in Lebanon where the situation is just as bad. It has been struggling with an economic crisis, political stagnation, and a post-defeat period resulting from the intervention of outsiders for more than forty years. Hezbollah is a dominant non-state actor which has large political and military aspirations and remains a threat to the sovereignty of Lebanon.

The latest violation of the ceasefire agreement with Israel on December 3 signifies how Hezbollah acts with total influence and frequently turns Lebanon into a proxy theater. Such actions not only aggravate the situation in the region but also contribute to the world’s failure to punish non-state actors.

This state of affairs shows that proper compliance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, common among other regional milieus, is among other things, proof of other international frameworks as being incapable of preventing conflicts from escalating.

Yet another area of concern which, sadly, is not attended with sufficient attention is that of penalties in peace processes. Ceasefires are many times signed with no well-defined mechanisms for how they will be violated in the future with little repercussions. The recent mortar attack by Hezbollah is an example in this respect given the fact that it was carried out at a time of an uneasy peace after months of escalation of tensions in the region.

If there are no physical consequences for violating such ceasefires then they are just a show of a stop to fighting instead of being a tool for the achievement of peace. This pattern has been played out many times in Gaza when numerous ceasefires have been violated over the years by both Israelis and Palestinians.

International actors often lack impartiality, undermining their credibility as mediators in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Moreover, most of the acts in violation of women’s rights are responded to on an international level reactively rather than proactively. Global actors pay considerable attention to the emergencies that are taking place at the moment but do not devote time to the causes that initiate the conflict.

In Gaza; the decrease of tensions may be achieved through addressing the problem of blockade, sharing improvement of living conditions, as well as support of economic development. However, these measures can only be sustained only with a continuing commitment from the international community something that is greatly lacking at present.

As well as that in Lebanon the overcoming of the basic conditions of Hezbollah’s influence means political corruption, economic inequality, and foreign intervention would be required. However international endeavors have been sporadic and half-hearted and this has put Lebanon in a precarious state of affairs. Failure to develop a coherent approach for dealing with these issues is symptomatic of a larger problem regarding the inability of the current global system to meet the new requirements of modern war.

It was also this same structure that made the broader implications of these failures not confined to the Middle East. Conflict resolution in international institutions is ineffective thereby leading to compromise of legitimacy in international governance institutions. United Nations through its blue helmet soldiers has been at the forefront of peacemaking for decades but it has failed at the printing time in countries such as Gaza and Lebanon among others.

Legal changes such as fiscal and constitutional/public reform in accountability measures, impartiality in mediation, and enforcement functions are needed to reintroduce credibility and long-term stability. The concerned violations were observed on December 3rd in Lebanon and Gaza, however unfortunately they are not mere sporadic incidents but reflect the failure of current international conflict regulation paradigms.

Ceasefires are frequently violated without repercussions, leading to a cycle of violence rather than sustainable peace.

As the region is in the process of instability, the world has to realize that it cannot go on like this and its current countermeasures are ineffective. The coexistence of ceasefires and no punishment, of mediation and partiality, and interventions with no changes, only prolong the fighting.

It is high time for international actors to stop dwelling on temporary measures and find feasible methods that enhance justice and development and give a human face to the victims of wars. But only in this way, the Middle East can imagine a future for itself wherein the word peace will not just be a fleeting echo.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

PTM’s Unconstitutional Demands and the TTP Threat

By
Iftikhar Hussain Jazib
-
0
Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM)

The leadership of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) could provide true respite to the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by outcasting terrorist leaders through the Pashtun National Jirga. At the very least, they should expel Noor Wali Mehsud from his tribe for his involvement in the mass killings of Pashtuns during the terrorist attacks. But Manzoor Pashteen would not consider this course of action as Fitna al Khawarij. TTP and PTM have sympathies on the basis of tribal bonds.

TTP exercised 5-day ceasefire to facilitate PTM in holding a Jirga in which national security institutions were maligned for nefarious designs. To the contrary, when Pashtun masses were participating in the 8 February general elections, Khawarij TTP erupted to kill people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in terrorist attacks. Therefore, PTM is making unlawful and unconstitutional demands of security forces to halt counterterrorism operations in the areas where TTP is based.

The PTM’s leadership is criticized for failing to address the threat posed by terrorist leaders like Noor Wali Mehsud.

PTM has a myopic view on terrorism, a global threat, but its leadership considers it only a problem of the Pashtun community, and it is creating threat misperception in the society. Manzoor Pashteen did not criticize Afghanistan and the Taliban for contributing to terrorism, while the international community is very vocal in this regard. Chinese Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Yue Xiaoyong, recently stated that around twenty terrorist outfits are active in Afghanistan.

Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov has also raised concerns over growing terrorist groups in Afghanistan, and he has warned that these militants could destabilize Central Asian states. Similarly, General Michael E. Kurilla, commander, US Central Command, said in March that Afghanistan is harboring Fitna al Khawarij TTP, and inaction against ISIS-K sanctuaries would incite violent conflicts in South and Central Asia.

Multiple reports of UNSC support Pakistan’s claims that Fitna al Khawarij TTP is becoming a global terrorist threat. Therefore, PTM’s opposition to visa regulations and border control mechanisms is aimed at strengthening the alliance of terrorists and smugglers, and it would facilitate Fitna al Khawarij TTP in the free movement of terrorists, arms, and explosives.

As a result, there has been a surge in terrorist attacks and suicide bombings within society. Moreover, PTM’s stance on identity documents and visa policy of Pakistan is against international law and norms of international relations. The Pashtun national Jirga demanded the government surrender sovereignty to Afghanistan, which would be unacceptable for any independent state in the world.

PTM’s demands to halt counterterrorism operations are seen as unlawful and detrimental to security in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

As a matter of fact, the rise of PTM is synonymous with the resurgence of terrorism and Khawajij TTP in the country. It has devised illegal activities and informal forums to create a false perception of its popularity. The misuse of social media platforms and the exploitation of Pashtun Jirgas do not accurately reflect their influence on the Pashtun masses.

Social media platforms provide enormous space for antisocial elements to remain anonymous and disseminate misinformation with unusual speeds and connectivity. There are many instances in which political movements and elections in a country were manipulated by another country through social media.

The information revolution and social media have empowered the common man, but they have also become potent sources of manipulation for the general public at the hands of gigantic technology companies. Therefore, some political analysts believe that social media has strengthened democracy, while some other researchers criticize it for threatening democratic values in the world.

The lack of a single survey poll on PTM’s popularity demonstrates that its claims to represent the interests of Pashtuns are a sham. PTM shies away from electoral politics due to a lack of public support. It conducted a Pashtun national Jirga with big fanfare, but it failed to gather people enough to the strength of a provincial constituency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The group’s narrow focus on Pashtun issues creates a misperception of terrorism as solely a local problem, ignoring its global implications.

