Down Newspaperss

World Politics in chaos
Today, Afghanistan faces a

choice: it can either walk the
arduous path of peace or
revert to civil unrest. The
latter will have catastrophic
repercussions for the Afghan
people and spillover effects
for the neighborhood and
beyond. The spread of
refugees, drugs, weapons,
and transnational terrorism
from a destabilized
Afghanistan does not serve
the interests of the Afghan
people or the rest of the
world, most of all Pakistan.
Which of the two outcomes
materializes will have as
much to do with how the
international community
engages with Afghanistan’s
new political reality as it
does with how the Taliban
choose to rule their country.
1 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

Best Reading Experience
BI-WEEKLY DAWN EDITORIALS &

OPINIONS DECONSTRUCTION
October 01 to Oct ,12___2021
ICEP POLICY
We do not own any of the articles included in this volume, every piece of writing is
attributed to the respective writer.
Knowing the current issues of Pakistan_ internal and external is imperative for Civil
service aspirants. Unlike India, in Pakistan no such digital platform or academic work
is available for aspirants' ease of preparation. Here you are given detailed
deconstruction of important news and articles. Read these editorials and Opinions
carefully and keenly. These are important for widening your knowledge base,
improving language skills, understanding key issues, etc. This section (Editorial/
Opinions) is very useful for English Essay, Current Affairs, Pakistan Affairs – and
sometimes Islamiat papers as the Exam emphasize more on analysis than giving facts.
💬 To the Point
▪ Competitive Exams
▪ Essay Writing
▪ Current Affairs
▪ Pakistan Affairs
▪ Global Issues
▪ Geopolitics
▪ International Relations
▪ Foreign Policy and so on…
✍️ Deconstructed By: M.Usman

GET REGULAR DAWN : WTSP 03306344749

Tense Pak-US ties 13
Murder not honour 15
IMF's demands 16
Gwadar protest 17
Graduate joblessness 18
Hazaras’ suffering 19
Islamism in Pakistan 20
MDCAT Crisis 21
‘Modern love’ 22
Taliban are not helping themselves 23
Path to food security 24
Enhanced Policing 26
Afghan-Tajik Tensions 27
China and Taiwan face-off 28
Allegations on Facebook 29
Unregulated real estate 30
New Deutsch Government 31
STEM Education 32
Tackling Climate Change 33
CSS Essay 34-42
How Pakistan Sees Afghanistan 44

Jorge Castañeda on why America’s civilisation will prevail 50
Dmitri Trenin on Russia’s interests in the new global order 54
Nirupama Rao on America’s need for wisdom and allies in Asia 57
Biden Should Not Arm the Afghan Resistance 60
Don’t Sink the Nuclear Submarine Deal 63
The End of China’s Rise 67
Time of peril 74
Police reforms 77
Biden’s contain-China strategy 80
After the amnesty 83
The growing Taliban challenge 85
Of colonialism and nationalism 88
Beyond amnesties 91
An unfair taxation system 93
Controversial Curriculum: A Recipe for Disaster 96
Initiating Dialogue with the TTP 98
The Rising Rape Culture 100
Overpopulation: A Ticking Bomb 102
Taliban's Victory and the Outside World 104
Inclusivity and Sustainability — The antidote for Pakistan’s Economy? 106
Pakistan’s Strategic Relevance in South Asia 109
Chairman NAB: Law and his Extension 111
Afghanistan on way to further turmoil? 115
What the world does not want to understand about Taliban & 118
Afghanistan

Why criticism on the single national curriculum (SNC) is a welcome 124
step?
The Pandora's box of our dirty offshore legacy 126
Iran prompts Israel to weigh acknowledgement of its own nuclear 130
weapons
The Afghanistan Debacle: Marco Rubio vs Reality 133
Using Nuclear Technology for Peace 136
A catalyst for nuclear proliferation 138
Love redefined 140
Preventing the flight of money 142
A truth commission on TTP 145
Unequal and ill 147
Rise of the machines 149
Capitulation of Taliban in Afghanistan? 151
Religious Narcissism 154
Iran prompts Israel to weigh endorsement of its own nuclear weapon 158
Tsai Ing-wen: Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy 161
The Kremlin’s Strange Victory 168
The Last Days of Intervention 177
Africa Is Changing—and U.S. Strategy Is Not Keeping Up 186
America and Europe Seek to Revive Trade Ties 191
Why China Is Alienating the World 196
How Washington Can Help Turn Things Around 200
Huquq-ul-Ibaad in Islam 204
Pakistan’s Unenviable Democracy 206
Afghanistan Conflict: Role of Pakistan 209
A new Cold War 212
Urban policing in Pakistan 214
Indian growing adventurism in South China Sea 217
China and regional spoilers 220
The third stage of modern China 223
Why quality education is in doldrums? 226
The western powers hypocrisy 229
The fuss over the US Senate Bill 232
Cognitive disorder in consanguineous families 235
Resolution of Kashmir will guarantee peace in South Asia 237
Article-5 empowers ECP 239
TTP’s truce, peace deals and challenges for Pakistan 241
Humanitarian dimension of Kashmir dispute 244
American defeat and global consequences 247
Is humankind a benign species ? 249
The rise of Islamophobia 251
Iqbal’s vision and prosperous Pakistan 253
FAILING PAKISTAN’S WORKERS 255
Acts of faith: Why people get killed over blasphemy in Pakistan 266
The Hindutva Doctrine 282
Pandora Papers: Another Proof of the Elite Capture 285
Biden the Realist 286
Why Afghanistan fell 291
Can Berlin get tough on Beijing 296

Comprehensive Notes on Current Affairs

This Week at a glance:_______________Major Developments
▪ With terrorism topping American concerns about Afghanistan under the

Taliban regime, a senior United States official on October 8, 2021 said
Washington would continue its engagement with Islamabad on
counterterrorism efforts. US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman,
speaking to a group of journalists at the American embassy in Islamabad, said:
`Indeed we`ll be continuing our counterterrorism dialogue. Continuation of
discussions on counterterrorism was apparently the only concrete
commitment offered by the top diplomat with regard to the future of bilateral
ties although several other elements of cooperation were also touched upon
during her meetings.
▪ Prime Minister Imran Khan on October 8, 2021 ordered setting up of a special

body for coordinating Afghanistan-related matters. The prime minister
`directed the establishment of a dedicated cell to synergise various streams of
efforts on Afghanistan across the government, including international
coordination for humanitarian assistance and effective border management to
prevent any negative spillover into Pakistan,` the PM Office said in a
statement on the meeting of the National Security Committee. The NSC, which
is the top body for coordination on security issues, had met to discuss the
developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s approach for dealing with them.
▪ Overseas Pakistanis sent the highest-ever $8 billion remittances during the

first quarter of the current fiscal year, registering a growth of 12.5 per cent
over the same period last year. The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) on October 8,
2021 reported that with inflows of $2.7bn in September, workers` remittances
continued their strong momentum and remaining above $2bn since June
2020. `This is the 7th consecutive month when inflows recorded around
$2.7bn on average,` said the SBP. In terms of growth, remittances increased
by 17pc in September compared to the same month last year, while comparing
with August inflows it was 0.5pc higher.
▪ The IMF has approved a fourth round of debt relief for 24 poor nations
including new recipients Lesotho and Kyrgyzstan to help them weather the
Covid-19 pandemic, according to a statement released October 8, 2021. The
relief was provided under the Washington-based crisis lender`s Catastrophe
Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT), which enables the IMF to provide
grants to the poorest and most vulnerable countries hit by a natural disaster or
public health crisis. In its statement, the International Monetary Fund said the
relief was the fourth approved since the pandemic began and totaled $124
million.
▪ Investigative journalists Maria Ressa of the Philippines and Dmitry Muratov of

Russia won the Nobel Peace Prize on October 8, 2021 for their work promoting
freedom of expression at a time when liberty of the press is increasingly under
threat.Ressa, also a US citizen, is cofounder of Rappler, a digital media
company for investigative journalism Muratov is a co-founder of Russia`s
leading independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta. The pair were honoured `for
their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for

democracy and lasting peace,` said the chairwoman of the Norwegian Nobel
Committee, Berit Reiss Andersen.
▪ The European Union on October 7, 2021 won its battle at the UN Human
Rights Council to create a new special rapporteur on Afghanistan, despite
opposition from China and Russia. The rapporteur will be responsible for
monitoring the rights situation in the country following the Taliban takeover,
and make recommendations on improvements. `This is an essential step to
ensure continued monitoring, through a dedicated and independent expert,
and to help prevent a further deterioration of the human rights situation in
Afghanistan, said Lotte Knudsen, the EU`s ambassador to the United Nations
in Geneva.
▪ The CIA said on October 7, 2021 it will create a top-level working group on
China as part of a broad US government effort focused on countering Beijing`s
influence. The group will become one of fewer than a dozen mission centres
operated by the CIA, with weekly director-level meetings intended to drive the
agency`s strategy towards China. The CIA also announced that it would ramp
up efforts to recruit Chinese speakers and create another mission centre
focusing on emerging technologies and global issues such as climate change
and global health. The CIA said on October 7, 2021 it will create a top-level
working group on China as part of a broad US government effort focused on
countering Beijing`s influence. The group will become one of fewer than a
dozen mission centres operated by the CIA, with weekly director-level
meetings intended to drive the agency`s strategy towards China. The CIA also
announced that it would ramp up efforts to recruit Chinese speakers and
create another mission centre focusing on emerging technologies and global
issues such as climate change and global health.
▪ Tanzanian-born novelist Abdulrazak Gurnah on October 7, 2021 won the

