Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

Home Blog Page 9

Iran Reshapes Afghanistan Policy

0
Iran

Iran has made a significant shift in its diplomatic approach by removing Hassan Kazmi Qomi from his dual roles as special envoy and ambassador to Afghanistan, according to reports from Iranian media on Sunday.

This decision, outlined in a decree by Iranian Foreign Minister Syed Abbas Araghchi, appoints Ali Reza Bigdeli, the former deputy for consular affairs at the foreign ministry, as the new head of Iran’s diplomatic mission in Kabul.

The restructuring of Iran’s diplomatic representation in Afghanistan includes the abolition of the position of special presidential envoy for Afghanistan.

Moving forward, the Iranian ambassador to Kabul will now operate directly under the Foreign Ministry’s oversight, reflecting a broader shift in how Iran is choosing to manage its engagement with Afghanistan and the Taliban-led government.

Kazmi Qomi, who was appointed as Iran’s ambassador to Kabul in December 2022, had also served as the special representative of the Iranian president for Afghan affairs.

These shifts indicate a broader trend in regional diplomacy, as neighboring states recalibrate their strategies in dealing with Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

During his tenure, he was instrumental in shaping Iran’s policy of engagement with the Taliban, focusing on regional cooperation and seeking solutions to Afghanistan’s ongoing challenges.

His tenure, however, also coincided with rising tensions in the region and the complex dynamics surrounding the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan.

This move by Iran aligns with similar changes in the region. Recently, Pakistan also abolished its special envoy position for Afghanistan, signalling a shift in how neighboring countries are adjusting to the evolving political landscape in Kabul.

These shifts indicate a broader trend in regional diplomacy, as neighboring states recalibrate their strategies in dealing with Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

Kazmi Qomi, a seasoned diplomat, had previously served as Iran’s ambassador to Iraq and was once linked to Iran’s elite Quds Force, as alleged by US General David Petraeus in 2007.

His removal signals a recalibration of Iran’s policy and approach to the Taliban-led Afghan government, in line with broader regional dynamics.

This restructuring of Iran’s diplomatic presence in Afghanistan signifies a broader transformation in the country’s foreign policy.

The timing of Kazmi Qomi’s removal is also significant given the backdrop of a tense diplomatic climate between Iran and Afghanistan.

Relations between the two nations have soured following a series of incidents, including the recent deaths of over 200 Afghan migrants, allegedly at the hands of Iranian border forces.

This tragic event exacerbated tensions and led to widespread condemnation, adding another layer of complexity to an already delicate bilateral relationship.

The incident has underscored the fragility of Iran’s border security policies and has strained diplomatic channels between Tehran and Kabul, particularly as Afghanistan struggles with its own governance and humanitarian issues.

Although there have been recent tensions, the larger picture in the region shows a complex relationship between Iran and Afghanistan, with both countries actively seeking ways to cooperate, especially in the area of trade. Over the past few years, Iran has made substantial efforts to expand trade relations with Afghanistan, particularly in sectors such as energy, agriculture, and construction.

Iran has become a vital partner for Afghanistan, providing essential goods and services while also seeking to boost economic integration, despite the political uncertainty brought by the Taliban’s rule.

Trade between the two countries has grown, particularly in the context of Iran’s desire to assert influence in Afghanistan’s rebuilding process.

The shift in diplomatic priorities, alongside efforts to expand trade relations, highlights Iran’s balancing act as it navigates the complexities of its relationship with Afghanistan amid a turbulent regional environment.

Iran has invested in energy infrastructure, including electricity supply, and has worked to facilitate cross-border trade via land routes, particularly through the Chabahar port, which offers Afghanistan access to international markets.

This growing economic partnership is seen as a means for Iran to secure its geopolitical interests in the region and to promote stability, despite the challenges posed by the volatile security environment in Afghanistan.

Kazmi Qomi’s removal from his post reflects these broader geopolitical shifts, indicating that Iran may be seeking a more streamlined and pragmatic approach to its diplomacy with Afghanistan.

While Tehran has been vocal in its support for the Taliban’s initial promises of stability, the ongoing challenges related to governance, human rights, and economic development in Afghanistan have led Iran to reassess its role in the country.

Iran’s diplomatic adjustments are not just a reaction to the political developments in Kabul but also a response to the broader regional dynamics involving both the Taliban and neighboring states.

Qomi’s removal is thus part of a wider reassessment of Iran’s foreign policy in relation to Afghanistan and the broader region.

With the diplomatic landscape in flux and tensions lingering over issues such as border security and migrant rights, Iran’s recalibrated approach to Afghanistan is likely to reflect a desire for greater stability and strategic coherence in its dealings with its troubled neighbor.

The shift in diplomatic priorities, alongside efforts to expand trade relations, highlights Iran’s balancing act as it navigates the complexities of its relationship with Afghanistan amid a turbulent regional environment.

Indoctrination for Terrorism and growing Global Threats in Afghanistan

0
Afghanistan

Reports in international media have surfaced that religious seminaries are growing rapidly under the Afghan Taliban, a worrisome development for counterterrorism experts. In August 2021, approximately 5000 Madressahs were operational in Afghanistan, whereas at present, 21000 seminaries are operational. An estimate suggests that these seminaries enroll around 3.6 million students, who could potentially become terrorist organizations’ foot soldiers.

The number of operational madrassahs in Afghanistan has surged from approximately 5,000 in August 2021 to 21,000 today.

The latest report from the UNSC reveals the growth of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Fitna-al-Khwarij, and ETIM in Afghanistan, along with the intensification of Jihadi indoctrination of Afghan youth by the Afghan Taliban. It demonstrates that the interim Afghan government continues to violate the Doha agreement. In this regard, multiple reports from the UNSC support Pakistan’s claims that Khwarij, with the support of the Afghan Taliban, is becoming a global terrorist threat. It exposes the Afghan Taliban’s use of lies and deceit to promote terrorism in Pakistan, in violation of international relations norms.

Another UNSC report revealed that the Afghan Taliban are paying ISKP militants to join Khwarij, confirming Pakistan’s claim that Khwarij and ISKP are collaborating on terrorist attacks in the region. The AThe Afghan Taliban has revived ETIM, and both Khwarij and ETIM are closely collaborating within Afghanistan. ost worrisome aspect of the Afghan Taliban is support for the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The Afghan Taliban and Khwarij are aiding the BLA in their extortion activities in Balochistan, while also aiming to undermine China’s interests in Pakistan.