Indeed, the massive participation in the national elections demonstrated that Pashtuns had rejected PTM. Therefore, PTM has neither legal grounds nor democratic values to represent the will of the people of Pakistan, as elected governments are in place on a federal and provincial level under the constitution. Hence, it is depending on illegal jirgas to undermine the true representatives of the general public.

 Manzoor Pashteen attempted to become the de facto ruler of KP by convening the Pashtun national jirga, and he exploited the ethnic sentiments of Pashtun leadership for his own sense of grandiosity.  He crossed a red line when he gave an ultimatum to the armed forces to quit KP in two months. This demonstrates the justification for the federal government’s ban on PTM, which poses a genuine security threat in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire: What Lies Ahead for Gaza Under Fire?

By
Nisar Ali
-
0
Israel-Hezbollah

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which the Western media has hailed as a diplomatic triumph with the potential to defuse tensions in the region, however, highlights the terrible reality of Palestinian genocide.  Netanyahu’s agreement to a truce with Hezbollah stemmed from two main factors.

First, in an effort to shift his foreign policy focus to Ukraine and Russia, Joe Biden has been pressuring Netanyahu to end the war in Lebanon. He likely views the ceasefire as a way to end his presidency on a positive foreign policy note. Second, the IDF in southern Lebanon had exhausted from weeks of intense fights with Hezbollah, resulting in increasing casualties and a growing strain on logistics.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is seen as a diplomatic triumph but distracts from the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

But even as Israel and Hezbollah moved closer to a truce, the people of Gaza continued to endure an unrelenting, inane military assault. With all the neighborhoods destroyed and almost 2 million Palestinians displaced into shelters, the death toll has already surpassed 44,000. The world appears to be more interested in a political agreement with Hezbollah than with genocide in Gaza, demonstrating the complete disregard for the Palestinian cause amid the humanitarian crises.

The assassination of Hasan Nasrullah and the weakening of  Hezbollah serve as a push factor for its acceptance of the truce agreement. After the death of its commander, Hezbollah, which was formerly viewed as a serious threat to Israeli interests, has considerably diminished, enabling Israel to demand a ceasefire without having to worry about a multi-front war.

Instead of bringing peace to Gaza first, the Israel-Hezbullah truce only would enable Netanyahu to concentrate Israel’s military operations solely on Gaza without the fear of having a second front in the north. This is a cause for concern because it seems Israel is preparing to carry out extensive military operations in Gaza under the guise of legitimate defense.

Abdel-Ghani, father of five and one of the representatives of the Palestinian victims, said, “It showed Gaza is an orphan, with no support and no mercy from the unjust world.” He, along with fellow Palestinians who have been through more than a year of fire in Gaza, sees the failure to reach a ceasefire as not just a diplomatic failure but also as quite a blatant sign that the international community has abandoned them.

His anger seems to capture well the despair of million of Palestinian who, like him, had to throw their fate in the dark shadow of genocide under Netanyaho’s brazzen regime. “Perhaps, there will be another agreement with Gaza, perhaps,” he says, emphasizing what has essentially come to mark their grim reality: despair in the cloud of terror.

Despite the truce, over 44,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza due to relentless military operations and airstrikes.

Under the guise of eliminating Hamas, Israeli airstrikes have destroyed whole city blocks of residential districts, at the expense of the civilian population. Targeting schools, hospitals, and other vital infrastructure is not an accident; rather, it is part of a deliberate collective punishment agenda.

Over 80% of Gaza’s population, according to UN estimates, depends on humanitarian supplies; nevertheless, Israel continues to restrict this flow, trapping Palestinians in a humanitarian situation that keeps getting worse. Gaza has turned into an open-air prison, where even surviving has turned into an act of resistance, as several journalists on the ground report.

Speaking to the human cost of the Israeli military campaign, a Palestinian woman, Ranya, who had to flee to Gaza City, said: ‘‘We are exhausted. How many lives have to loss until they cease the fire? Gaza is being eliminated, starved, bombed, and abandoned. The silence of the world is just as lethal as the bombs that are dropping on us.’’

For millions of Palestinians who have watched their homes and families destroyed without any international accountability, her words speak for themselves. Not only does this desperation demand a stop to the bloodshed, but it also calls for accountability from those who support Netanyaho’s inhumane military adventures.

International powers like the United States and the European Union have been ignoring the main issue—the Genocide in Gaza—while trying to bring peace based on Israel’s terms and conditions. The Palestinians in Gaza are left to suffer the most while diplomatic efforts concentrate on ceasefire agreement in Lebanon.

It is unacceptable that the world be indifferent to the systematic extermination of Palestinian, the denial of fundamental rights, and the destruction of infrastructure. Such crimes are categorically prohibited by international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, yet Israel is allowed to continue the genocide by successive US administrations masked by political ties and avoiding real international accountability.

The international community’s focus on Israel-Hezbollah negotiations reflects a disregard for the Palestinian cause amid ongoing genocide.

At this point in time, the international community needs to act with a decisive action to stop the cycle of violence. First, holding Netanyahu responsible for war crimes, which the ICC has issued an arrest warrant. The international community must then unite its efforts to pressure Israel to end its military campaign immediately.

Among the tools used would be withholding military aid, diplomatic isolation, and economic sanctions. An international agreement is necessary at this critical juncture to attain a political settlement that ensures the rights, security, and dignity of the Palestinian people, with special focus on the right to self-determination.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

Afghan Embassy Denounces Allegations, Highlights Refugee Crisis Amid Islamabad Protests

By
Arshad Mehmood
-
1
Islamabad protest

[Islamabad]The Afghan Embassy in Islamabad, as quoted by the state-run ‘Bakhtar News Agency, clarified that Afghan refugees in Pakistan have no involvement in political or criminal activities.

The embassy voiced its worries about Pakistan’s Interior Ministry and other officials repeatedly linking Afghan citizens to the violent protests organized by Imran Khan’s PTI party on November 26-27.

Highlighting the growing restrictions on Afghan migrants, the embassy noted the anxiety these measures have caused, raising fears of potential harassment by Pakistani authorities.

The Afghan Embassy clarified that Afghan refugees in Pakistan are not involved in political or criminal activities despite claims by officials.

It emphasized that Afghan refugees have always lived peacefully in Pakistan, contributing positively to its economy, and have refrained from political activism or public protests.

The embassy urged the Pakistani government to prevent an atmosphere of distrust that could lead to unjust treatment and forced displacement of Afghan refugees.

It cautioned that such actions would harm Afghan citizens and potentially worsen ties between the neighbouring nations.

Earlier, Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch stated that Afghan nationals were arrested during protests in Islamabad.

She cautioned that the involvement of foreign nationals in Pakistani political protests is illegal and emphasized that all foreigners should refrain from engaging in Pakistan’s political matters.