Nobel Literature Prize for his writings on post-colonialism and the trauma of
the refugee experience. Gurnah, who grew up on the island of Zanzibar but
arrived in England as a refugee at the end of the 1960s, is the fifth African to
win the Nobel Literature Prize. The Swedish Academy said Gurnah was
honoured `for his uncompromising and compassionate penetration of the
effects of colonialism and the fate of the refugee in the gulf between cultures
and continents.
▪ Amid criticism by opposition parties, President Dr Arif Alvi on October 6, 2021

signed an ordinance that sharply reduces the jurisdiction of the National
Accountability Bureau (NAB) and enables the president to reappoint the
incumbent NAB chairman or extend his tenure. Contrary to the rhetoric of
some federal ministers that ruled out consultation over the appointment of
NAB chairman with opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif as the latter faces
corruption references, the National Accountability Second Amendment
Ordinance 2021 has amplified the opposition`s role in the appointment of
NAB chairman.

CURRENT AFFAIRS + GK MCQS
(Confirmation is advised)
Which is the biggest economy to join COVAX Global Covid-19 vaccine

alliance, as on October 10 2020?
[A] India
[B] China
[C] United States
[D] Russia
Correct Answer: B [China]

Notes:
China has formally joined the WHO-backed global Covid-19 vaccine initiative
known as COVAX, after signing the agreement with Gavi, the international
Vaccine Alliance.As the United States and Russia stayed out of the initiative, as of
October China is the biggest economy to join the WHO-backed global vaccine
alliance. The initiative aims to distribute 2 billion doses of vaccines by the end of
2021.
2.Which Country’s cabinet has approved the Law to include Death penalty
as the highest punishment for Rape cases?
[A] India
[B] China
[C] Bangladesh
[D] Sri Lanka
Correct Answer: C [Bangladesh]

Notes:
The Bangladesh Cabinet has recently approved the draft law to include death
penalty as the highest punishment for rape.Previously, Lifetime imprisonment
was the highest punishment. Bangladesh President Mohammed Abdul Hamid
signed the ordinance approving the death penalty for rapists. There have been
nationwide protests seeking for the move.
3.Which country has successfully sent 13 satellites from a single rocket?

[A] United States
[B] China
[C] Russia
[D] Israel
Correct Answer: B [China]

Notes:
China has successfully sent 13 satellites from the single rocket named Long
March-6 carrier rocket from the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre.It includes ten
satellites from Argentina and this launch is said to be the biggest launch of
foreign satellites by the country. This launch was also the 351st by the Long
March rocket series. China has also planned to launch 90 earth observation
satellites.

4.Which country has recently launched the world’s first 6G communication
satellite?
[A] India
[B] USA
[C] Russia
[D] China
Correct Answer: D [China]

Notes:
China has become the world’s first country to have successfully launched the 6G
communications test satellite.It was launched using Long March 6 rocket from the
Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center in the Shanxi Province. The 6G technology is
expected to be over 100 times faster than the 5G technology.
5.Where is the headquarters of UN Environment Programme – World

Conservation Monitoring Centre located?
[A] Geneva
[B] Washington
[C] Cambridge
[D] Hague
Correct Answer: C [Cambridge]

Notes:
The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) is an agency of UN
Environment Programme (UNEP) which is headquartered at Cambridge in the
United Kingdom.The UNEP has recently released a report at Nairobi which is co-
authored by World Conservation Monitoring Centre. The report highlights that
climate change and bio diversity loss are the twin crises that should be targeted
with an integrated approach.
6.Which organisation has launched ‘Halo’ initiative to counter the

misinformation around Covid-19 vaccines?
[A] WHO
[B] UN
[C] CDC
[D] WEF
Correct Answer: B [UN]

Notes:
The United Nations (UN) has collaborated with the Vaccine Confidence Project at
the University of London, to launch a new initiative named ‘Halo’.
It aims to tackle the issue of misinformation around Covid-19 vaccines. Over 100
scientists have come together to share authentic information on safety and
effectiveness of vaccines via the social media. Over 22 scientists have joined
Team Halo from India.
7.Which country has detected Avian Influenza outbreak and decided to cull
over 1 million chicken?
[A] China
[B] Japan
[C] Philippines
[D] Indonesia
Correct Answer: B [Japan]

Notes:
Avian Influenza, commonly called as the Bird flu, has been detected in a fourth
region in Japan. This can be the country’s worst outbreak in over 4 years.
Avian influenza was discovered at a poultry farm in Hyuga city in Honshu island
in southwestern Japan. However, the country announced that there is no
possibility that humans will contract bird flu from eating poultry or eggs. It has
also decided to cull over 1.8 million chickens.
8.The CLMV Countries are the group of countries belonging to which

regional organisation?
[A] ASEAN
[B] Common Wealth
[C] G-20
[D] G-7
Correct Answer: A [ASEAN]

Notes:
CLMV countries are Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. They are also the
members of the Association of South East Nations (ASEAN).During the Inaugural
Session of the 6th India – CLMV Business Conclave 2020, India invited the CLMV
countries to join the International Solar Alliance and the Resilient Supply Chain
Initiative by India.
9.‘World’s first foul death’, which was seen in the news recently, is
associated with which country?
[A] India
[B] China
[C] United Kingdom
[D] United States
Correct Answer: C [United Kingdom]

Notes:
In the year 2013, a nine-year-old named Ella Adoo Kissi-Debrah living in the UK,
died after suffering from breathing difficulties and asthma.Recently in 2019, the
child’s family has sought for a legal inquest on the issue, to assess the level of air
pollution in the city. If this campaign turns out successful, the United Kingdom
will have the first foul death, a death occurring due to high air pollution.
10.Gaofen-14 earth observation satellite has been sent to space by China

using which launch vehicle?
[A] PSLV C 51
[B] GSLV Mark 3
[C] Long March 3B
[D] Fat Boy 1A
Correct Answer: C [Long March 3B]

DAWN+ EDITORIALS SECTION

Tense Pak-US ties | Dawn
IT is no secret that ties between Pakistan and the United States

are going through a difficult phase. The recent visit to Pakistan
of the US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman was
illustrative of the challenges that bedevil this relationship.
Details:
In an interview during her visit to India before arriving in Pakistan, the US diplomat
minced no words in saying that the US was looking at Pakistan only in terms of what
is happening in Afghanistan and not in a broader sense of the relationship.
She diluted her words in Pakistan but there is little ambiguity that Washington
wants to deal with Pakistan in the context of what it can or cannot do to manage the
Afghan situation. The noise emanating from Capitol Hill is hostile and the narrative
finding traction in Washington is that Pakistan shares the major blame for US
failures in Afghanistan.
Talk of sanctions against Pakistan may not amount to much more than bluster at the
moment, but the fact is that the gradual degradation of the bilateral relationship
suits neither country. US President Joe Biden has driven home a point by not
phoning Prime Minister Imran Khan. After Ms Sherman’s visit there are indications
the call may materialise. But it will not alter the fact that interests are not aligning.
This must change. Pakistan should realise, and acknowledge, that for the US,
Afghanistan is the primary focus in this region and it will therefore expect
Islamabad to commit to what it can do to address America’s major concerns. At this
point, Pakistani politicians need to dial down their combative tone and think clearly.
Counterterrorism measures are a high priority for the US. Its officials and elected
representatives have time and again expressed fears about Afghan soil being used
for the export of terrorism. They have also communicated that Pakistan can play an
important role in facilitating these CT measures. Mr Khan may have ruled out the
prospects of providing the US any bases but perhaps there are other options that can
be looked at in a spirit of accommodation. The US also expects Pakistan to persuade
the Taliban to undertake the steps they had committed to in terms of greater
participation of women in public life. So far the Taliban have displayed no flexibility
and Pakistan is getting the flak for it because it has been at the forefront of asking
the international community to engage with the Taliban.
Wayforward:
However, Washington should also keep in mind that its failures in Afghanistan are
primarily of its own making. Isolating Pakistan, or scapegoating it, is a flawed policy
that will pay no dividends. At a time of major regional realignments, the US needs
Pakistan as a partner in peace. It should not push it into a corner by refusing to
acknowledge the major role that Pakistan is playing in the region today.