According to UNSC findings, Khwarij could become a global threat while working with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is reorganizing and training its militants, and Arab militants are increasingly traveling to Afghanistan. Around 200 Al-Qaeda trainers are working with Khwarij to enhance its terrorist activities in Pakistan. Khwarij chief Noor Wali Mehsud is closely working with Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Afghanistan to further complicate threats for Pakistan.

An estimated 3.6 million students are enrolled in these seminaries, raising fears they could become recruits for terrorist organizations.

Al-Qaeda has operationalized 8 camps in Afghanistan, and its Kunar camp is training suicide bombers for Khwarij. Al-Qaeda has gifted some vehicles to Khwarij to ensure the safety of militant leaders, and its militant commander, Hakeem Al-Masri, is providing full support for Khwarij’s terrorist activities in Pakistan. The collaboration between Khwarij and Al-Qaeda would certainly enhance the global reach of both the terrorist outfits, and the international community needs to check it immediately.

The UN research group’s findings indicate that members of the Afghan Taliban view their participation in the Khwarij attacks as a religious obligation. The Afghan Taliban supplied the group with substantial amounts of leftover American weaponry and manpower to carry out the attacks. Pakistan, facing serious terrorist threats from Khwarij’s safe haven in Afghanistan, has formally informed the UNSC that anti-Pakistan terrorists enjoy freedom of action in Afghanistan. The UN should investigate how Khwarij obtained modern weapons to enhance their lethality in attacks.

The international community is expected to hold the interim Afghan government accountable for violating the Doha agreement by providing protection to global terrorists such as Noor Wali Mehsud. Noor Wali Mehsud is disguising his terrorist outfit and embracing segments of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in response to the new ground realities that have emerged following the US departure from Afghanistan.

Regrettably, the Afghan Taliban have become his accomplices in this regard. He fits the perfect profile of an international terrorist, leading to his blacklisting by the UNSC and his designation as a global terrorist by the US. Now, he has a favorable environment to further his terrorist agenda in Afghanistan, as recent UN reports confirm the thriving Al-Qaeda, ISKP, and Khwarij terrorist training camps in the country.

Reports indicate that the Afghan Taliban are collaborating with groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to enhance terrorist activities in the region.

Pakistan has informed the UNSC that the resurgence of the Khwarij attacks in Pakistan can be attributed to the actions of the interim Afghan government. It has further warned that Khwarij is an Al-Qaeda-backed terrorist organization, and its unchecked activities in Afghanistan would escalate global terrorist threats as well. In the interest of international peace, the international community should exert pressure on the interim Afghan government to dismantle anti-Pakistan terrorist networks and eliminate global terrorist threats emerging from Afghanistan.

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

The Transformative Impact of Immigration

0
Immigration

Immigration has been the main reason behind Europe’s cultural incline since antiquity. Beginning with the early movements in the Roman Empire and eventually the recent waves from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, immigration has remained a core defining force across the entirety of the continent.

It is more evident in recent decades how significant immigrants have been to Europe’s growth, apart from economic growth, they have contributed to cultural as well as social change. This article focuses on the various elements of Europe’s immigrant societies and being an immigrant means irreplaceable in Europe today.

Immigration has been a core defining force in Europe, contributing significantly to economic growth and cultural diversity.

Immigration has resulted to boost of the economy in Europe is one of the most affecting effects of immigration to Europe. Skilled jobs are occupied by immigrants since they avail themselves where there is a scarcity of human resources. Immigrants have become particularly important for many EU countries maintaining industries such as agriculture, and health care, especially those countries with ageing populations such as Germany and Italy. For example, in Spain, immigrants are involved particularly in the seasonal production of crops most especially the horticultural crops that most people from that country do not like engaging in.

Furthermore, young and dynamic immigrants becoming a part of the European workforce, while Europe continues to experience low birth rates. There has been a progressive rise in the dependency ratio of most of the European countries due to a smaller proportion of the working-age population supporting many elderly persons.

That is why immigrants play a role in reversing such a trend filling vacancies, paying taxes, and supporting social welfare systems. This placement of young talent relieves some of the burden that pension funds so that the elderly generation can have their fair share as per their entitlements requires.

It must be understood that immigrants are not only employees but also inventors and businesspeople. Several of the current successful startups and companies throughout Europe have their roots in immigration. For example, the UK and France are filled with tech startups and SMBs run by people of different origins. This type of business introduces new perspectives to the market, increases competition, and offers job openings for the population, including immigrants.

Empirical evidence also shows that the rate of business creation among immigrants is higher than that of born nationals. This is partly because immigrants are strong and malleable, as are most people who are forced to bend to the vagaries associated with migration.

Observed that the immigrant factor entailing increased opportunities and risks pushes for the development of the economic potential of cities that have gone through bad times. For instance, in Berlin and Paris, residents’ ethnic stores and eateries have made previously sluggish-selling areas the most outstanding cultural centers.

Immigrants fill critical labor shortages in key sectors such as healthcare and agriculture, especially in countries with aging populations.

Immigrants are also important for Europe’s cultural development other than the bit they bring financially to the economies. The ethnic divide that forms the social fabric of Europe today is an effect of different waves of immigration that occurred over centuries. From eating habits, dress codes, music, art, and fashion, immigration has endowed Europeans with various indispensable ways of life. Getting acquainted can also be viewed as a plus that made Europe tolerant and diverse, where one could have many identities and cultural backgrounds.

This has been particularly the case in Europe, where ethnic communities brought with them some of their favorite foods. Today, people from different countries can easily find Italian pizza, Turkish kebab, Indian curry, or Middle Eastern falafel, which have become an integral part of Europe’s staple diet. Moreover, cultural events such as the Caribbean carnival held annually in Notting Hill, London, are characteristic features, a pull factor for tourists, and a boost to the economy.

Currently, Europe is grappling with critical demographic problems such as the ever-rising population of individuals in the demographic bracket of the elderly and low fertility rates among the population. These ‘low immigration’ countries such as Japan, thus offer a disturbing case of ability to continue growing their economies once they do not produce adequate numbers of young labor to feed their economies.