Meanwhile, Federal Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi and Information Minister Atta Tarar made similar statements about Afghan citizens participating in the PTI march.

Tarar noted that at least 37 Afghan nationals took part in the demonstration, and an Afghan national has been apprehended at D-Square, and the police have confiscated approximately 45 firearms.”

Following the violent protests in Islamabad, Pakistan decided that no Afghan citizen would be allowed to remain in the federal capital, Islamabad, after December 31, without obtaining a No Objection Certificate.

New restrictions requiring Afghan citizens to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to stay in Islamabad could lead to forced displacement.

Sources say that the decision came after government officials claimed that scores of Afghan nationals participated in recent violent protests organized by Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the federal capital.

Federal Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, stated last Wednesday in Islamabad that the decision was made to enhance security and provide better oversight of foreign residents in the capital.

“Any Afghan citizen wishing to stay in Islamabad must obtain an NOC from the Deputy Commissioner’s office. Without this document, no Afghan national will be permitted to reside in the city,” he underscored.

This decision is part of Pakistan’s ongoing measures addressing Afghan nationals residing in the country without legal documentation.

Since the launch of a deportation drive in November last year, nearly 800,000 Afghans identified as “illegal residents” by Islamabad have been repatriated—a move that has prompted responses from international governments and rights organizations.

The decision to require Afghan citizens in Islamabad to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or face expulsion is expected to have significant social, economic, and humanitarian consequences.

Many Afghans, including those who fled persecution or conflict in Afghanistan, may face forced displacement, leaving them in a state of heightened uncertainty and fear. For those who have lived in Pakistan for years, being uprooted from their homes and communities could have devastating effects.

Afghan refugees have historically contributed positively to Pakistan’s economy and should not be subjected to harassment or distrust.

Afghans without legal documentation are already vulnerable to exploitation and harassment, and the new policy may exacerbate these risks.

The added pressure to acquire an NOC, which involves navigating bureaucratic hurdles, may be insurmountable for individuals with limited financial resources or access to official channels. This could push many further into the shadows, increasing their vulnerability.

The economic impact is also likely to be severe, as Afghan citizens play a critical role in Pakistan’s informal labour force, including sectors like construction and domestic work.

The inability to secure an NOC may force many out of employment, worsening poverty for families already struggling to survive. Additionally, families with mixed legal statuses may face heart-breaking separations if some members cannot meet the requirements to stay in Islamabad.

The federal government’s decision is expected to have additional repercussions, particularly for thousands of Afghan workers employed in Islamabad’s vegetable market.

Known as one of the largest vegetable and fruit markets in Asia, this hub receives thousands of tons of produce daily from Afghanistan, Iran, and Central Asia, distributing it across Pakistan, except Punjab.

Afghan nationals reportedly dominate this sector, controlling up to ninety percent of the market’s operations.

The enforcement of stricter residency requirements could disrupt the livelihoods of Afghan workers who play a crucial role in maintaining the supply chain.

The decision to require an NOC may exacerbate vulnerabilities for Afghan nationals already facing economic and social challenges.

Such a move might displace these workers and impact the market’s efficiency and the broader economy, potentially leading to shortages or price fluctuations in produce across the country.

Returning to Afghanistan is often not an option due to ongoing insecurity and inadequate basic services, leaving many Afghans stranded without safe alternatives.

Women, children, and other vulnerable groups are particularly affected, as they already face significant challenges in accessing essential services like healthcare and education.

The decision will also impact hundreds of Afghans in Islamabad who worked with the US and European forces during the War on Terror and were promised asylum by these countries after the Taliban took power.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

What is Behind Putin’s Nuclear Threats?

By
Professor Alexander Kostyuk
-
1
Putin and Nuclear

Nuclear weapons have been used many times in the history of geopolitics as a tool to force dissenters to peace. Russian President Putin’s recent statements on nuclear weapons, including the change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine, which has transformed into a more aggressive one, and the strike on Ukraine with the Oreshnik intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, are not accidental at this time. What is the purpose of Putin’s statements and decisions? Let’s consider this in the context of the relevant decisions of Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon.

Putin’s statements on nuclear weapons serve as a form of mass strategic communication aimed at the West.

According to Haldeman, an aide to the president, Nixon deliberately planned to make it clear to Moscow and Hanoi that he was a “madman” capable of any irrational act, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons, to break the deadlock at the negotiating table and end the Vietnam War.

The “madman theory” was first proposed in Haldeman’s memoirs published in 1978. Haldeman recalled: “The Communists feared Nixon more than any other politician in U.S. public life. And Nixon intended to manipulate that fear to end the war. Nixon saw this as an advantage. “They will believe any threat of force that Nixon makes because it’s Nixon,” he said.

And here is the episode of the Korean War. Haldeman wrote about Nixon’s belief that President Eisenhower convinced North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union to end the Korean War in 1953 with a nuclear threat alone. “He saw a parallel in President Eisenhower’s actions to end another war. When Eisenhower arrived at the White House, the Korean War was at an impasse. Eisenhower rushed to break the stalemate. He secretly told the Chinese that he would drop nuclear bombs on North Korea if an armistice was not signed immediately. A few weeks later, the Chinese declared an armistice, and the Korean War ended.”

Although it is unclear whether China perceived Eisenhower’s threat of nuclear expansion in this way, Nixon planned to use the same tactics in Vietnam, Haldeman recalls. He expected to use the same principle of threatening to use excessive force. The threat was key, and Nixon coined a phrase for his theory,” Haldeman continues. Nixon reportedly told Haldeman in the summer of 1968: “I call it the madman’s theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe that I’ve gotten to the point where I can do anything to stop the war.”

What does this theory look like in the context of the war in Ukraine and Russia’s recent statements on nuclear weapons? We will answer this question based on Henry Kissinger’s seminal work on the subject, “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy”, written almost 70 years ago.

In this case, the issue is much broader, and Putin is addressing this decision to change the nuclear doctrine to Washington and Brussels. That is, he could strike Ukraine with nuclear weapons at any time from the beginning of the war in 2022.

The change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine poses risks to existing treaties and could create a nuclear security vacuum in Europe.

A change in nuclear doctrine by Russia, a signatory to nuclear treaties, especially The New START with the United States, could affect the further terms of its implementation and create risks of not signing a new treaty after the expiration of the existing one, i.e. in early 2026.

This is a change in the entire nuclear deterrence architecture, or at least a significant reason for it. The content of the existing treaties will need to be substantially adjusted, which could eventually create a nuclear security vacuum in Europe and the world. It is also worth recalling Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons, which are not mentioned in the treaty, but Trump wanted to amend it with tactical nuclear weapons during his first term. Putin’s move with the doctrine will complicate this process, which will shock Europe, because thousands of tactical nuclear missiles will be on its borders at any time.