Vocabulary in Context
Bedevil (this relationship) (verb) — to make something more worrying and

troublesome.
Govt unilateral decision making has bedeviled the relationship between

Opposition and ruling regime.
minced no words (idiom) — to speak freely and boldly, not to hold back any
punches.
bluster (verb) — to talk/protest aggressively/threateningly to make a point

but carrying less actual threat.
driven home a point (idiom) — to say something in a very strong or forceful

way :
to make a point very forcefully He drove his point home during the debate.
dial down (phrase) — to make something less forceful and extreme.
will pay no dividends (phrase) — will not give any benefits, advantage.

Murder not honour | Dawn
THE cold-blooded murder of two women in Swat, who had run away
from abusive husbands and sought refuge in a women’s shelter (Darul
Aman), demonstrates just how helpless — or uncaring — the state is
when it comes to protecting the life and dignity of half the population
of the country.
Details:
Both women were shot dead by their husbands on the pretext of ‘honour’ after the
men, seemingly after persuading them, took them back home from the Darul Aman.
One of the men, belonging to the Khwazakhela area, has been arrested and a case
has been registered against him, while the police in Kadono Manglawar are
searching for the other suspect.
▪ According to local women’s rights activists, 21 women have been killed so far
this year in Swat alone on different pretexts, including ‘honour’.
Such cases expose the state’s legal and administrative weak spots that allow
thousands of women to either stay with abusive relations or give the perpetrators
enough room to commit crimes and escape. It is baffling (very confusing) why the
administration of the Darul Aman, that was set up for the protection of the
vulnerable including women with no family support, allowed the two women to
return to their abusive husbands.
Critical Analysis:
Unfortunately, such injustices appear to be part and parcel (integral part) of being a
woman in this country.
▪ According to Human Rights Watch, around 1,000 women are killed on the
pretext of ‘honour’ every year in Pakistan.
Despite the passage of a landmark law to punish the perpetrators and curb the
crime, this number has not decreased. Such crimes and cases remain pervasive
because, even though it has criminalised ‘honour killings’, the state has failed to
detach the label of ‘honour’ from a woman’s right to make her own choices. Indeed,
using the term ‘honour killing’ itself to describe such murders, as pointed out by
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, inadvertently justifies this appalling mindset. Till no remedial
action is taken to correct such misconceptions, the practice will continue to take
women’s lives.

IMF's demands | Daily Times
Initial reports about the finance ministry’s fresh interaction

with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to restart the
stalled Extended Fund Facility (EFF), not denied by the
government so far, carry no surprises.
IMF’s demands:
Apparently the Fund wants the electricity tariff increased by Rs1.4 per unit, steps to
increase income tax, sales tax and regulatory duties, privatisation process to be
expedited and, most importantly from the government’s point of view, abolition or
significant reduction in all kinds of subsidies.
These are just the kind of steps that Prime Minister Imran Khan refused to comply
with just before the pandemic and led to the disruption of the program in the first
place. Yet with time the government also realised that it had no option but to bend
to some of the demands, at least, and since the country simply cannot do without
the bailout program in the present circumstances, chances are that these
suggestions will now have to be incorporated without much argument. But that’s not
very good news when it comes to the present year’s budget, so surely the finance
ministry will try to wriggle around (ponder on) some of the suggested measures at
least.
The biggest problem will be faced by programs like Kamyab Pakistan, because they
rely on extraordinary subsidies to keep the lowest sections of society liquid during
the economic crunch. It’s also going to be difficult to honour the promise of market
intervention to ensure affordable food for the lower classes because that too will run
into considerable subsidies, something the government might not have elbow room
(inadequate and less space for doing something) for at the moment.
▪ FBR’s performance so far this fiscal is cause for hope, though, because it
achieved revenue target of Rs1,395 billion in the first quarter, Rs186 billion
more than the set target.
Yet it remains to be seen how far the Fund can be brought around to the
government’s point of view, which has put the lot of the common man on the top of
its priority list not just because of the suffering economy, but also because the
election is not too far away and the working classes also represent the country’s
largest vote bank.

Gwadar protest | Dawn
AT the start of the CPEC project, in selling its importance to citizens, our rulers
stressed the associated benefits of the initiative and how it would promote
investment, employment, connectivity and infrastructural development. But is this
development really as all-inclusive as was promised? An ominous clue is to be found
in the example of Gwadar, whose new port (part of the CPEC agreement) the state
takes such pride in.
On Thursday, thousands of people from all over the region gathered to

protest the lack of basic facilities in their area. If what they say is to be
believed — and their numbers that straddled diverse social
backgrounds were compelling testimony — the local residents face
severe shortages of drinking water and are given poor health and
education facilities. Their situation is compounded by increasing
unemployment.
Details:
Moreover, they complain, these woes are acutely worsened by the active hindering
by the security forces of their mobility, affecting their daily routines; the tactics
employed include unwarranted questioning of their activities, and timings are
imposed on the movement of, for example, fishing boats. The latter is a significant
component of income for residents along the coastline. Another complaint is that
the government has allowed large trawlers access to the Makran coast that the local
fishermen with boats cannot match. This further impacts livelihoods.
The protest was led by Maulana Hidayat-ur-Rehman Baloch from the Jamaat-i-
Islami’s Balochistan chapter. But it is noteworthy that, reportedly, nowhere were
any party flags to be found. This was by all indications a coming together of an
absolutely hapless people against the couldn’t-care-less attitude of their own state.
And the administration was, of course, resounding in its silence.
Wayforward for Govt:
The negligence of the state towards the residents of Balochistan has long been a
source of friction. It is imperative that it invest heavily and urgently in ensuring food
and water, schools and hospitals, roads, employment-generating activities, and all
other associated resources that allow people to live dignified lives in satisfactory
surroundings.

Graduate joblessness | Dawn
THE unemployment phenomenon underpins a number of large

economic and social problems that continue to plague the country.
Unemployment is seen in large part as the driving force behind the
recurring political turmoil, social unrest, mental health issues and
even terrorist activities in the country.
Details:
In the present circumstances, Covid-19 and the months-long curbs on movement

have also rendered tens of thousands of people jobless, adding to the unemployed
numbers. While the popular notion of unemployment usually involves the rural and
uneducated population, the reality could not be farther from the truth. For a
number of years, the country has been seeing an increasing number of unemployed
degree holders. In fact, unemployment rates among graduates are about three times
higher than others in the unemployed labour force.
According to the Labour Force Survey 2017-18;
▪ around 8.78m youth, 20 years or older, hold a Bachelor’s degree.
▪ Out of these, 5.97m are “economically active” while 0.97m are unemployed.
Going by these figures, the unemployment rate of graduates is much higher
than the national average of 5.8pc.However, Covid-19 and fiscal constraints
have pushed the overall unemployment rate up to 9.56pc, according to the
government’s annual plan for 2020-21.
Meanwhile, data from the Economic Survey suggests that around 21.71m people
were either rendered jobless or were not able to work on account of Covid-19 related
lockdowns.
Critical Analysis:
This means that the number of unemployed educated people could be higher than
projected. While the country’s large informal economy accounts for up to 71.1pc jobs
outside agriculture according to the Labour Force Survey 2018-19, the formal
economy has not expanded enough to accommodate graduates. On the other hand,
the standard of education in many public and private universities is also
questionable. Experts have been warning for years that the knowledge imparted to
students in universities is not sufficient for the competitive job market. This is borne
out by the fact that around 50,000 engineers are not able to find jobs, according to
the Pakistan Engineering Council.
Wayforward:
Successive governments have tried to tackle this challenge but their outdated
approach has not introduced lasting change. Instead of doling out government jobs,
the ruling circles should focus on creating an enabling environment for private firms
and businesses creating jobs for the local population. At the same time, higher
education practices also need to be revisited and overhauled so that varsities
produce graduates with competitive market value.
Hazaras’ suffering | Dawn
THE lot of the Shia Hazaras in Pakistan is defined by relentless persecution in one
form or another. Indeed, it is as though they exist in some sort of limbo (hanging in
uncertainty), beyond the pale of the fundamental human rights guaranteed in the
Constitution.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court during a suo motu hearing on

targeted killings of Hazaras and a petition seeking recovery of missing
persons from among the community censured the IG Balochistan on
the lack of progress in the cases.
Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed also expressed surprise that four of the missing men
who had been recovered and were present in the courtroom had no idea who had
abducted them — despite the fact they had been in their custody for three years.
Further, the men complained they had not received their salaries for three years
because their bank accounts had been frozen on the orders of the National Counter
Terrorism Authority — which indicates Nacta also had a hand in their
disappearance.
Critical Analysis of the issue:
The Shia Hazaras’ history is tragic, marked by ethnic violence, internal displacement
and forced migration to what appear to be safer shores. That is what drove many of
them from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the 19th century to settle in Quetta, with a
more recent second wave triggered by massacres at the hands of the Afghan Taliban
in the 1990s. However, this country has long ceased to be a refuge for them.
As takfiri ideology proliferated over the last decades and Balochistan became a
melting pot (place of mixing) for all manner of militant outfits, the Hazaras were
subjected to barbaric violence, including suicide bombings and targeted killings.
Livelihoods, educational opportunities were eviscerated as the community, in a
desperate attempt at security, isolated itself within two barricaded ghettoes in
Quetta — open-air prisons, stepping outside of which can still mean a death
sentence. To cite but the latest depredation against them, on Jan 3 this year, 11
Hazara coal miners had their throats slit in an attack in Balochistan’s Machh area.
The carnage (slaughter), claimed by the IS, brought home once again the callousness
of the state towards its Hazara citizens. When the grieving community refused to
bury their dead until Prime Minister Imran Khan came to meet them in person,
he told them to refrain from “blackmailing the premier”, even as he denounced the
attack. Several years back, after another massacre, a Balochistan chief minister had
also responded inappropriately to their anguish, saying he would send them “a box
of tissues”. The fact is that the Hazaras are paying the price for the state’s failure to
deal with violent extremist outfits. When will it ensure that members of this law-
abiding community can live life in Pakistan like ‘normal citizens’?