On the other hand, the European countries that encourage immigration have their economy much stronger compared to their counterparts. For instance, Germany with relatively more liberal immigration laws continues to kiss the title of the king of Europe’s economy.

Firstly, new people also help to equalize the population and, secondly, with them UC can come a work ethic and the desire to improve, which will inspire others. Immigrants continue to occupy various positions in social sectors regarded as basic needs of the society with Europe currently relying on immigrants to perform core sectors today. For instance, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) is largely dependent on immigrant professionals in the health sector thus given the circumstances obtaining locally in the developed countries it is understandable.

The presence of diverse ethnic communities has enriched European culture, introducing new cuisines, traditions, and perspectives.

However, the impact of immigration on the development of Europe cannot be denied; however, the process is accompanied by difficulties and misunderstandings. The philosophies promote negative sentiments towards social pressure and stir up xenophobia in so far as employment opportunities and cultural assimilation are concerned as aspects causing apprehension.

Nonetheless, the evidence from various research has adopted a perception that immigrants neither steal the employment of natives; rather they are inclined to offer their services in some openings that do not get filled. In addition, it is found that most immigrant pays more taxes than they get in return hence they are not parasites to the welfare systems.

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.

Are States Prepared to Manage Dual Impact of Big Data and AI?

0
Big Data and AI

A quiz in the New York Times has brought the reality of deepfakes into sharp focus. What started as a fun experiment to see if readers could spot the difference – between real videos and those altered digitally via Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated tools known as Deepfakes became a real challenge. Its spread could not only be detrimental to individuals but also to the states and their policies.

The emergence of deepfakes as tools for misinformation poses a greater threat to democratic processes than previous election interferences.

For example, the U.S. presential elections 2024 took place, during which AI-powered misinformation based on Big Data i.e. deepfakes was a greater danger than the interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Currently, the nexus between Big Data and AI is taking a stronger form. This Oppenheimer situation demands necessary regulations and controls by the states. If we are not preparing for a future where truth is hard to identify, states with their societies will be left to manipulation and vulnerabilities.

Synthetic media tools were once cutting-edge technologies for movies and games, and are now weapons for the disinformation battleground. Large and complex datasets like those from social media, sensors, financial transactions, and other sets of information are known as Big Data. While this data provides valuable information, it also poses challenges because of its 3Vs i.e. volume, variety, and velocity. The volume is the vast amount of data. Due to its size, it is difficult to manage them.

Regarding variety, the data comes in many forms, from text to images and videos, requiring different handling approaches. The velocity is in concern to new data, which is generated rapidly. The fast process of generation of data makes it hard for organizations to keep up. The 3Vs of data represent the scale, diverse formats, and rapid generation of information. Therefore, it is a real-time problem for traditional methods to manage and analyze Big Data.

On the other hand, utilizing Big Data for meaningful insights needs powerful tools which we have in the form of AI. AI is trained on data to identify patterns and predict outcomes. There are some limitations to AI. Firstly, AI’s effectiveness relies on the quality and quantity of data availability. Secondly, AI models can be complex to understand how they are reaching their conclusions.

The combination of Big Data and AI creates both opportunities and risks, necessitating robust regulatory frameworks to safeguard against misuse.

Lastly, if the biased data is used to train the AI then it can lead to unfair or discriminatory outcomes. These limitations refer to the challenge of understanding how complex AI models arrive at decisions, with or without biases. Here, the nature of data can lead to fair/ unfair or discriminatory/ non-discriminatory results. Hence, this sheds light on the importance of the state’s responsibility for ‘AI development and its use.’

With the dawn of the digital age, the cyber realm stores an unprecedented amount of data which paves the way towards Big Data and AI. As shown in the diagram below, the duo of Big Data and AI, have transformed the way we interact, live, and work. Each click, swipe, and search creates data that contributes to the global phenomenon in the form of Big Data. This huge treasure of data contains deep patterns and insights that can be potentially misused by adversaries and non-state actors to strategically disrupt the operations of states.

In the meantime, the nexus of Big Data and AI offers opportunities in cyberspace. From the perspective of deepfakes, this combo offers a complete set for making things right or bad. What’s fearsome is that the 79th First Committee of the General Assembly session on October 25, 2024, identified the cyber domain’s perilous side. That’s for using deepfakes as a tool for propaganda. Also to promote espionage, and disinformation in the cyber realm. “The cyber domain in particular is being instrumentalized to undermine human rights, the rule of law and democracy — it has even become a war-fighting domain in its own right,” the Irish delegation mentioned in Disarmament and International Security Committee.

However, the real-world application of Big Data and AI faces a number of obstacles for federal governments. Data privacy, security, infrastructure, and ethical concerns are a few among many challenges for the merger of Big Data and AI. Also, it may cost a lot to integrate both technologies into existing systems. States may have to cater to these challenges by cost-benefit analysis.

Ethical considerations in AI development are crucial to prevent biased outcomes that could exacerbate existing societal inequalities.

Furthermore, Big Data and AI require ambitious technology deployments such as fast internet, memory hubs, skilled labor, software and hardware, and other resources. It will be challenging for a developing state. For the ethical considerations of using nexus of these technologies, state institutions can make sure that the data used for the AI are unbiased and non-discriminatory. This supervision is necessary due to the fact that these data are also supported to power autonomous weapon systems as well.

Lethal autonomous weapons have military advantages over states’ adversaries due to their ability to process data and make speedy AI-based decisions far exceeding human potential. States are thus investing tidy sums in research and development of these weapons. Taking it into account, there are issues about its development globally. It is essential to ensure international regulatory framework which justifies its moral, ethical, and legal actions.

To address these challenges, states can establish regulations that protect citizens’ data while enabling the productive use of AI for both commercial and national interests. Concurrently, it is crucial to invest in technology, cloud computing, and workforce development through targeted training programs, thereby building a robust infrastructure for AI deployment. Clear guidelines must also be formulated to ensure the ethical and responsible use of AI, reducing biases and safeguarding individual rights.

Collaboration between governments, private sectors, and international organizations is essential for addressing the challenges posed by AI and Big Data.

Furthermore, collaboration between governments, private enterprises, and international organizations is equally essential. As demonstrated by the United States under the Biden administration in 2023, such partnerships can facilitate the sharing of risks, expertise, and resources critical to AI innovation and growth.