What Putin has done with the doctrine is to ask the West whether it wants a nuclear security vacuum or not. For the West, this is a phobic request, so the West is silent in public so as not to push this issue, because Russia’s new doctrine is an irrational act within the theory of the madman, so behind the scenes this issue is a priority for the West, accelerating the process of forcing peace on those who disagree. Washington understood it exactly this way, saying that it would not change its nuclear doctrine to a more aggressive one – even a “limited nuclear war” as the main episode of Kissinger’s work is not needed by both the West and Russia.

Thus, Putin’s decision on the doctrine goes far beyond Ukraine’s security interests, and the West is forced to engage in a direct dialogue with Russia about the war in Ukraine. The dialog is already open, so Russia’s move on the nuclear doctrine two months before Trump’s inauguration is not accidental. Putin did not stop at changing the nuclear doctrine. Recently, in Astana, Putin reiterated the advantages of Russian nuclear weapons and especially praised the new Oreshnik missile.

Nixon’s ‘madman theory’ involved projecting irrationality to compel adversaries to negotiate; Putin appears to be employing a similar tactic.

Such statements have their addressee and purpose and are a form of mass strategic communication. Isn’t it risky to force peace on someone who uses this form of communication? This is the implication of what he is saying. The West has had a difficult dilemma since the Second World War: If peace is to be enforced, then who should be enforced out of the two parties to the conflict, Ukraine or Russia? A nuclear-armed country, or a country that Clinton and Yeltsin collectively (and shamelessly) disarmed thirty years ago?

Putin is not crazy if his statements can frighten the West. But there is one important point here: “Earlier in history, this only worked when the opponents of the speaker actually wanted this effect among their population, in order to prevent the population from supporting further escalation”.

So, Putin’s statements are a complex game and not a game of words at all. This probably indicates that the end of the war is approaching in a political way, as it was done during the above two episodes during the Cold War. Therefore, right now, the West should provide Ukraine with maximum political, military, and financial support to protect Ukraine from repeated aggression from Russia.

In practical terms, in particular, the West should initiate the deployment of a peacekeeping contingent to establish a safe and secure demarcation zone and provide Ukraine with the necessary conventional deterrent weapons, including more air defense, aircraft, and long-range weapons.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

Martial Law vs Democratic Paradoxes: How Pakistan Differs from South Korea

By
Dr Shama Junejo
-
1
Martial Law and Democracy

Being a child who did not see her childhood but martial law and as someone with a PhD in Military Ethics, I am often drawn to the delicate balance between power and accountability in governance. In nations grappling with unrest and political chaos, this balance is frequently evaluated to its breaking point, raising critical questions about ethics, authority, and the role of state institutions in preserving order, such as Martial law. The mere phrase evokes images of authoritarianism, repression, and the suspension of democratic norms.

The mere phrase [martial law] evokes images of authoritarianism, repression, and the suspension of democratic norms.

A few hours ago, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-Yeol invoked it for the first time in decades (after 1987), citing threats from “anti-state forces” to eliminate pro-North Korean factions. Ostensibly aimed at protecting the democratic order from opposition lawmakers sympathetic to North Korea, the declaration has sparked uproar, with opposition leaders calling it unconstitutional and protests erupting outside parliament.

Yet, this sweeping measure comes against the scandals that dogged Yoon’s presidency—none more damaging than the revelation that his wife, Kim Keon Hee, had accepted an expensive luxury handbag as a gift in August 2024. Like Bushra Bibi, the wife of Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan, Kim’s alleged improprieties reflect how personal ambitions and unchecked greed can undermine governance and stoke public distrust.

The parallels between Kim and Bushra are striking, not just in their scandals but in the broader chaos surrounding their husbands’ tenures. Bushra Bibi’s political debut last week saw her leading an armed protest in Islamabad under the pretext of securing her husband Imran Khan’s release, where she publicly agitated the protestors not to go back without taking Imran Khan from Jail.

Despite the disagreement of PTI leadership, including Gandapur, she led to mobilize violent supporters —many of them armed with automatic weapons (mainly the US weapons USA left in Afghanistan when evacuated in 2021), sticks, and stones—to lay siege to the heart of Pakistan’s capital. Police and Rangers faced unprecedented violence; officers were attacked with iron nail rods and crushed under vehicles; five were killed, and others were left critically injured.

Yet, in a feat of propaganda mastery, PTI swiftly flipped the narrative, accusing the state of brutality and concocting wildly fluctuating casualty figures. Within hours, the party’s digital brigades flooded social media with claims of “hundreds” killed—a number that dwindled to twelve by the following day, and with no bodies, funerals, or evidence ever materializing. This is the chaos that defines Pakistan under PTI.

Since its rise to prominence, the party has weaponized anarchy, exploiting public discontent and manipulating narratives to maintain its grip on relevance. From the dharnas of 2014 to last week’s violence in Islamabad, PTI has consistently undermined Pakistan’s fragile democratic order. But this time, its campaign of disinformation has influenced global news networks. Using platforms like X (formerly Twitter), PTI has turned its propaganda into a transnational operation, enlisting sympathizers abroad to amplify its claims by engaging international actors along with the bizarre threats by taking the matter to the United Nations.

PTI has consistently undermined Pakistan’s fragile democratic order.

Zac Goldsmith, Imran Khan’s former brother-in-law, recently tweeted in support of Khan, framing him as a victim of state persecution, which is factually incorrect. This prompted a sharp rebuke from Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, who accused “Israeli Zionist forces” of meddling in the country’s internal affairs. Goldsmith dismissed the claim as absurd, but the episode underscored the complexities of foreign interference in Pakistan’s politics.

In private conversations with journalists, government ministers have expressed concerns about the United States and the United Kingdom allegedly attempting to destabilize Pakistan and question why no Muslim country is interested in Imran Khan’s release like the US and the UK. They compare the protection extended to Altaf Hussain, the exiled MQM leader infamous for inciting unrest from abroad.

Ministers fear that similar strategies are now being employed with Imran Khan, portraying him as a tool to foster chaos, challenge Pakistan’s sovereignty, and provoke ethnic clashes to fuel separatist movements. This narrative aligns with PTI’s overseas campaigns on social media, which include calls to boycott military-associated products, such as Fauji cornflakes, and even to sever marital ties with military personnel. If these accusations appear bold, PTI’s conduct on social platforms only seems to validate the government’s claims.

Another bitter fact is that Imran Khan’s rise to power was no less tainted by external influence. Backed by Pakistan’s military establishment as “Project Imran” and buoyed by ISPR’s narrative-building, PTI was a manufactured phenomenon that served the interests of its creators—until it did not. Once the establishment withdrew its support, Khan turned on his former patrons, unleashing a propaganda war that has left the military’s credibility in tatters. Ironically, the same institution that elevated PTI now finds itself the primary target of its ire.