Islamism in Pakistan | Daily Times
Had it been a perfect world, PM Khan’s recent assurance to a group of

ulema should not have raised any eyebrows. After all, what else should
a country, created as a Muslim homeland, work for if not the legal
institutionalisation of its religious identity?
Details:
Going by the progressive ideas that form the crux of Islam as a moderate religion–
peaceful coexistence and well-defined human rights–Islamabad’s call to not uphold
any legislation that was in direct contravention (violation) should have been a cue to
make merry (a thing to celebrate). Who wouldn’t want to join the 21st century?
Muslim reformers all over are returning to their primary religious sources and
chronicles to put up a firm stand against Western warriors and fire-breathing
extremists. In 2:190 Holy Quran unambiguously asserts, “Do not commit
aggression,” while in 60:8, Allah Almighty is quite explicit that he “does not forbid
you from being kind and equitable to those who have neither made war on you on
account of your religion nor driven you from your homes.” Never had any religion
more passionately advocated the status of women as beloved equals than Islam. In
the midst of a deeply sexist cacophony of religious musings (Jewish purity system
and Bible’s controversial commandments against female education and emphasis on
being “silent,”) Islam had outrightly shone as a true beacon of light.
But dear prime minister, your noble cause to protect Pakistan’s socio-religious
family system cannot come at the repugnant cost of violating the very rights, your
religion expects you to fight nail and tooth for. For this is not the seventh century,
and we are not living in Riyasat-e-Madinah (as of yet, at least)!
Issues in our country:
Ours is a country that takes immense pride in preserving men’s control over women.
The menace that Noor Muqaddam’s gruesome murder in Islamabad failed to bring
out in the open is the ever-so-pertinent domestic violence. How can we save a wife
from being burned to death (Sindh); the entire female members of a clan from being
murdered (Shikarpur) and innumerable others from the heart-shattering clutches of
honour crimes when the relevant Domestic Violence Bill 2021 gets conveniently
tucked in a dark corner?
We may hide the victims of Pakistan’s patriarchy; sweeping them under the rug of
obscurity. The Zia era’s char deewari may fasten the locks on ironclad shackles
around our women’s ankles. But wouldn’t that be the gravest travesty of justice?
Here’s where the sitting government can come into play. You’ve got a huge female
vote bank, PM Khan, which is counting on you to finally bring some meaningful
change in their gloomy lives! The ball may be in the CII’s court, Sir, but your every
move is being watched. With the women-centric inheritance drive, special courts,
Zainab Alert Act 2020 and the abolition of the two-finger virginity test, your cabinet
is already making strides to shatter the glass ceiling. But no viable progress is
possible without passing the long-awaited DVB. Shelving it would be akin to
shooting in one’s foot. Godspeed!
MDCAT crisis | Dawn
THE 2021 MDCAT exams are over. Based on their performance,

approximately 20,000 top performers will make their way to public
and private medical and dental colleges. But much like last year’s test,
MDCAT 2021 has triggered a controversy that refuses to die down.
Students grievances:
Students have been protesting that some topics in the exam were not in their
syllabus. They have also said that the MDCAT was not held on a single day which
gave an unfair advantage to some students, who presumably had more time to
revise. And they have criticised the testing conditions complaining of defective
internet facilities. The students have approached the Pakistan Medical Commission,
which conducts the now centralised MDCAT, with their grievances. The PMC has
sought to respond with detailed explanations by, for instance, asserting that the
testing system operates on “a wireless local area network” and not on “live open
internet”. It also insists that the test was “within the prescribed syllabus”, and has
said that a “post-exam analysis” will be conducted and remedial steps taken if
required.
However, it is also necessary to go beyond the immediate controversy.
For years, students in the country have been exposed to an educational setting
where rote learning takes precedence over critical thinking. Facts are taught and
theories learned. Nevertheless, the extent to which the students have understood a
concept does not depend on memorisation alone. No doubt rote learning has its
advantages. But of what use is it if students are unable to apply the concepts learned
to correctly answer tricky questions? The PMC mentions that 30pc of the MCQs in
the MDCAT were “application-based”. That presents a dilemma for our educational
authorities: should the exam be restructured or should classroom learning be
revamped?
Wayforward:
The students’ charges cannot be taken lightly. Many have felt that they have been
deprived of fair marks and that their choice of pre-medical subjects has now
jeopardised their career path. An independent probe is therefore needed to assess
what exactly went wrong and to address genuine concerns.

‘Modern love’ | Dawn
WHAT are six hours in the life of a man, one may ask? Nothing.
But pose that question to the billions of social-media users that
were left bereft on Monday as major Facebook-owned platforms
including Facebook itself, WhatsApp, and Instagram went
offline, reportedly due to an internal technical fault, and the
answer is likely to be ‘an eternity’.
Details:
Across the world, utter bewilderment was in evidence as people tried to remember
how they had kept in touch with others, and operated business, before the age of
social media. There was a scramble for alternative platforms through which to send
messages, place and receive orders, make calls, share news and views, and generally
maintain the trappings of contemporary life as we now know it.
▪ Beyond the suspension of communication are huge financial losses: countless

small businesses that depend on social media to connect with customers faced
unexpected and unquantified hits. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg himself
suffered an estimated loss of $6bn as shares plummeted; according to
Downdetector, which tracks online outages, globally more than 3.5bn people
were affected.
▪ The extent of the consequences illustrate how mankind’s relationship with,
and reliance on, internet technology — an experience that is barely a
generation old — is one of ‘modern love’ in an unprecedented form, perhaps
akin to inventions of the likes of the mechanical engine, that instantly and
unalterably changed the world for ever.
Wayforward:
In the void left by the absence of these immense platforms was evident the
awareness that the global community has had to develop regarding the perils of the
online world. Network hacking, data theft, the gossamer-thin nature of privacy and
security — these are all realities. What was abundantly evident on Monday, while it
was still unclear as to what had caused the Facebook-owned platforms’ outage, was
the concern of billions vis-à-vis these matters. It is fitting and proper, then, that just
as rapidly as social-media interactions have entrenched themselves, awareness
about their educated use has kept pace.

Taliban are not helping themselves | D Times
It serves little purpose for countries like Pakistan to try and

present Afghanistan’s case to countries like America when the
Taliban seem bent upon denting their own image with the
people whose money they so desperately need. It’s a very
delicate situation and since it is the Taliban who are desperate
for the west’s cash right now, and they did make promises about
forming an ‘inclusive government’, protecting women rights,
etc, perhaps they should begin honouring some of those
promises before it is too late.
Details:
So far, even though the international community is right in criticising America for
stopping Afghanistan’s aid and freezing its central bank’s money abroad, it is still
true that the Taliban are not really helping their own cause. There’s nothing
inclusive about the government they have formed so far, and very few signs that
many Uzbeks, Tajik, Hazara or even females are going to be accommodated. And
just he other day the Taliban police chief threw fuel on fire by publicly stating that
executions and amputations, for which the previous Taliban regime drew worldwide
condemnation, are going to restart presently.
▪ And now, they’ve seen fit to execute four people accused of kidnapping some
people and leave them hanging from a crane, in public view, to serve as an
example for everybody.
Critical Analysis:
If they feel that such actions will help their situation, they are very much mistaken.
The west, which holds almost all of the aid money that many Afghans will suffer and
die without, is not going to shower the country with dollars if the Taliban do not
make some very clear, and very urgent, corrections. Their actions are also putting
capitals like Islamabad, which are lobbying for their money in all quarters of the
globe, in a very embarrassing situation. Pakistan is doing it because Taliban are now
a reality and any uncertainty in Afghanistan directly impacts Pakistan. Therefore the
Taliban must also realise their share of the responsibility.
Wayforward for Taliban:
While there is no doubt that westers countries are largely responsible for the mess
that Afghanistan is in today, and therefore they must bankroll (finance) its
reconstruction, it is also very true that the Taliban need to create an environment
where such transactions can take place without unnecessary hassle. And neither
side has done much to write home about so far.