In conclusion, the integration of Big Data and AI holds vast potential for states, offering enhanced decision-making, operational efficiency, economic progress, and innovation. However, unlocking these benefits requires governments to address pressing concerns related to privacy, infrastructure, and ethics proactively. By embracing a strategic and responsible approach, states can harness the transformative capabilities of Big Data and AI to improve governance and public services.

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.

Justice in the Crossfire: Global Debate on Accountability in Gaza Conflict.

0
ICC and Gaza

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif, accusing them of war crimes in Gaza. This development represents a significant moment in the international legal response to a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions.

Mohammed Deif, a long-standing and elusive figure within Hamas, was instrumental in orchestrating the October 7, 2023 assault on southern Israel. The attack killed over 1,200 people and resulted in the abduction of 250 hostages, triggering Israel’s extensive military campaign in Gaza.

The ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant mark a pivotal moment in addressing accountability for war crimes in Gaza.

Deif’s death in an Israeli airstrike on July 13, 2024, marked the end of his decades-long evasion of Israeli forces but came too late to prevent the escalation of violence following the October assault.

After months of deliberation and rejecting multiple objections from Israel and its allies, the ICC announced its decision to issue arrest warrants. ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan had signaled in May 2024 his intention to pursue charges against Israeli leaders and senior Hamas figures, including Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, who have since been killed.

The ICC’s statement confirmed that it “unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute.” Netanyahu and Gallant stand accused of orchestrating a “widespread and systematic attack on the civilian population of Gaza.” These alleged actions include the deliberate deprivation of essential goods—food, water, fuel, and medical supplies—constituting crimes against humanity and the use of hunger as a weapon of war.

The Israeli government has strongly condemned the ICC’s actions. President Isaac Herzog described the arrest warrants as a “ridiculous decision,” while former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett labelled it a “shame” for the court. Opposition leader Yair Lapid characterized the move as a “reward for terrorism.”

Mohammed Deif’s orchestration of the October 7 assault on Israel has intensified scrutiny of both Israeli and Hamas actions.

Both Netanyahu and Gallant have denied the allegations, asserting that their military actions were necessary to neutralize Hamas and protect Israeli civilians.

The ICC’s decision has drawn sharp reactions globally, highlighting divisions in the international community regarding accountability in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Human rights organizations have consistently accused both Israel and Hamas of violating international law during their protracted hostilities.

For supporters, the ICC’s actions are a long-overdue step toward justice for victims. Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, hailed the decision as a milestone for accountability. “The ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant are not only a step toward justice in Palestine but also a step to restore the credibility of the rules-based international order and its judicial system,” he said. Zomlot emphasized the need for all nations committed to human rights to act on the warrants.

The European Union has backed the ICC’s decision. Josep Borrell Fontanelles, the EU’s top diplomat, stated, “The decision of the court must be respected and enforced. This is a binding obligation for all state parties to the ICC, including every member of the European Union.”

As legal and diplomatic efforts continue, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains dire. On Thursday, 21st November 2024, Gaza’s Ministry of Health reported a staggering death toll of 44,056 since October 7, 2023, due to Israeli military operations.

Israel’s government has vehemently condemned the ICC’s actions, framing them as politically motivated and detrimental to peace efforts.

Health officials estimate that over half of those killed were women and children, though the figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants.

Israel claims to have killed at least 17,000 Hamas militants but has not provided evidence to substantiate this number. The ongoing violence has exacerbated the suffering of millions in Gaza, where access to necessities remains critically limited.

The Israel-Palestine conflict, rooted in decades of political, social, and religious strife, continues to resist resolution. The ICC’s arrest warrants highlight the complexities of seeking justice in such a deeply entrenched conflict. While some view the ICC’s decision as a beacon of hope for accountability and peace, others warn of its potential to inflame tensions and derail any prospects for reconciliation. For the millions affected by the violence, the path to justice remains fraught with uncertainty.

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.

Challenging Realism and Power of One: Trump and Elon Musk

0
Trump and Musk

“I will end wars within 24 hours” was promised by president Trump on the campaign trail. If he achieves success in it, it will challenge traditional notions of realism. How can a leader, elected because of change of leadership due to elections be able to achieve this in short time what countries have failed in over two years?

“Challenging realism” is a perspective that expands traditional realism by recognizing the increasing influence of non-state actors in global politics. It mentions how non-state actors like social movements, political groups, and influential individuals play crucial roles in conflict resolution and political processes unlike classical realism, which focuses on state actors and power. In the context of Donald trump’s re-election, non-state actors had significant but complex, impacts on his policies and political decisions, especially concerning domestic issues like economy and international issues like wars.

Trump’s promise to end wars within 24 hours presents a radical challenge to established norms of realism in international relations.

The reelection of Trump and resurgence of “America first” sends shockwaves across the political spectrum. His track of first term has also sent the world into a state of utter panicking. His first term saw no new war being begun in decades, threatening to withdraw from NATO reshaped global politics. With it how can we expect something different this time? His proposal is somehow interesting for a cease-fire. It will be a significant diplomatic move if it gets through.

Let Russia keep whatever it has and meaning Ukraine change its international border. It’s interesting to see how it goes ahead. Do both Russia and Ukraine accept it? For Russia it means the abandoning war objectives of annihilating and finishing Ukraine as Russia doesn’t accept Ukraine as legitimate state and for Ukraine it means loosing nearly a fifth of its territory.

Trump is a businessman, and he knows the art of doing business. He governed America as businessman during first term. Now, he ran campaign on the promises of ending wars, but his incoming administration shows that he will not end Israeli conflict as all appointees have pro-Israeli sentiment in common. Trump’s domestic policy during has been marked by poor personnel decisions, favouring loyalty over qualifications as seen in the case of appointments like Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of defence.

His preference for authoritarian control as approach to governance, marked by a clashed with efforts to introduce discipline, as seen in his strained relationship with former Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. On the international stage, Trump’s withdrawal from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal erased global trust in U.S. commitments. This strategy of backtracking on deals mirrored his business practices and undermined future diplomatic negotiations.

The influence of non-state actors, such as Elon Musk, is reshaping political dynamics and impacting election outcomes significantly.

Another thing that Trump appointees that has in common is anti-China sentiment. The rise of China and diverting of USA’s attention to prolonged wars has given China the space and American space for influence is shrinking. Last tenure of trump saw withdrawal from several locations. But the question is why America is withdrawing now. In physics, Hooke’s Law states that the force required to extend or compress an elastic material is directly proportional to its displacement, within its elastic limit. It is true for international politics too where empires tend to return to original place from where it started if it overstretches.