Yet, the state’s response to PTI’s chaos has been inadequately weaker. Daily press conferences from government officials offer little more than rhetorical condemnations, while the judiciary—often accused of bias—appears unwilling or unable to hold PTI accountable by legal means. Even the prospect of banning the party has been dismissed as unconstitutional, leaving the government trapped in a cycle of reactionary measures that do little to address the root causes of unrest.

Despite its political challenges, Pakistan stands out as a nation steadfastly committed to preserving democracy.

Meanwhile, the toll on Pakistan’s democracy is incalculable. PTI’s transformation from a political party into a fascist cult has eroded public trust in democratic institutions, emboldened extremist elements, and deepened societal divisions. Its digital brigades have created an alternate reality where facts are irrelevant and the loudest voices dominate. And yet, the state remains paralyzed, unable to counter PTI’s sophisticated propaganda or dismantle its disinformation networks.

Despite its political challenges, Pakistan stands out as a nation steadfastly committed to preserving democracy, even in the face of relentless provocations from PTI’s chaotic politics and the judiciary’s controversial interventions. Unlike South Korea’s dramatic martial law and then its reversal—a direct and contentious response to political unrest—Pakistan has resisted the temptation of authoritarian measures, highlighting a remarkable restraint in its military leadership. Contrary to PTI’s narrative branding the current government as a hybrid regime, it was, in fact, Imran Khan’s administration that epitomized a hybrid setup, operating under considerable influence from the military establishment.

Today, the military leadership has shifted its focus toward stabilizing Pakistan for foreign stakeholders, such as China and Saudi Arabia, who are concerned about its economic recovery and development because of their investments. By ensuring stability without bypassing democratic institutions, the state is not just countering PTI’s propaganda but also demonstrating its commitment to democratic principles.

Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership face the complex challenge of balancing these pressures while combating digital disinformation and holding PTI accountable for undermining national interests. In doing so, they ensure that Pakistan remains a resilient democracy amidst its turbulent political landscape. However, this is a significant challenge when allies like the PPP are unhappy in the coalition.

Pakistan can still strengthen its democracy by upholding the rule of law and fostering political accountability.

Nonetheless, Pakistan has risen above its current turmoil as we witness the historical development of the Pakistan stock exchange and the decline in inflation after seventy months. Unlike South Korea, which has taken an authoritarian turn, Pakistan can still strengthen its democracy by upholding the rule of law and fostering political accountability. But the clock is ticking. The question is not whether Pakistan can change but whether it has the will. Will its leaders seize this moment to steer the nation toward stability, or will they allow PTI’s chaos to consume them?

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

Kashmir- A jackpot lottery!

By
Nayeema Ahmad Mahjoor
-
0
Kashmir

When a ruling political party celebrates the policy of disempowering or destabilizing one of its regions and makes it an election plank to exploit voters, isn’t something to get worried about?  Or examine the party officials for rejoicing over the humiliation of its people? Does it not raise questions about its patriotic beliefs or timely benefits of vote grabbing?

‘How bizarre it looks that, On the one hand, the ruling party asserts its entitlement by forcing anti-people policy on Jammu and Kashmir and, on the other hand, keeps taunting the local population by provoking them. This reflects a low mentality of some politicians and exposes the inherent hatred against the population that recently rejected it very severely in Assembly elections.

The ruling party’s celebration of disempowering Jammu and Kashmir reflects a troubling trend in electoral politics and governance.

Arvind Raina, a professor of political science in the Capital Delhi, while discussing the recent election brawls of political parties, says that ‘votes are demanded in exchange for a policy of subjugating Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian elections, which is certainly a sign of degradation of electoral democracy in India. Your intention of keeping control over the land but exhibiting hate against the people will push JK much further away.

Many analysts observed during the recent election campaign in the two Indian states of Maharashtra and Jharkhand that the two major political parties, the ruling and opposition while discussing scrapping Jammu and Kashmir’s internal autonomy, wanted to take credit for ending it and making people powerless in their home.

The ruling Bhartiya Janata Party and the opposition Congress party had no other argument or agenda to sell except to score points on reducing the erstwhile State to a non-entity. In their election campaign, they convinced voters that India’s integrity and sovereignty had been saved only by dictatorial demoting this region to a union territory. The authority to govern the region lies with the central government, which amounts to conquering it. Most voters had no clue about JK or its autonomy and wanted their local issues to be addressed.

Because of claims and counter-claims, point scoring has turned Kashmir into an electoral jackpot lottery in Indian elections, during which an attempt to lure voters over JK’s disempowerment had reached a climax.

Since the removal of Art 370 and Art 35A in August 2019, the BJP has already had a big catch of its decision in every election, declaring it in a way that it was something like freedom given to the region, which has been captured now and asked the people to vote in exchange for a policy of politically, economically and socially disempowering its ‘integral’ part. Surprisingly, Congress wanted a part of the flesh, too.

For the first time, the Congress trumpeted its earlier policy of hollowing down the internal autonomy given to it in return for its accession with India. It repeated its statement in the assembly elections that it does not support the restoration of Article 370 included in the manifesto of its ally National Conference but is limited to the restoration of statehood only.

Political parties are using Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy removal as a bargaining chip in elections, undermining democratic values.

National Conference, the ruling party in JK, was taken off guard and left embarrassed. The party has promised that if people would vote for it and its ally, Congress,  both parties could work together on restoring Art 370 and Art 35A.

To the dismay of the people, the resolution on special status passed by the National Conference in the first Assembly recently neither mentioned Article 370 nor condemned the decision of the BJP government of August 2019. Instead, it limited itself to the restoration of statehood and special status enjoyed by more than two dozen Indian states. Internal autonomy granted earlier is somewhat better than the special status guaranteed in the Indian Constitution.

At the time of partition, the Muslim-majority State of Jammu and Kashmir was supposed to join Pakistan for being in geographical contiguity and the two Nation formula basis. But, the Kashmir-based leader Sheikh Abdullah went against his people and joined India on the credence of its secular character. India had promised internal sovereignty, which was granted and taken back.

The opposition party, Congress chief Malik Arjun Kharge, outrightly rejected the election agenda and did not mention the Art 370 restoration promise. He indicated that his party had already undermined Jammu and Kashmir’s internal autonomy and that they had become allies of the National Conference only on granting statehood back to JK.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir were deeply hurt by his statement, especially those who had recently made the party win six seats in the Muslim belt while the BJP had already wiped it out in the Jammu region.

Social activist in Kashmir Imran Ali says that while the National Conference has given a few seats on a platter to Congress in Jammu and Kashmir, the voters have given the National Conference a new lease of life by bringing it back from its deathbed when it was elected with a vast majority on the sole agenda of restoring Article 370. It was typical for Congress and NC to betray the people once again.