Path to food security | Dawn
It is ironic that despite reaping an all-time high wheat output of

28.75 million tonnes, Pakistan is compelled to import the staple
grain — more than half-a-million tons currently.
Details:
The yield was two million tonnes more than the target. At a cost of $377 per metric
ton, the country will have to dole out (give out freely) millions of its hard-earned
foreign exchange for a deal which could have been avoided with more stringent
management and a better planned harvesting decorum.
This is not the first time that Pakistan — an agricultural country in essence — is
importing grains. Import of rice, wheat, sugar, lentils, and even urea, has been part
of its flawed food security policy — something that not only exposes the country to
vulnerability in terms of self-reliance but also browbeats the masses into irresistibly
facing inflation.
The bumper crop this year was possible owing to a number of factors;
▪ such as an increase in area of cultivation by 3.25%,

▪ favourable weather without locust attack, government’s increase in minimum
support price to farmers,
▪ as well as a better choice of seed and,
▪ of course, intensive labour. Grains make up around 60% of daily diet
requirements.
Pakistan with more than 220 million mouths to feed is in need of 125 kg per capita
per annum of wheat; and at the same time adds around five million more people to
its grain basket annually. This necessitates a strategic food security policy, which
unfortunately Pakistan has not been able to devise yet.
The stance of Committee on Agriculture:
The Federal Committee on Agriculture estimates that around 30 million tonnes of

wheat flour is needed annually to remain self-reliant. But there are some inherent
drawbacks too as more than a million tonnes go into seed usage and another million
or two to retain strategic reserves, coupled with more than 1.5 million Afghan
refugees to feed and an unending smuggling of around 400,000 tonnes of wheat to
our western neighbour. This renders the country in a precarious situation in terms
of food security. Last but not least, to further compound the reserves are hoarders
and bureaucratic bottlenecks, which rob the nation of its required nourishment.
Wayforward:
So what is the way out? The logical answer is more yield per acre. But that should
not come at the cost of the area under sugarcane and cotton, other cash crops of
Pakistan. On this count too, our policy-makers have failed by becoming a costlier
importer of the sweetener, edible oil and legume-pulses.
▪ This is why this year the nation had to be burdened with an increase in wheat
flour price by 19%, ghee by 53%, sugar by 25%, in addition to a flawed taxation
and distribution policy, crippling the purchasing power of the common man,
in particular. Sadly enough, Pakistan is also home to more than 30 million
under-nourished souls.
Recommendations:
It’s high time for the policymakers to re-orient their food security strategy by using
the best of fertiliser, educating the farmers, and planting genetic seed varieties.
Luckily enough, the AARI has developed seeds that could yield nine tonnes per
hectare, surpassing the potential of India and China — countries that are the best in
the region. The road to self-reliance goes through technology and transparency.

Enhanced Policing | The Nation
The KP government released Rs2.6 billion for restructuring and

improving the police’s structure in the merged districts of FATA
and Waziristan. Releasing some of the burden off of the armed
forces present in the area to safeguard against unrelenting
violence is necessary through the provision of effective and
reliable policing. With funds being released for this purpose
specifically, the government will be able to employ the
necessary resources to provide security and emergency services,
along with fulfilling basic citizen duties.
Critical Analysis:
Within the first quarter of 2021 alone, KP reported 70 percent of all deaths
occurring to unprovoked violence—FATA reporting the highest numbers
consistently. Tensions in the region also increased after the merger, with many
rioting and protesting against a decision they felt was coerced. The unstable
situation in Afghanistan is also a contributing factor because there is a very
imminent security risk that the army must protect the people against.
▪ In the last few weeks, seven soldiers embraced martyrdom in an exchange of

fire with gunmen, two died by an improvised explosive device, and many
civilians perished in Tehreek-i-Labbaik protests on blasphemy cases.
Amidst all this, countless innocent people are caught in the crossfire and ultimately,
they pay with their life. It is the duty of the government to provide protective
mechanisms in the country to reassure people and give them the security blanket
they need, especially in violence prone areas.
Laudable step of KP Government:
For too long, we have burdened the army to maintain control, order and safeguard
the public in areas with high security alerts. This is the job of the police force of the
country and while it is good to see that efforts are being directed towards
establishing a competent body, the KP government must also ensure that the
initiative does not fall through or remain neglected for long enough to be forgotten.

Afghan-Tajik Tensions | The Nation
Tensions between the new government in Afghanistan and

Tajikistan have been persistent lately. Reports have emerged
that Tajik forces held parades in regions bordering Afghanistan
earlier in the week in a show of power and that the Taliban also
sent thousands of its fighters to the border with Tajikistan. This
is a concerning development and such impulsive shows of might
should be refrained from as they only imperil stability in the
region.
Details:
There is a need for both sides to adopt a more conciliatory tone and discuss
concerns through talks. Since the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, Tajikistan has
not shied away (prevented itself) from expressing strong opinions on the
composition of the new Afghanistan government and instances of human rights
violations. Concerns regarding the inclusivity of the government are understandable
given that ethnic Tajiks make up the second biggest ethnicity in Afghanistan—27
percent. At the same time, the Taliban have made clear that they view Dushanbe’s
criticism of them and the composition of their government as meddling in
Afghanistan’s internal affairs. Perhaps some of the issue also lies with the tone and
tenor in which these concerns are being communicated to the Taliban. Nevertheless,
the Taliban must also understand countries around the world have raised concerns
about the inclusivity of the government setup and it is not just Tajikistan. Therefore
engaging constructively on this issue is going to be key in terms of improving
relations with the international community and gradually gaining legitimacy.
Pakistan trying to defuse tensions between Pak-Tajikistan:
Meanwhile, PM Imran Khan has been dealing tactfully with such sensitive issues
and engaging with multiple partners to defuse tensions. His telephone call to
President Emomali Rahmon to bring down the hostilities is what was needed at that
point in time. There are understandably multiple concerns in the realm of security,
rights, and a humanitarian crisis when it comes to the new government in
Afghanistan. However, addressing these issues will be a medium to long-term
process which will require patience and sustained engagement.
Countries such as the US must understand that isolating or abandoning a country

completely is only going to make matters worse for the Afghan populatoin and the
region at large. The new government is a reality and now the task is to restore some
semblance of stability to Afghanistan so that a crisis can be averted.

China and Taiwan face-off | The Nation
The long-standing animosity between China and Taiwan

continues as Beijing sent 100 fighter jets and bombers into
Taiwan’s air defence zone—another incursion outside of the five
reported since Friday.
Details:
Reactionary statements have consequently been issued with the US expressing

concerns about China’s ‘destabilising’ actions. Effectively, it has set global
expectations that the conflict will escalate further and has shied away from
encouraging peace and resolution. Instead, it seems as though the personal rivalry
has dictated the US condemnation of China.
What is the issue between Taiwan and China:
Taiwan and China have been at odds with one other due to opposing views on
whether the former is a sovereign state. In the past few years, tensions have
escalated as Beijing moves towards its announced objective of recovering the land of
Taiwan. The global community must play its part in maintaining its neutrality and
proposing avenues through which peace can be attained. The US should especially
be advised to facilitate negotiations instead of mounting more pressure and
apprehension.
Accusatory statements that only state China’s actions as being ‘provocative’, ‘risking
miscalculations’ and ‘undermining regional security’ followed by complete silence
on what solutions can be employed only furthers the anxiety of the region at large. A
country like the US, which has often flexed its global credentials is supposed to
honour its promise of promoting reconciliation, regardless of its relations with
concerned parties.
These statements are also nothing but an eyewash (deceptive tactic). Even if we
were to entertain the worst possible scenario feared by the US—the complete
takeover of Taiwan—the probability that the US would intervene is extremely low.
Back when Russia invaded Ukraine, President Obama made the same statement of
being ‘deeply concerned by destabilising Russian actions in the region’ but little was
done to mitigate the damage done. If this is the future that awaits Taiwan even in
the worst case scenario, then all the bravado with which the US is reacting is rather
meaningless.
Global responsibility ahead:
In a time like this, what matters the most is how the global community can help two
parties come to a peaceful resolution and it must do well to remember this
responsibility.