British empire, ottoman empire, roman empire all returned to place of origin due to prolonged wars. But in the case of the USA, it would be different. As it can’t endure another war it will return due to economic means. Currently, USA needs breathing economic space and trump intends to do it. Under America first policy he may involve the strategy of reducing military commitments as strategy and potentially withdraw aid to Ukraine and if repetition of first term happens, he might demand money for stationing troops. North Atlantic treaty organization (NATO) has increased spending due to fear of trump’s plan for withdrawal from NATO and threat of USA allowing Russia to invade for not fulfilling financial commitments.

This brings us back to the role of non-state actors (NSAs). Another act that we saw was the alliance of Donald Trump and Elon Musk in the election. It was crucial in delivering Trump victory. Both are owners of social media platforms. Elon Musk’s influential support of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, including significant financial backing and his role in amplifying Trump’s message on X formerly twitter as he is owner of the platform to influence public, has helped propel Trump back to the White House.

The alliance driven by their common populist appeal and opposition to government regulation, has significantly strengthened Trump’s appeal among young male voters and right-wing populists. Elon Musk contributed over $132 million and his financial backing of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, combined with his vast business interests in Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink, has raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the potential for favorable government treatment, while his close relationships with both U.S. and Chinese officials could make him a key figure in the next administration, possibly overseeing a committee on government efficiency.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign, boosted by celebrity endorsements from figures like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Oprah, faced backlash on social media for being seen as inauthentic, elitist, and disconnected from real issues, with many voters arguing it alienated the middle class and failed to bring their support. This shows how non state actors have increased its role in delivering political goals and achievements.

Trump’s first term saw a withdrawal from international commitments, raising concerns about the future of NATO and U.S. alliances.

The approach of Donald Trump regarding conflict that he would end wars within 24 hours, presents a challenge to traditional realist perspectives in international relations, particularly in the context of long-standing geopolitical conflicts. Trump’s idea defined by “America First” discourse, has introduced a new tier to realism by focusing on the influence of NSAs on political outcomes. These actors have become important in shaping public opinion and election victories, shifting the dynamics of political power beyond traditional state-centric analyses.

While Trump’s strategy may see U.S. foreign policy shift, particularly through reduced international military engagements and potential withdrawals, it raises questions about the practicality of such drastic measures in the face of existing international conflicts. The situation further complexes due to suggestion that politics may increasingly be driven through the role of NSAs, both in the form of financial backing and social influence and by a combination of state and non-state forces. If Trump succeeds in utilizing these influences to achieve his policy goals, the global order would be shaken to its knees. The increasing power of NSAs could disrupt traditional state-led decision-making processes, changing the balance of global power dynamics.

While Trump’s foreign policy may challenge the established norms of realism, the efficiency of such an approach remains uncertain, as it requires extensive and battle-hardened diplomacy, balancing the interests of both state and non-state actors on the global stage. The innovative arena of international relations, shaped by both traditional and emerging forces, will determine whether his ambitious promises can be realized in practice or not.

The potential for a power vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal could strengthen the alliance between Russia and China, altering global governance.

If it fails, the existing order shall remain intact and his approach of focusing on domestic recovery will risks weakening the global order, creating a power vacuum that could strengthened the alliance of Russia and China. Both nations, unified in opposition to U.S. dominance, may increase cooperation to counter American influence. This reshaping, accelerated by both state and non-state actors, could realign global alliances, international security, and economic relations, marking a shift in global governance.

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

Restoring Stability and Strengthening Lebanon’s Deterrence

0
Lebanon’s Deterrence

In particular, the conditions between Lebanon and Israel mark an important stage in the relationships throughout the region in the Middle East. For some people, the only solution is simply a return to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, but given today’s political realities, human needs a new prevention concept. Even if the gross framework of analysis is fully respected and relied upon the means it offers can be insufficient to obviate a long-lasting, and, at times, devastating conflict.

However, the complex war of Hezbollah with Israel and regional and international powers requires a comprehensive approach based on international norms and principles that will make deterrence permanent and avoid immediate confrontation. The resolution 1701 of 2006 helped to reduce conflicts between Lebanon and Israel and put an end to the conflict. It drew a cease-line and deployed the Lebanese United Nations Interim Force on Lebanon (UNIFIL) to oversee the ceasefire line. While good at the time the resolution was never given effect and did not seek to address the power relations that persist to this day as the cause of the conflict.

A return to UN Resolution 1701 is insufficient; a new deterrence framework is essential for addressing current realities.

The situation has changed as Hezbollah became more entangled and sponsored by Iran and regional politics aligned themselves according to other Middle Eastern processes. Sticking with Resolution 1701 without adjusting to some of these changes would be counterproductive, as there is a possibility that the efforts may cause violence to resurface. What is needed is a new deterrence framework for the present conditions. The military forces demonstrated by Hezbollah have undergone enhancements since 2006, with sophisticated weapons and coalition partners.

This growth is a formable threat to Israel and erodes the deterrence factor envisaged by the UN Resolution 1701. The US and Israel’s insistence on a more muscular approach to southern Lebanon to implement this resolution especially the demand for demilitarization shows the weakness of the WEAO 139 current resolution. By claiming more direct control and intervention, they admit the collapse of the previous framework to ensure security from Hezbollah’s changing menace.

Furthermore, regional security depends on the capacity to deter the challenges and threats of the contemporary world. The Middle East is a web of relations where the actions of one state or non-state actor may impose a range of effects on the region. The ongoing war between the two countries will destroy them and other countries in the region as the interests of great powers, such as Iran and others, will be attracted into the conflict.

The effect would be a general reduction in deterrence as countries become more skeptical and aggressive, have an arms race, and face more incidents. This approach is dangerous in that like Sami Halabi suggested, people fail to understand that some strategies need to be adjusted to the current state of affairs and developed for the future. Even though Resolution 1701 temporarily stopped the hostilities, there is no possibility to view that resolution as providing a sustainable long-term solution. The reality today insists on a more rigorous and adaptive response that will effectively deal with the complex military and political tactics of Hezbollah and its allies.