The National Conference’s recent actions have disappointed voters who hoped for a restoration of Article 370 and greater autonomy.

‘After only a few weeks, the National Conference has shown its true colours,  creating anxiety and disappointment among the people using the language BJP has spoken since it came to power. The public believes that the National Conference is backtracking on its stand. Earlier, this party accepted the application of all the laws that were imposed on the State after the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 and robbed us of our internal sovereignty. This time, it has legitimized the August 2019 decision of BJP’, Imran said to me.

The BJP is hoodwinking the rest of India that by abolishing Articles 370 and 35A and reducing it to a Union Territory, it has completely integrated Jammu and Kashmir into India like it had snatched it from another country. In reality, the BJP has left JK powerless and under the remote control of the Center. The national political parties are telling people that the Instrument of Accession was made permanent only by hollowing the internal autonomy of the State that was a part of the Indian constitution.

Elections have been held in Jammu and Kashmir since partition, but like in the past, the agenda or interpretation of the election results has changed its meaning altogether. The new narrative is that only after 2019 did JK become an integral part of India.

For the last decade, the freedom fighters were removed from the political scene, and now the mainstream has been ousted from power position despite the elections. What next is anybody’s guess.

People are challenging the National Conference to explain why the Assembly was formed when it knew it would be a powerless body. The NC government has yet to fulfil its promise of providing 200 units of electricity to the people, which it had promised to implement in the first week of its government. Why is it then hanging with the powerless Assembly?

The erosion of internal autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir poses significant challenges to the region’s stability and governance.

It should be noted that at the time the instrument of accession was approved by the most popular leader of Jammu and Kashmir, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, the promise of granting internal autonomy was not only made in the House of Parliament, but the then Indian government assured the United Nations that it would remain as a temporary provision for JK until the Kashmir issue was resolved between the two countries, Pakistan and  India.

The Kashmir dispute was one of the main agendas of discourse at the United Nations, and an arbitrator had been appointed to resolve it. Since then, the Congress has shallowed the special provisions of autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir so many times through its presidential or parliamentary orders that it has become challenging to count now.

During assembly elections in JK, when the alliance between the Congress and the National Conference was formed, a large section of the people understood that the Congress, led by Rahul Gandhi, had regretted its earlier Kashmir policy and that it would support the people in restoring its guarantees, special position and basic rights given the current volatile situation in the region. Due to this perception, the party was voted with a few seats in elections.  But it started its old mantra, and to win elections in two Indian states, it did not hesitate to smash the hopes raised by the 15 million population.

JK has never hoped for anything from the BJP, due to which it was severely defeated in Kashmir, sending a strong message that they will never accept its aggressive policies, Hindutva agenda, and sinister plans.

Nobody would be bothered if the BJP continued with its agenda of selling Article 370, but people are pained to see that Congress has started running an even more dangerous agenda.

Kashmiri voters are in a dilemma: By voting for the National Conference and its ally Congress, will they have to endure hardships for five years again? Has the NC once again fooled the voters and given legal legitimacy to the decision of August 5, 2019?

Imran Ali says, ‘If the NC thinks it is in power for another five years and no one can challenge it, it is mistaken.  This is the big flaw of democracy: the situation changes in a flash of a second and ways beyond anyone’s imagination.’

Why did people vote for NC if they knew its track record?

This time, people had no choice. They wanted to vote against the BJP, and the only option was a win for the cadre-based party NC. Their only choice forced them to vote for NC when, otherwise, the condition of the National Conference was worse than that of other parties whose party structure has either been shattered by splits or made suspicious by making them the A or B team of the BJP.

The historical context of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India complicates current political dynamics and public expectations.

Although disarray against the National Conference is growing among the people, people on social media are emphasizing unity within their ranks, preparing to play the role of an organized and united opposition, and demanding that the ruling party account for their votes. BJP could play the role of opposition in the Assembly. Yet, its prejudice toward Kashmir prevents it from raising the issue concerned with internal autonomy or constitutional guarantees for the region. That would be its end among Hindutva voters.

The disappointment among the people, the powerlessness of the elected government, and the celebrations of the BJP over the disempowerment of the region have the potential of another disaster with an uncertain future and vulnerability to gun culture.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan

By
Arshad Mehmood
-
0
gender apartheid in Afghanistan

Global Call to Action: Human Rights Organizations Urge the International Community to Stand Against Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan and Amplify the Voices of Afghan Women.

A Canadian human rights organization, the Organization for World Peace (OWP), has called on the international community to take prompt measures to avert the establishment of a society characterized by gender apartheid in Afghanistan.

The organization cautioned against normalizing the current situation. The organization’s latest report called for increased efforts to amplify Afghan women’s voices and protect civic spaces, emphasizing the need for constructive engagement with the Taliban while avoiding actions that might legitimize the regime.

The Organization for World Peace warns against normalizing the Taliban’s oppressive regime and calls for urgent international action.

The Organization for World Peace OWP, tackles key issues like war and security, encouraging individuals and international organizations to think critically about peaceful resolutions to societal challenges.

OWP highlighted in its report that “since the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, extreme restrictions on the rights of women and girls have been rigorously imposed”.

More recently, the Taliban instituted a new moral code known as the Law on the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which essentially eliminated women’s participation in public life and further stripped them of their liberty.

Under the Taliban’s regime, women are perceived as sources of temptation, compelling them to conceal their bodies, voices, and faces while imposing strict controls over their behavior and lifestyle. Despite these restrictions, women are courageously resisting by sharing videos of themselves singing, accompanied by powerful slogans such as “My voice is not forbidden” and “No to the Taliban.”

As stated by the Afghan Justice Ministry, penalties for violations encompass a range of measures. These may include providing advice, issuing warnings of divine retribution, delivering verbal threats, confiscating property, detaining individuals in public jails for one hour to three days, or any other suitable form of punishment as determined.

The Organization recommended strengthening Afghanistan’s civic space to address these challenges by providing financial and logistical support to local human rights organizations and non-governmental groups.

Since the Taliban’s takeover, extreme restrictions on women’s rights have been rigorously imposed, confining them to “virtual prisons.”

“Women are integral to the health and development of society,” the Organization for World Peace OWP emphasized. “Their continued exclusion and disempowerment will only impede Afghanistan’s prospects for peace and prosperity”, it added.

The watchdog further urged foreign governments to sustain pressure on the Taliban to improve women’s rights, while exercising caution to avoid granting legitimacy to the regime.

Meanwhile, The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, has expressed “deep concern over the ongoing and severe erosion of Afghan women’s fundamental rights under Taliban rule”.

In a recent video message, Türk denounced the Taliban’s policies, describing them as a “flagrant disregard for half the population” and labelling the restrictions on women as “self-inflicted harm on a national scale.”