Allegations Against Facebook | The Nation
All Facebook-owned social media services, including WhatsApp,

Instagram and Facebook itself, faced a worldwide outage on
Monday reportedly due to a “system-wide change”. What is
ironic is that these hours of shutdown occurred just a few hours
before Former Facebook employee and whistle-blower (person
exposing something illegal) Frances Haugen was expected to
appear before US Congress accusing the company of putting
profit over safety.
Allegations against Facebook: Details
The allegations against Facebook are shocking. Haugen claimed that Facebook
conducted safety only until the 2020 elections, and that it removed its safety-
prioritising algorithms to Facebook’s closed design, that valued engagement over all
else. This meant that the Facebook content had no oversight.
If these claims are true, it is not surprising then the vast amounts of misinformation,
especially regarding vaccines, has been spread through social media services like
Facebook and WhatsApp.
▪ However, it must be remembered this is not just a Facebook problem—it stems

from all of Silicon Valley. Hate, Islamophobia, the alt-right—these have all
found home on various popular internet sites and grown much stronger. This
is a worldwide problem—social media has fuelled separatist and xenophobic
sentiments across countries.
Critical Analysis:
This outage then comes at a perfect time with these revelations, since it shows the
world how dependent people are on these social media services. These three services
house thousands of businesses, upon which millions of people are dependent on
their source of income. Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg lost $7 billion dollars
in net worth in these few hours. This only signifies how huge these companies are
and what massive control they have over politics, political movements, and people’s
lives and income. It is inconceivable that companies with this huge amount of
influence are allowed to operate, unchecked and unaccounted for.
Wayforward:
This is an issue that does not just impact the US—the international community
needs to work with the US government and these companies to curtail their
excessive control.

Unregulated real estate | Dawn
THE fact that the bulk of real estate transactions are still being
conducted outside the oversight of the authorities demonstrates
that the introduction of reporting requirements for realtors
(real estate agents), builders, developers and other players in
this business will not be enough to regulate one of the largest
undocumented sectors of the economy.
Details:
It shows that the reporting conditions for real estate players who are meant to meet
a key condition of the 27-point FATF action plan to curb money laundering and
terrorism financing are good only for transactions carried out legally. That only a
fraction of 500,000 realtors, builders and others have so far registered their
business with the FBR for compliance with the FATF-related condition betrays
strong resistance from the vast majority of market players who find it more
profitable to operate in the shadows. It also says a lot about the unwillingness and
lack of administrative capacity of the nation’s tax authorities to bring delinquents
into the net for tax purposes.
Cash transactions form the lion’s share of real estate trade. This means that this
unregulated and undocumented market continues to be a key haven for the parking
of illegal money by all players including investors, dealers, developers, builders and
homeowners. Consequently, we have seen the mushrooming of unapproved housing
societies outside the country’s major cities, eating into fertile agricultural land. More
importantly, the diversion of massive funds into real estate has pushed land prices
beyond the purchasing power of middle-class families. But expecting the FATF-
related reporting conditions to do the trick is misplaced optimism.
Wayforward:
The sector must be documented effectively through a drastic improvement in the

federal and provincial laws that govern the entire land supply chain — that is if the
authorities actually wish to regulate the sector in order to discourage putting illegal
money in real estate and to raise tax revenues from this market. It is also important
to give people with limited income access to housing. Sadly, the action taken in
recent years to document the real estate market in order to tax it failed when the PTI
government announced a lucrative tax amnesty last year for those who wanted to
invest their illegal wealth in constriction and housing. What’s done is done. But a
further delay in the introduction of stronger real estate regulations could have
serious ramifications in view of the demand for compliance with the FATF plan and
the need to boost tax revenues.

New Deutsch Government | The Nation
The results for the German elections are going to lead to a

change in the political set up of the country for the first time in
16 years. Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party
looks set to take its place in the opposition, although outgoing
Chancellor Merkel’s successor, Armin Laschet is trying to form
a coalition government with the Greens and the conservative,
business-minded Free Demokraten Party (FPD).
Details:
The election leaders, the Social Democratic Party will however, look to woo the
Greens and the FPD into their camp instead. Olaf Scholz, the SPD candidate for
Chancellor, has stated that his party must form government by right, due to their
slender majority, and has expressed a willingness to work with both.
For experts outside of Berlin, what is of real concern is the outward positioning of
the new government. The big questions will be Germany’s EU priorities, China and
NATO after the new government is finally formed. The expectation is that it might
still take a few months for negotiations to lead to something tangible but there are
some clear indications of the trajectory that lies ahead.
Regardless of who is in power, we are unlikely to see a major change in Berlin’s

trans-Atlantic and EU cooperation strategy. The EU will continue to remain the
closest partner, as will all regional allies. But other changes might still come about.
The ‘China policy’ might change depending on who is in power. Chancellor Merkel
was still relatively open to engaging with China, but the hostility or mistrust could
increase with her departure. This in itself is dependent on the US and NATO
question. There is a likelihood that the SPD might increase defence spending as a
result of their coalition with the business-friendly FPD, which would lead to a
renewed closeness to NATO and the US, thereby opening up more room for
suspicion against China. Incidentally, the other expected coalition partner, the
Greens, has been vocal against China and Russia due to their human rights record.
Wayforward:
A new Germany might lead to a stronger western alliance against the China bloc
developing here close to home. On our part, we must wait and watch to see where
the chips may fall.

STEM Education | The Nation
The launch of the Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) Programme for higher secondary students
by the government on Wednesday provides a launchpad for
students to realise their potential in these streams. But this is
only possible if the project is handled ably by the government.
Details:
Although the project is only in its pilot stage—50 government-run schools have been
targeted—the possibility of students from all economic backgrounds becoming
experts in the critical STEM fields could lead to greater development in these fields.
International research has shown that expertise in these subjects can be crucial for
the economic prosperity of a state, especially if it is looking to develop a comparative
advantage in the secondary sector of production.
Other countries have advanced learning programmes as well—where the brighter

students are selected to study on a more advanced trajectory than their age groups
for greater progress. For us, once the testing stage is over, the programme must be
rolled out to accommodate all of our students, especially those in public schools.
Since this would entail access to greater learning resources such as dedicated labs
and a focus on problem-based learning, the benefits of this can help advancement in
STEM fields in the long term.
Wayforward:
But in order to elevate this initiative above face value and make it a permanent
fixture of education in the country, the government must move beyond just the
provision of equipment and improved learning techniques. A separate curriculum
stream must be developed, alongside the recruitment of teachers that are well-
equipped to handle our best and brightest students.
But most importantly, for this project to truly bring in the best talent Pakistan has to
offer, the government must look to get a substantial proportion of girls in the
programme as well.
▪ Statistics of results in various exams indicate that girls tend to secure better
grades on average in Pakistan; this would mean that they could take up more
than half of the allotted seats for advanced STEM students.
Much like our students, this programme can stand to offer a lot towards the
economic and social progress of Pakistan; but the only way for this to happen is to
follow through and not let this become another programme that eventually gets
forgotten.

Tackling Climate Change | The Nation
After the annual UN Climate Change Conference (COP) was

cancelled last year due to the pandemic, pressure mounted to
take bigger and better initiatives to improve the environmental
health of the world. Water shortage, air pollution and global
warming remain key threats that continue to threaten our long-
term survival. As November approaches, world leaders must
generate thorough policies to combat this ever-looming threat
instead of preaching the need for immediate action alone.
Details:
A report titled ‘The State of Climate Services 2021’ by the UN stated that a water
crisis will be the next immediate threat that the global community will face.
▪ Over 5 billion people will be robbed of access to fresh water by 2025 and the
most impacted will be developing countries like Pakistan that are already
struggling to meet local demand.
▪ The Advisory Committee of the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) already
issued warnings that Punjab and Sindh will face a water shortage of 28 percent
this season and this is just one estimate amongst countless reports all over the
world. It is imperative that the COP26 addresses this concern and offers viable
solutions that can be employed immediately.
Critical Analysis:
Throughout the years, world leaders have also underestimated the devastation that
comes along with climate change. It’s all encompassing nature has been particularly
paralysing. Currently, we can only release 500 gigatons of carbon dioxide which is
equivalent to 10 years of current emission rates. This is as bad as it can get because
while before we could give vague estimates of when environmental degradation
would happen, now we have a strict timeline that is elapsing before our eyes.
Wayforward:
Taking precaution and implementing preventative policies is the responsibility of all

countries, perhaps the developed world more given that they have all the resources
to facilitate change and lead others to the same path as well.