Hezbollah’s enhanced military capabilities pose a formidable threat to Israel, undermining the deterrence established by Resolution 1701.

This entails a combination of military threats as well as diplomatic pressure on the capacitors of the extreme factions to demote their influence in Lebanon and its neighboring countries. Enhancing the national defense benefit is a central part of this new deterrence strategy in Lebanon. The LAF should be sustained and armed so it could work in parallel with Hezbollah and help develop an integrated national defense system. This integration would complement Lebanon’s power in fending off threats apart from depending on foreign support thus would effectively decrease the likelihood of foreign military forces getting involved thus increasing the tensions. To approach the nature of the currently required international assistance we have to take into consideration that help should be sought from the Western countries which should concentrate on offering tangible assurances and modern equipment that can strengthen the LAF.

Further, the conflict-related socio-political demands of Hezbollah’s constituency in Lebanon, to which it owes its support, must also be resolved for sustainable stability. The Lebanese government has failed to deliver on its promises through an economic meltdown, political sleaze, and social instability thus leading to the people embracing Hezbollah. Major political, administrative, and economic designs towards better governance and anti-corruption as well as rebuilding multi-billionaires can erode the political base of

Hezbollah and also diminish its potentiality as a militant group. In other words, the internal desire for the stabilization of the conflict is as necessary as the outside forces ready to deter the conflict. If the world refuses to accept a new deterrence paradigm, it may face a long-sustained conflict between Lebanon and Israel and the destabilization of the entire Middle East. This interdependence of the politics of the region makes it very probable for unrest in one segment to negatively manifest itself in others thereby compromising the general prospects of achieving and maintaining such a state.

Regional security hinges on adapting strategies to contemporary challenges and fostering internal stability within Lebanon.

Thus, a specifically strategic and flexibly applied conception capable of turning military, diplomatic, and socio-political processes into real sources of deterrence is needed to preserve stability in the region and prevent a further weakening of the processes capable of leading to more regular and severe conflicts. In conclusion, it might be important to define that even though resolution 1701 might have effectively contributed to the stoppage of past use of force, it is no longer adequate to meet the new challenges and tendencies of the region.

Lebanon’s failure to employ a proper deterrence doctrine that strengthens national security and exhaustively responds to domestic demands, coupled with new strategies that are adaptive and look towards the future is imperative for stability in the Middle East. If no such an approach is followed, the chance of protracted conflict and, consequently, a less credible deterrence for both Lebanon and Israel and not only these two countries but the entire Middle Eastern region, is endangered. All, including Hezbollah and the other sides, especially the US and Israel, must come up with a working executable, and integrated strategy to guarantee lasting peace and security in the region.

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.

Book Review – Contemporary China in Anglo-American and Chinese Perspectives: Making Sense of a Rising China

0
contemporary China in Anglo-American and Chinese Perspectives: Making Sense of a Rising China

Emre Demir examines China’s emergence in his book “Contemporary China in Anglo-American and Chinese Perspectives: Making Sense of a Rising China” by highlighting the distinctions and parallels between Chinese and Western scholarly discourse. With an emphasis on the current power structure in knowledge production in Chinese and U.S. societies, the book analyzes 14 approaches from scholars of mainstream U.S., critical Western, mainstream Chinese, and critical Chinese approaches. It aims to uncover their pertinent power-knowledge nexuses and region-centric features in knowledge production.

The book analyzes 14 approaches from both Western and Chinese scholars, revealing their power-knowledge nexuses in knowledge production.

According to Demir, each strategy is in the knowledge creation hierarchy’s core, semi-peripheral, and periphery layers. The United States currently has the central (hegemonic) position in producing knowledge in the social sciences, allowing it to control the methods and means of knowledge production. Thus, under universal validity, the United States may replicate its doctrines worldwide and profit from them. Demir also supports the decolonization of International Relations (IR), a human-centric approach rather than a region-centric one, an emphasis on the colonial histories of states, and the diversification of intellectual knowledge in the social sciences.

Among the three mainstream U.S.-centered theories discussed in the first chapter are offensive realism (John Mearsheimer), neoliberal institutionalism (Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye), and postclassical realism (Robert Gilpin). The chapter presents their U.S.-centered presumptions about the current U.S.-China relationship and the ideas of hegemony, hegemony-building, and hegemonic transition. According to Demir, these problem-solving techniques establish the fundamental tenet of IR knowledge production, and the associated academics generate knowledge that helps American policymakers combat the threats the country faces.

Furthermore, these pro-status quo strategies make ideological assertions that they are “value-free” and universally applicable, meaning they are generally applicable. Although they have diverse perspectives on China’s emergence, the author contends that these methods only examine the ideas of hegemony and hegemonic transition in terms of material terms and from a U.S.-centered perspective when discussing Sino-U.S. relations. Though they disagree on substance, realists—who see China’s emergence as a threat that must be contained—and liberals—who advocate for China’s wider integration into the system—both support the status quo.

The second chapter describes the semi-peripheral social science positions of Historical Materialist Critical Theory (HMCT, Robert Cox) and World-Systems Analysis (WSA, Immanuel Wallerstein) on hegemony, hegemony-building, and hegemonic transition. According to the author, they ironically aid in creating Western-centric knowledge by assisting “the power holders to naturalize, stabilize, and eternalize the existing unjust world-system,” even though he acknowledges their insights in overcoming region-centric knowledge production. He claims that by ignoring their colonial pasts and seeing the East as passive carriers of Western hegemonies in a capitalist global system, these Western-centric viewpoints harm the region.

Demir advocates for a decolonization of International Relations, emphasizing a human-centric approach over region-centric perspectives.

These scholars offer Western-centric explanations for the concept of hegemony and Sino-U.S. relations because they only consider Western powers as hegemons, place too much emphasis on the Westphalian system, and assume that hegemons provide stability. As a result, they share the wisdom of hegemons’ understanding of stability. While WSA and HMCT account for the hegemonic transition by considering economic, ecological, and social factors, they can still not surpass a Western-centric perspective on China’s development.

The third chapter discusses the ideas of hegemony and hegemony-building as they relate to the mainstream Chinese perspectives of Tianxia1 (Zhao Tingyang), Tsinghua2 or Moral Realism (Yan Xuetong), and Relational Theory (Qin Yaqing). According to the author, Zhao offers a Sino-centered ontology in contrast to Qin’s and particularly Yan’s moral realism approach, which incorporates Western and Chinese ontologies.