He urged the “Taliban to swiftly reverse their discriminatory policies, emphasising the urgent need to restore the rights and freedoms of Afghan women and girls”.

Türk condemned the Taliban’s decrees, restricting Afghan women’s freedoms, describing them as confining women to “virtual prisons within their homes.”

He warned that “these policies not only violate fundamental rights but also threaten Afghanistan’s future, undermining peace, development, and the prospects for future generations. “This is not only a tragedy for Afghan women, but a national calamity,” Türk asserted.

In the latest escalation against working women, the Taliban have ordered the closure of all women-only cafes in Herat, forcing female entrepreneurs to shutter their businesses and face an increasingly uncertain future.

These cafes, established over the past three were vital lifelines, providing income, community, and a semblance of independence in a society that continually narrows the spaces available to women.

Afghan women are courageously resisting by sharing their voices and experiences despite facing severe penalties and oppression.

These ventures emerged as a response to necessity. With many young women excluded from educational institutions and professional opportunities, entrepreneurship became a vital means of survival.

The government’s closure of key centres for communication and economic engagement is exacerbating the isolation of women, cutting off their community connections, and negating their societal contributions. The persistent campaign against women endangers their independence and existence, and also reflects the Taliban’s determination to enforce a stringent, exclusionary ideology that disregards the needs of half the population.

Maria Noori, an Afghan women’s rights activist currently in exile, says, ” These cafés were not just workplaces or recreational spots; they were safe havens for women, offering them spaces for connection, support, and some sense of independence. Now, with these spaces shut down, women are even more isolated, and the limited opportunities they had are disappearing.

According to Noori, these spaces, which were once essential for women to connect, socialize, and earn a living in an otherwise segregated society, have now been destroyed.

She noted “This ongoing pattern highlights the Taliban’s relentless effort to impose a rigid, exclusionary agenda, leaving Afghan women with fewer opportunities for autonomy and survival.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasizes the urgent need to restore Afghan women’s rights and denounces the Taliban’s discriminatory policies.

Noori emphasizes that the international community can no longer normalize the situation, stating, “Financial aid alone won’t solve the problem. Real political pressure must be applied to the Taliban”.

She underlined”the voices of Afghan women need to be heard, amplified, and supported. We, the women of Afghanistan, will never give up, but we need global solidarity. Only with meaningful support and action can we end this oppression and restore hope to our society”.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.

Nouveau Democrat

By
Nadeem Khalid
-
1
Democrat

The traditional political elites of the country are observing the emergence of a new player in the democratic arena with suspicion, disbelief, and envy. A cult-like populist figure, nurtured by the military to counter mainstream political parties and disrupt the democratic transition from 2008 to 2018, has come of age and is now vying to regain power with unmatched charisma and a massive following. This transformation has baffled and confused his political rivals, who have united with their former adversaries in the establishment to counter his moves. For the establishment, one of its own creations has gone rogue once again.

The political landscape in Pakistan is being reshaped by a populist figure, challenging traditional political elites.

The Charter of Democracy, signed between two mainstream parties in 2006, facilitated a decade-long democratic transition from 2008 to 2018. Despite continuous interruptions and conspiracies orchestrated through the judiciary and a sponsored opposition, the military establishment was forced to take a back seat. This transition was disrupted in 2018 through judicial manipulation and the introduction of a “trojan horse” by the establishment. A hybrid regime was established, wreaking havoc on the economy and bringing it perilously close to default.

The experiment with Imran Khan was hastily abandoned by the establishment before it could implode on its own. The establishment quickly coerced the mainstream democratic parties into becoming junior partners in a military-dominated hybrid regime, threatening them with another decade of Khan’s rule if they refused. This abrupt and chaotic dismissal revitalized the PTI, compelling the establishment to rig elections significantly to keep them out of power.

While anti-establishment sentiments have previously benefited other mainstream political parties, it is now PTI’s turn to enhance its appeal among the masses by opposing the military establishment. This stance has particularly eroded the military’s support among the middle and upper classes, which it had shared with PTI just a couple of years ago. Despite poor governance, mismanagement, and a plummeting economy during PTI’s three and a half years in power, Khan’s unwavering political support remains intact. He was getting unpopular among the masses and the indecent haste of toppling his hybrid rule has not gone well with his supporters, who perceive him as some sort of messiah

The Charter of Democracy facilitated a decade-long transition but was disrupted by judicial manipulation and the rise of a hybrid regime.

The PPP and PML-N have lost significant political ground that they had gained through decades of struggle against military dictatorships. Overnight, the roles have reversed: collaborators have become democrats, and democrats have become collaborators. Despite performing better in governance than their predecessors and stabilizing a nosediving economy, they have struggled to regain their support base.

Despite major differences and interests among the three mainstream parties, the only way to challenge the establishment is to agree on a new Charter of Democracy and Economy. PTI’s refusal to adapt and its inability to initiate a three-pronged strategy—engaging in dialogue with other political parties, providing constructive opposition in parliament, and organizing peaceful public protests—are leading it into a dead end.

Imran Khan is unwilling to negotiate with other political parties and is instead focused on mending his strained ties with military leadership to regain power with their assistance. Both of their major protests on May 9 and November 24 were less about mass mobilization and more about instigating a coup within the military to install like-minded generals. The party’s reliance on Khan’s charisma, coupled with a motley crew of second-tier leadership, is unlikely to yield positive results.

A new Charter of Democracy and Economy is essential for mainstream parties to effectively challenge the military establishment’s influence.

The PDM government must pursue a policy of political dialogue despite PTI’s obstinacy and inflexibility. It should resist the temptation to dismiss the KP provincial government or banning the party and maintain its focus on the escalating militancy in both KP and Balochistan, seeking political solutions to longstanding issues.

100 Days of Dr. Yunus: Triumphs, Trials, and Turning Points in Power

By
Saleem Samad
-
1
Dr.Yunus

The nation waits patiently. Aspirant political parties are growing impatient, and citizens are frustrated with Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus’s first 100 days as Chief Advisor of the Interim Government.

The Monsoon Revolution was a student uprising that abolished the quota for government civil service jobs for siblings of liberation war veterans of the bloody independence of 1971.

Yunus told the French news agency AFP that elections would follow after multiple reforms. He reiterates that reforms are needed before the country can elect a government following the ouster of autocratic ruler Sheikh Hasina.

The speed of reforms ‘will decide how quick the election will be,’ the Nobel Peace Prize winner and inventor of banking the poor said in an interview on the sidelines of the COP29 climate talks in Azerbaijan. He insisted that he would steer the country towards a democratic vote.

Dr. Muhammad Yunus emphasizes the need for constitutional reforms and a democratic vote to stabilize Bangladesh after Sheikh Hasina’s ouster.

‘That’s a promise that we made, that as soon as we are ready, we’ll have the elections, and the elected people can take over, run the country,’ he said.