CSS Essay

Rising Islamophobia: causes and implications
By: Rabia K
OUTLINE
1) Introduction:
The dawn of 21st century has witnessed the heightening anti-Muslim rhetoric all across
the globe. This propaganda, instigated by the far-right western politicians for
demonizing muslims as a political force through the use of media and campaigns, has
unfortunately spawned the cases of violence, hate-speech and, even nefarious attacks
as that of Christchurch. If not monitored tactfully, it will have grave repercussions for
peace and cultural diversity.
2) Understanding the term ‘Islamophobia’ as an exaggerated fear

▪ The Runnemede Trust’s Report
3) Dissecting the causes of rising Islamophobia
3.1) Toxic anti-Muslim sentiments spread like wildfire on social media
Case in point:
▪ Trending tweets #stopislamisation, #bansharia, #islamkills
▪ Trump’s controversial Islamophobic remarks gave stimulus to anti-Muslim
bigotry
3.2) Anti-Muslim rhetoric capitalized by political leaders
Case in point:
▪ France President Emmanuel Macron remarks ‘Islam is in crisis’

▪ Hungarian PM Victor Orban categorically called ‘muslims as invaders’
▪ Donald Trump and Aung San Suu Kyi anti-muslim discourse ahead of election
2020
3.3) 9/11 episode: a forerunner of War and Anti-Muslim racism
Case in point:
▪ Bush’s declaration of ‘war on terror’ intensified by Trump
▪ Counter-productive attacks like Manchester Arena Bombing in 2017 raised
threat alert
3.4) Propaganda to limit Muslims as an emerging political force
Case in point:
▪ $ 206 million funded ‘Islamophobia Industry’ operates in America
▪ Anti-Islamic think-tanks: Centre for Security Policy and Investigative
Project on Terrorism publish conspiracy theories and false warnings
3.5) Manifested perception of West toward Islam and Muslims as
extremist
Case in point:
▪ Controversial Netflix series ‘Cuties’ featured Muslim family as conservative
▪ Anti-Islamic literature: “ISIS apocalypse” by William Mc Cants is a
misinterpretation of jihad
3.6) Islamic culture perceived as a threat to secular culture
Case in point:
▪ Netherlands MP, Greet Wilders Anti-Islamic remarks influence people’s
narrative
▪ Article written by Boris Johnson against ‘burqa’ proved to give rise to
antipathy
▪ cow vigilantes’ accusations on Muslim minorities in India intensity cultural
differences
3.7) Influx of muslim immigrants and asylum seekers to western

countries act as a red rug
Case in point:
▪ PEW research that Muslims will surpass Christians by 2060
▪ immigrant-refugee crisis in Europe and crimes by immigrants give
impetus to animosity
▪ Birth tourism and Marriage Immigration to obtain citizenship pique
Islamophobes
4) Implications of rising Islamophobia creates a domino effect
4.1) Extreme vetting and Muslim ban

Case in point:
▪ Travel ban by Donald Trump on six Muslim countries provoked racial
discrimination
▪ Extreme ‘Vetting laws’ for Muslims exacerbates religious divide
4.2) Exponential increase in White Supremacist attacks targeting
Muslims
Case in point:
▪ Christchurch Mosque Shooting: The deadliest white supremacist attack on
Muslims
▪ U. S. Terrorism report 2019, ‘white supremacist terrorism on the rise and
spreading’
▪ Mosque vandalism, melee attacks and Quran desecration cases threatening
religious freedom
4.3) Legislation of Anti-Muslim laws
Case in point:
▪ Schedule 7 :Terrorism Act of UK scapegoating muslims

▪ CAA and NRC in Assam and IOJ&K aimed at crackdown on muslims
4.4) Marginalization and discrimination of Muslims minorities
Case in point:
▪ Pew survey: discrimination against muslims rose to 10% from 2009 to 2017
▪ False accusations on muslims for spreading Corona virus in India
▪ Rohingya genocide, an attempt of race cleansing of muslims by anti-Muslim
Buddhist
4.5) Anti-Muslim protest and wave of hate speech across continents

Case in point:
▪ Anti-sharia campaigns fomenting hate speech
▪ CAIR report: anti-Muslim hate crimes increased by 94 %
▪ Online campaigns: ‘Corona Jihad’ & ‘Act for America’ inciting violence
6) Immediate actions required by policy makers to put a lid on Rising
Islamophobia
5) Conclusion
The line from policy to act, rhetoric to violence is very hard to draw. And the process by
which Islamophobia is rising is complex, multi causal and endlessly ramifying.

INTRODUCTION:
With the rise of neoliberal and right-wing policymakers, vicious cycle of propaganda
against Muslims labelled as ‘Islamophobia’ has increased manifolds in social, civil and
political life. Identified as hatred and prejudice against Islam and Muslims at large,
Islamophobia is now being used as a tool to thwart the spread of Islam, as the fastest
growing religion. This west led anti-Muslim propaganda has spread his tentacles across
the globe from America to Europe and now Asia. But how did a fear lead to terror? The
answer to this leads to the chain of events followed by the episode of 9/11, whereby Al-
Qaeda led hijacked planes crashed the American Twin Towers. And as a result, Bush
declared War on terror in Afghanistan, which only created a ripple effect of an
interconnected terrorist attacks all over the world. The later events of Mumbai Attacks
in 2008, Paris Attack in 2015 and Sri Lanka Easter bombing in 2019, became the
pretext of defaming Muslims and established the atmosphere of terror. Over the years,
in recent time, Islamophobia has evolved from a feeling of bigotry to a manifested
political ideology aimed at discriminating Muslims as ‘terrorist’ and a threat to a
nation. According to European Islamophobia Report (2018-19), anti-Muslim incidents
in the western world have increased by 400 % compared to 2016, which includes 100%
verbal and 300% physical attacks. Banning of forms of Muslim veiling, vandalizing
mosques, humiliation in public, immigration ban, denied access to trial in courts and
brutal attacks have made the lives of Muslim diaspora worse. To exemplify, the
incidents of Delhi Riots in India by revisionist Hindus, Quebec mosque shooting in
Canada and Hanau shooting in Germany by white supremacists, exposed the severity
as well as the consequences of rising Islamophobia. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that the
dawn of 21st century has witnessed heightening anti-Muslim rhetoric all across the
globe. This propaganda, instigated by the far-right western politicians for demonizing
Muslims as a political force through the use of media and campaigns, has unfortunately
spawned the cases of violence, hate-speech and, even nefarious attacks as that of
Christchurch. If not monitored tactfully, it will have grave repercussions for peace and
cultural diversity.
Before diving deep into the causes and effects of Islamophobia, its imperative to
understand its origin and purpose. The word ‘Islamophobia’ is generally referred to as
an exaggerated fear, prejudice or hatred towards Muslims. It was developed to fear
Islam and Muslims as a social group. Initially, this term was first used in the year 1991,
and was explained in The Runnemede Trust’s report, that was published in 1997. The
report brings into the limelight the fearful and harmful actions directed at Islam and
Muslims in western democracies. By now, Islamophobia has become an emerging
concern of many states. On one hand, Muslims are discriminated and humiliated under
the umbrella of Islamophobia, whilst on the other hand, it becomes difficult to compare
and contrast the levels in which this term is being operated and used. However,
researchers and think tanks of contemporary world has classified ‘Islamophobia’ as a
mushrooming cloud of anti-Islamist and anti-Muslim sentiments. To illustrate it
further, immigration ban on Muslim countries and the recent incidents of burning of
Muslim’s holy book ‘Quran’ in Sweden and Norway, also falls in the array of
Islamophobia.
But what caused this Anti-Muslim discourse to skyrocket? The media— perhaps as the
most vital agent of globalization in the world, has played a pivotal role in spreading
Islamophobia. Firstly, western news channels have always given much coverage to
Islamist terrorist attacks as compared to locally targeted attacks by white supremacists.
Secondly, In the wake of expanding Muslim community and likewise Sharia courts in
America during the last decade, there have been increasing protests with the banners
titled as ‘No Sharia for America’, ‘Sharia violates women’ and also Twitter trends with
hashtags #stopislamisation, #islamkills and #bansharia, which went viral on
social media. In this day and age, Twitter and Facebook have become a global
battleground for spreading propaganda as online social movement attract millions of
netizens. Another case was the viral videos of Trump in 2016 where he expressed his
anti-Islamic bigotry by saying, “Islam hates us”, followed by a ban on Muslims in
2015. Hence, its evident how explicitly media is employed to spread negativity and
hatred towards Muslims.
Correspondingly, Anti-Muslim rhetoric is regularly perpetuated by the populist leaders

for electoral gains and to secure their government against any cultural or political
threat— as mentioned in the ‘Clash of civilizations’. Undeniably, there are several
tightly knitted state-sponsored networks deployed to drench the public with
misinformation, but its impact is far-reaching when endorsed by elected officials.
Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron’s declaration of introducing ‘anti-
separatism’ laws and claiming that ‘Islam is in crisis’ at the acme of his tenure, is an
organized attempt to fire islamophobia. Likewise, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor
Orban — prior to being an elected official in 2018, capitalized anti-immigrant and anti-
muslim rhetoric to win majority votes. He categorically called muslims as ‘invaders’,
consequently bolstering hatred. Moreover, Donald Trump and Aung San Suu Kyi have
been using anti-muslim discourse widely for the chance of second term in coming
November, 2020. Same was the case in Narendra Modi’s second term. They all have
collectively declared “Islam” the enemy, and claimed that it is not a religion but a
“totalitarian theocratic political ideology”. Therefore, Islamophobia is undeniable, as
it’s the by-product of power and electoral contestation in the contemporary world.
Although September,11 attacks on Twin Towers, heralded anti-Muslim discourse but it