According to Demir, these methods are ancillary to the creation of knowledge, but these academics are closely associated with the Chinese ruling class and use the presumptions of mainstream American methods to create knowledge that solves problems for the Chinese government. These methods came into being when China’s material capabilities increased, and developing its own IR theories became necessary. They, therefore, aim to flip the label of “China threat,” elevate Chinese knowledge creation to a central position, and overcome American hegemony in knowledge production.

The fourth chapter discusses the New Left, New Right/Neoliberalism, and Neo-Confucianism/Neo-Conservatism as critical Chinese perspectives located on the outskirts of knowledge production. According to Demir, these theories are not elevating the discussion of hegemony-building. Criticizing the “universal” conventional theories, the focus is instead on domestic problems and China’s political, social, and economic transition. In other words, they are not giving the Chinese government knowledge about how to solve problems. According to the author, by concentrating on the problems that China faces at home, these academics provide alternate explanations without ignoring the Chinese people or the government.

Mainstream U.S. theories often present themselves as “value-free,” masking their ideological biases while promoting American hegemony.

The book offers the reader a novel perspective on Sino-American ties. Demir examines the sometimes-overlooked aspect of this subject by contrasting the academic discourse with a human-centric approach, whereas many scholars try to comprehend the problem solely on material grounds using region-centric Western techniques. By doing this, he discovers the existing power dynamics in the system of knowledge creation, including who creates information for whom and who gains from it at the expense of others. He finds that Western critical theories are Western-centric, while Chinese mainstream methods are Sino-centric. As a result, the advantages of these theories are clear.

Similarly, the book emphasizes mental production as a source of power in and of itself and how holding the hegemonic or core position in mental production increases the power of the state that generates it. Mainstream intellectuals in the United States can make their politically motivated and regionally focused methods seem universally applicable and value-free, making them acceptable worldwide.

The book demonstrates how this forces academics from the semi-periphery and periphery to embrace and absorb these presumptions, whether consciously (Chinese mainstream) or unconsciously (Western critical), and to perpetuate American hegemony in knowledge creation. This is clear in the case of mainstream Chinese researchers who, while maintaining the mainstream assumptions in their theories, want to restore the status quo in knowledge production in favor of China. As a result, power itself is a part of academic discourse and discussions of a “rising China.” This book sheds light on this by examining the source and intended use of the knowledge about Sino-American interactions.

The author highlights the need for diversification in intellectual knowledge to address the colonial histories influencing current theories.

Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that the book seeks to go beyond the current unequal power relations in knowledge production, which take the form of the marginalized status of indigenous IR theories. This exposes (neo)colonial problems in knowledge production systems and global politics. Demir directly opposes the dominant region-centric methodologies that benefit the periphery.

By examining the academic discussions surrounding China’s rise, the author offers insights on Sino-American relations and how to comprehend it. People who wish to learn more about various international relations theories, the arguments surrounding hegemony, hegemony-building, and hegemonic transition, and China’s ascent from different Western and Chinese perspectives could find the book a good read.

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.

Nuclear Safety: India’s Radioactive Woes

0
Nuclear Safety
This systemic problem of theft of radioactive materials requires the country to do a serious reevaluation of its internal security frameworks. This cannot be resolved by simply tightening security at major installations; the entire system which governs the handling, storage and disposal of radioactive materials needs better scrutiny.

Ever since receiving the special waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in 2008, India has been expanding its nuclear reach on the global stage. The NSG waiver essentially allowed India to sign nuclear cooperation agreements for sharing of civilian nuclear technology and expertise with several countries despite not being a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India has signed civilian nuclear deals with 20 countries. The troubling irony of this development lies in the significant vulnerabilities within India’s own nuclear safety and regulatory frameworks, highlighted by recurring incidents of radioactive theft within its borders.

As recently as August 2024, three men were arrested in the Indian state of Bihar with 50 grams of Californium, a highly radioactive material, with a black-market value of at least $100 million.

As recently as August 2024, three men were arrested in the Indian state of Bihar with 50 grams of Californium, a highly radioactive material, with a black-market value of at least $100 million. This is not the first incident of this nature. Nuclear theft has been an issue within India since the 1980’s, however, it seems to have picked up momentum in the recent years. Over the past two decades, more than 25 such incidents have been documented in India, whereas there is no track record of all the undocumented cases.

These are not isolated incidents, rather they point to a broader pattern of weak nuclear governance in the country. All the recent reports indicate that the stolen materials came, not from the generally well-guarded nuclear power plants, but from medical institutions and scrap dealers, etc. This inherent vulnerability of peripheral radioactive sources is inductive of systemic regulatory lapses, creating exploitable gaps for maleficent actors to take advantage of.

So the question that arises here is: can a country, which is grappling with such glaring security lapses within its own border, be a credible authority on providing nuclear safety and regulatory frameworks for other countries? This is not just a rhetorical question but a pressing inquiry. In recent decades, India has been making a push to expand its global nuclear network, aiming to position itself as a leader in the peaceful nuclear domain. However, the discernable pattern of nuclear materials being stolen from within its borders and sold on nuclear black markets every so often raises concerns not only for India but also beyond its borders.

Unsafeguarded radioactive materials pose a global risk, particularly given the proclivity of non-state-actors to exploit the smallest of gaps. While these radioactive materials are not enriched enough to make a full-fledged nuclear weapon, they can be used to create dirty bombs which could lead to environmental contamination and global panic.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office has, time and again, raised concerns, fearing the spillover effect of such thefts into its territory and the South Asian region, however, the issue continues to persist. Many such cases are not even reported by India to the Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB), which is the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) information system on incidents of illicit trafficking and unauthorized activities involving nuclear or radioactive materials.

While India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has laid down some guidelines for the handling and safety of radioactive materials, enforcement remains a weak link. In addition, the nuclear power program in India is complex, divided into three distinct streams. The first stream, consisting of military nuclear facilities, does not have any international oversight as it falls outside the preview of the IAEA.

Unsafeguarded radioactive materials pose a global risk, particularly given the proclivity of non-state-actors to exploit the smallest of gaps.