He said the country needed to quickly agree on possible constitutional reforms and the shape of the government, parliament, and election rules.

The country has struggled with instability, admitted Dr Yunus since the ouster of Hasina, whose rule witnessed appalling human rights abuses, including the mass detention, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances of her political opponents. Such incidents are presently absent.

A series of street riots by ‘non-paid’ garment workers, battery-driven auto-rickshaw drivers agitated to ply in the capital city Dhaka, and clashes among students of neighboring colleges for days.

Presently, the widespread agitation in the country has occurred after the arrest of a former ISKON priest Chinmoy Krishna Das Prabhu on charges of sedition filed by a member of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

The radicalized Muslims and students demanded ISKON, a Hindu spiritual international organization to be banned and punish the Sadus (priest) for nefarious activities, which has been deemed as anti-state.

Rising sectarian tensions in Bangladesh have led to violent clashes, particularly targeting Hindu communities and ISKON establishments.

However, the High Court has overturned the petition to ban ISKON but did not mention the safety and security of the Hindus in Bangladesh, which has a population of 13.1 million (2022 census) and makes up about 7.95 percent of the total population of 165.16 million.

Angered with the administration for not taking action against ISKON, the radicalized Muslims, with no affiliation to any Islamic parties or Islamist outfit attacked scores of Hindu temples, especially ISKON establishments in the country in the last few days.

Indian media lambast Bangladesh

Indian administration, ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), along with flocks of Indian media have come down heavily on Yunus government that he has not done enough to provide security to the Hindus and scale down sectarian violence after Hasina fled to India.

After a brief bout between Delhi and Dhaka over India playing with the Hindu card, the Indian media and BJP have called to ban exports to Bangladesh, which they argue would weaken Bangladesh’s economy and would submit to Indian hegemony in the region.

Mohiuddin Ahmad, political historian and researcher interprets such provocation as declaring war against Bangladesh, which they helped to become independent 53 years ago.

Delhi has ceased issuance of tourist visas for an indefinite period, since the collapse of Hasina’s regime on 5 August. India has cited the absence of security at the visa centres in the country. No announcement has been made about when the visa centers will resume.

For the past three months, only one Indian Visa Application Center in Bangladesh has been processing a limited number of visas for students and urgent medical purposes.

The Indian media’s portrayal of the situation in Bangladesh raises concerns about external influences exacerbating internal divisions.

However, Bangladesh has not halted visa centers in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata Guwahati, Agartala and other cities for Indian nationals visiting the country.

After a call from Yunus, Bangladesh missions abroad have been advised to issue visas to visiting journalists on the fast track. Several leading Indian media outlets have visited the country, sans bureaucratic red-tapism.

Meanwhile, the official Facebook page of the Chief Adviser’s Office has debunked scores of fake news and disinformation churned by the Indian media and social media enthusiasts.

Mahfuz Anam, editor of an independent newspaper The Daily Star writes: The Indian media’s coverage appears to be driven by concern solely for Hindus of Bangladesh, rather than the people of Bangladesh [who were shot and killed by police and Awami League’s armed vigilantes]. Will that foster a healthy relationship between our two countries? I repeat that India should not see the recent events through the lens of Sheikh Hasina but through the lens of democracy, he remarked.

Yunus said it’s only three months after the revolution. “We are hoping that we can sort it out and have a peaceful law and order,” he added.

At an international conference in Dhaka, Muhammad Yunus said “We witnessed a historic political changeover just 100 days ago. Future Bangladesh will be based on justice, human rights, and freedom of speech.”

Managing sky-high reforms

Marking the interim government’s 100th day in office, the International Crisis Group (ICG) published a report titled “A new era in Bangladesh? The first hundred days of reform’. The think tank highlighted corruption, irregularities, politicization of administration and judiciary, and destruction of the electoral system by the fallen Awami League regime. This is the second one of the report’s two parts.

The Brussels-based think tank ICG noted that it will not be an easy task for the interim government to implement the reform plans. Against the backdrop, it presented a set of recommendations regarding the situation in Bangladesh.

A key challenge for the interim government will be to manage sky-high public expectations. Given the constraints on Dr Yunus and his allies – including their lack of governing experience, the pent-up grievances in Bangladeshi society and the country’s fractious politics – it will most likely be impossible for them to deliver entirely on their ambitious agenda.

To achieve this goal, the government will need to amend laws and the constitution; reform the election commission and electoral system; and make changes within the police and bureaucracy, given the centrality of these institutions to holding free and fair elections.

The International Crisis Group warns that managing public expectations and implementing reforms will be challenging for Yunus’s interim government.

The judicial system of Bangladesh has never been entirely safe from political interference. Under Hasina, the meddling assumed alarming proportions as her administration used the courts to cudgel her political opponents.

The bureaucracy is not just politicized, though; it is also highly inefficient. The quota system has deprived it of many good recruits, while both large-scale and petty corruption, already commonplace, got worse under Hasina, writes the ICG.

As an interim government figure put it, “If we don’t repair our institutions, there won’t be free and fair elections or a smooth transition, so what will be the point of all this?”

As usual, echoing the concern of the citizenry, the International Crisis Group advised that the Interim Government’s first priority should be to restore law and order.

Trump towards Bangladesh

The fear psychosis in the minds of Bangladesh people regarding the comeback of Donald Trump, as President of the United States of America has been scratching their heads.

Jon Danilowicz, a former American diplomat based in Bangladesh in a post on his verified Twitter (X) @JonFDanilowicz writes: America First and Bangladesh First are compatible. Both nations will benefit from the historic opportunity post-Hasina to create a new Bangladesh that embraces freedom, unleashes the potential of its citizens, and leverages a diaspora that wants the best for both.

He further argues that the ‘anti-Trump’ rhetoric against Bangladesh’s Interim Government is part of a disinformation effort being orchestrated by the supporters of the country’s ousted dictator.

She is a long-time anti-American kleptocrat, whose government was responsible for killing thousands of people during her 15 years in office.   The people of Bangladesh want reforms leading to elections that will make their country great again.

He also warns not to fall for the Hindutva propaganda. What is most disingenuous about the intense Hindutva lobbying effort in Bangladesh is that it is not really about protecting minorities.

Successful reform implementation is crucial for achieving free and fair elections, which are essential for the country’s democratic future.

The goal of this effort is to rehabilitate Awami League and Sheikh Hasina for their return to power. Why do they (India) want Hasina back?  The answer is simple. They don’t trust the Bangladeshi people to choose their leaders and instead want to install a government that advances India’s interests.

Danilowicz concludes that the criticism of the Hindutva lobby is to brand anyone who supports the Interim Government and fought against Hasina’s regime, as an Islamist.

1...567...146Page 6 of 146

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

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

Write for us
About Us
Writers Pool

© All Rights Reserved. Stratheia, 2024