The second stream consisting of civilian Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) is fully under IAEA safeguards, whereas the third stream, which consists of the Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR) for producing plutonium, falls into the most vulnerable category since these are only partially safeguarded. Thus, while the facilities are monitored, the materials can still be diverted to the military side. These multiple streams provide greater opportunities for malicious actors to gain access to radioactive materials, especially once they leave regulated environments.

It raises doubts, not only about India’s ability to ensure adequate nuclear safety and regulatory oversight over its own program, but also its role as a provider of regulatory expertise to other nations.

This systemic problem of theft of radioactive materials requires the country to do a serious reevaluation of its internal security frameworks. This cannot be resolved by simply tightening security at major installations; the entire system which governs the handling, storage and disposal of radioactive materials needs better scrutiny.

Within this context, the question remains whether India can be a trusted and reliable authority of nuclear safety and regulation. With its endemic problems pertaining to theft of radioactive materials and an evident lack of full regulatory oversight, the country’s ability to provide credible expertise on nuclear issues is far from assured.

PTM Anarchists Undermining Pakistan’s National Security

0
PTM

The Mehsud Tahafuz Movement was rebranded as the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) to enhance its clout in society; now, it is exploiting other issues of public interest to spread anarchy in the country. It has shifted from an anti-war movement to promoting sub-nationalist narratives that aim to incite unrest among the Pashtun masses. Its protests in foreign countries, as well as in front of UN bodies and international human rights organizations, portray it as inviting foreign interventions in the country’s domestic affairs.

On the one hand, it demands that the Armed Forces, law, and intelligence agencies stay away from exercising their legal powers in the country, while on the other hand, it wants indulgence in extraterritorial elements in national issues. These contradictions speak highly about the hypocritical nature of its leaders. Although Manzoor Pashteen presented himself as an anti-war peace activist, his rhetoric was characterized by undemocratic attitudes, hate speech, and racist notions.

PTM has shifted from being an anti-war movement to promoting sub-nationalist narratives that incite unrest among Pashtuns.

Militant outfits have killed over 84 thousand Pakistanis in terrorist attacks and suicide bombings, with victims hailing from various communities in Pakistan. However the shortsighted leadership of PTM is only concerned with Pashtun victims of violence; it lacks inclusiveness, which is against the basic values of democracy. Terrorism has affected the lives of other ethnic communities in Pakistan as well; hence, the leadership of PTM shows racist tendencies in an unjust approach to peace.

PTM’s nefarious agenda to support Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) came to light as it propagated narratives that could create a power vacuum, thereby strengthening terrorist outfits. Therefore, it has shifted its focus to issues of natural resource exploitation and visa regulations in order to maintain its deceptive façade. Pakistan’s constitution clearly addresses the issue of natural resources and minerals, and both provincial and federal democratic governments exist to safeguard shared interests. PTM’s campaign to make it a controversial matter is against the national interest and it has neither a public mandate nor legal grounds to discuss these issues.

TTP destroyed the economy of KP by committing acts of terrorism, and PTM is following suit to keep the Pashtun masses impoverished by opposing projects aimed at developing natural resources. Society regarded PTM as a peace movement, and state authorities actively engaged its leadership to reduce the social influence of violent extremist and terrorist ideologues. Regrettably, PTM leaders began to align themselves with extremist ideologies, leading to hate speech and illegal activities that disappointed pro-peace forces in Pakistan.

The leadership of PTM shows racist tendencies by only addressing Pashtun victims of violence while ignoring other ethnic communities affected by terrorism.

PTM leaders became known for their strong opposition to security forces’ counterterrorism measures and their use of derogatory language against national security institutions. As a result, TTP chief Noor Wali Mehsud lavished praise on PTM leaders in 2018. They crafted a false narrative of survival for Pashtun ethnicity, and PTM became a complementary movement to violent extremist and terrorist outfits.

Manzoor Pashteen’s initiative, the Pashtun national jirga, represents an additional constitutional step in the PTM process. Ironically, the Pashtun national jirga failed to confront the Taliban, who oppressed the ethnic identity of Pashtuns by linking it to terrorism, despite the fact that the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are essentially Pashtun. It should have raised anti-Taliban slogans to set free Pashtuns from the grip of violence. On the other hand, leaders such as Manzoor Pashteen, Ali Wazir, Mohsin Dawar, and others failed to raise awareness against terrorism within society.

They were unable to address the issue of terrorist outfits recruiting Pashtuns, and they refrained from responding to inquiries about Pashtun’s susceptibility to violent extremism. This indicates a lack of understanding of the true nature of the issue, as well as a lack of sincerity and courage in confronting the Taliban. The TTP exploited the culture of vengeance and carrying arms to promote terrorism in the Pashtun heartland, while the PTM failed to promote healthy conduct in this area.

The PTM’s opposition to visa regulations and border control mechanisms aims to strengthen the alliance between terrorists and smugglers, thereby facilitating the free movement of terrorists, arms, and explosives on the Pak-Afghan border. We expect a rise in the frequency of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in society as a result. The international community took extraordinary measures to combat the threat of terrorism, with countries such as the USA resorting to discriminatory physical searches at airports to ensure homeland security.

PTM’s opposition to visa regulations aims to facilitate the movement of terrorists across the Pak-Afghan border.

Besides, the PTM leadership remains steadfast in its opposition to the removal of anti-terrorism mechanisms from the tribal district of KP, and it has joined the TTP in demanding that security forces evacuate these areas. PTM’s stance on identity documents and Pakistan’s visa policy is against international law and norms of international relations; it demands the government surrender sovereignty to Afghanistan, which would be unacceptable for any independent state in the world. Its leadership is inclined to support a foreign government at the cost of Pakistan’s interests.

Afghan immigrants participate in PTM protests against Pakistan in other countries. ISAF and NATO forces abandoned them, leaving them with a bleak future. PTM’s involvement with these elements goes against Pakistan’s interests, further exposing its nefarious agenda to undermine national security institutions. The inability of PTM’s leaders to recognize modern state-based international relations and their subversive agenda is a real problem.

The government has declared PTM a threat to national peace and security, citing its activities as prejudicial to the state.

PTM’s use of harsh and derogatory language towards security institutions in Pakistan, along with its lenient stance towards the Afghan Taliban, TTP, and other militant outfits, is questionable and unacceptable to the country’s peace-loving populace. Therefore, the government has declared PTM a threat to the country’s peace and security, in accordance with Pakistani laws, to curb its nefarious designs.

 

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.