gained momentum during Trump’s presidency. Right after the 9/11 incident, Islam was
associated with most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history which solidified and
brought forth prejudice. A turning point in this context was when, U.S. President Josh
Bush declared ‘war on terror’ against Al-Qaeda— an Islamist militant group. The
repercussions of this policy resulted in the chain of violent terrorist attacks and
decades long war in Afghanistan, and military intervention in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and
Mali—all Muslims countries. Many analysts have called it as ‘war on Muslim’ as it
resulted in more than 5 million casualties. Nevertheless, War on Terror against Islamic
States was counter-productive and thus created a blowback in the shape of various
attacks like Manchester arena bombing in 2017. Consequently, security and
surveillance were raised to all records high in western democracies amid threat
predictions, which resulted in a psychological fear of terrorist attack from radical
jihadist. All this culminated into an Islamophobic rhetoric which was further fanned by
Trump’s controversial presidential debates. To summarize, it can be said that 9/11
episode was the forerunner of war on Muslims but Trump regime has intensified it.
Its eminent that post 9/11 era heralded negativity against Islam, but behind this
negativity was a massive propaganda initiated by politicians, religious right, media and
various activists to limit Muslims as an emerging political force. A report from the
University of California Berkeley and the Council on American–Islamic
Relations estimated that $206 million was funded to 33 groups whose primary
purpose was “to promote prejudice against, or hatred of, Islam and Muslims” in the
United States between 2008 and 2013, with a total of 74 groups contributing to
Islamophobia in the United States during that period, which has been referred to as the
“Islamophobia industry” by many authors. Furthermore, leading anti-Muslim think
tanks, such as Centre for Security Policy and Investigative project on
Terrorism were in the business of issuing false warnings and hidden plots. This
indicates that individuals have developed strong opinions about Muslims based on
what has been heavily displayed by the media, which has often shown to be the

negative information. Resultantly, Muslims were portrayed as a civilizational and
political threat to the west and created the condition of widespread Islamophobia.
Apart from this, a perception has been manifested over the years by mainstream media
through movies and literature, which projected muslims as terrorists and Islam as a
conservative religion. Film Industry played a pivotal role in creating a Islamophobic
mindset. The most recent example of manipulative power of Film Industry is the latest
controversial Netflix series ‘Cuties’ featuring a Muslim girl with Hijab, who wishes to
become a dancer, but her conservative Muslim family is the hindrance in her way.
Another example can be quoted from William Mc Cants book ‘ISIS apocalypse: The
History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State’, in which Muslims are
negativity portrayed to have an apocalypse vision of world and their ideological motives
of suicide bombing. The author has portrayed the misinterpreted meaning of Jihad by
associating it with ISIS. The irony is that it was one of the ‘Wall Street Journal’s 10
Must-Read Books’ on Islamic Terrorism, which was read by millions. Such negative
discourse has been shaping public opinion and narratives for years and now it had
gained momentum, becoming the leading cause of Islamophobia.
Meanwhile in Europe, public appearances of women in head scarfs and face veils is
currently sparking debate, controversy, fear and even hatred due to lack of tendency of
Muslims to assimilate in secular western culture. There has been an uproar in the
western countries relating to the lifestyle of Muslim communities, increased mosques,
minarets and community gathering places which is seen as threat to western culture.
Anti-Muslim discourse of political leaders has been largely responsible for nurturing
hatred against Muslim minorities. For instance, Netherlands popular MP, Geert
Wilders wants an end to mosque building and Muslim immigration. He quoted, ‘I have
a problem with Islamic tradition, culture and ideology’. Similarly, Boris Johnson also
fueled the problem with an article he wrote in 2018, saying ‘Muslim women wearing
the full-face veil looked like “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”’. And following the
publication of the article there have been significant spike in anti-Muslim incidents.
Moreover, in India, a recent incident of cow vigilante attack stirred hatred among
masses, when a guy accused of carrying beef was attacked with hammer. Later,
laboratory test revealed that it was buffalo’s meat and man was in business for 40
years. Hence, false accusations and anti-Muslim discourse are largely responsible for
inciting hatred towards Muslim minorities.
Influx of Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe, Australia and America are
giving new impetus to xenophobia and ultimately Islamophobia, since changing
demographics act as a red rug to western countries. According to PEW Research Centre
report on ‘The Changing Global Religious Landscape’, Muslims account for 24. 1% of
total world population—whereas 6% live in Europe, 2.6% in Australia and only 1.1% in
United States. It also stated that Muslims are going to surpass Christians by 2060
owing to 2.7% fertility rate of Muslim women as compared to 2.4% of western women
and the rate at which people are converting to Islam is worrisome for right-wing
populists. Moreover, burgeoning immigrant crisis in Europe are accelerating anti-
Muslim sentiments as majority of immigrants are muslims from Syria, Iraq, Libya,
Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey and Pakistan. It’s a widespread perception that
Muslims do not integrate in western society in terms of prevalent norms and values
and display their religious believes publicly. Furthermore, migrants are associated with
gang rapes and crimes and are also accused of illegal immigration. Refugee crisis
pushed by Middle-Eastern and African countries followed by the birth tourism,
marriage immigration and conversion of Churches to Muslim community centers are
all augmenting prejudice against Muslims.

As a result, the above-mentioned causes of rising islamophobia create a domino effect
and influence everything from political to social landscapes. The cause-effect
relationship act as a multiplier of islamophobia which has been worsening tension
between different ethnic cultures and religions. Following are the implications of the
rising anti-Muslim discourse which bring into limelight the adverse effects of far-right
policies.
Firstly, Donald Trump’s travel ban turned ‘extreme vetting’ against Muslims has
emerged as one of the prominent implications of rising Islamophobia as muslims
become the sitting ducks of nationalist and isolationist objectives of western countries.
His anti-Muslim rhetoric during presidential debates aiming at ‘a total and
complete shut down on muslim immigration’ has left U.S. muslims in deep
concerns. It’s evident that travel ban on six muslim majority countries is used as a
pretext of Orlando shooting whilst keeping America safe from any terrorist attack. In
this context, Trump signed the new vetting laws in 2017 which barred almost all travel
from six Muslim countries—Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Although,
the ban was also enforced on Korea and Venezuela, but the main target was Muslim
majority countries. Trump admitted the results of his ‘Muslim Ban’ policy stating, “The
Muslim Ban is something that in some forms has morphed into an
extreme vetting from certain areas of the world”. This animosity has
tormented the confidence of American muslims and has deepened the religious divide.
Also, strict vetting has led to dishonor of Muslim citizens and their families on airports,
slowed the process of robust visa grants, deported several Muslims and increased
discrimination at public places.
It’s the aftermath of anti-Muslim discourse of far-right leaders that the white
supremacist attacks have risen to an unprecedented level. Bigotry and hatred towards
Muslims are at its pinnacle in western democracies. Populist leaders have given space
to conservative and fundamentalist white supremacists. They believe that white people
are superior to others racial and ethnic groups which results in widespread abhorrence.
Owing to the propaganda and conspiracy theories of ‘silent Muslim invasion’, white
supremacists are engulfed with vengeance and enmity. Similar sentiments led to the
nefarious attack of Christchurch Mosque shooting in New Zealand, where a white man
named Brenton Harrison, blatantly opened fire on Muslims during Friday prayer. The
horrendous incident was described as ‘one of New Zealand’s darkest days’ as 51
Muslims were killed and nearly 40 injured. Some other attacks on muslims were
Quebec mosque shooting in Canada and Hanau shooting in Germany. Amid this, U.S
state department published a report on Terrorism in 2019 which highlighted the
lurking security threat. The report stated that, “Racially and ethnically motivated
terrorism —especially from white supremacists is ‘on the rise and spreading
geographically’”. Additionally, cases of mosque vandalism, anti-Muslim graffiti,
verbal abuse, melee attacks, bomb threat and Quran desecration by far-right white
supremacists, have threatened the freedom of Muslims as a minority group.
Besides this, legislation of Anti-Muslim Laws has emerged to be one of the tools for
scapegoating Muslims over the alleged reasons of national security. In both Europe and
America, anti-islamic lass are being passed rapidly to limit the far-reaching influence of
Islam. For instance, schedule 7 UK’s Terrorism Act —a draconian piece of legislation
which allows people to be stopped and detained at airports without reasonable
suspicion. The majority of people detained are Muslims. And not only their DNA
samples and fingerprints are collected but they are also strip-searched regardless of the
outcome. According to Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘undue vetting is
silently eroding Muslim communities’ trust and confidence in policing’. Similar is the
case in India, where discriminatory laws are passed to demonize Muslims, leading to
violent attacks. India’s Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) and National Register of
Citizens (NRC) are allegedly aimed at forced conversion of Muslims, detention and
crack down against ‘illegal muslim immigrants’ in Assam and IOJ&K, and have
increased the cases of violence manifolds. Hence, under the shadow of security
concerns Islamophobia is being harvested tactfully.
However, discrimination and marginalization of muslim minorities are the most

common repercussions of snowballing Islamophobia, felt in everyday life. From verbal
abuse to bulling at school; physical attacks to discrimination at work, and to make their
lives even more miserable, they are often denied access of trial in courts against
discrimination. Pew survey showed that religious discrimination against muslims in
U.S. rose to 10% from 2009 to 2017. In both U.S. and Europe there had been several
cases where muslims were compelled to change their name just to get a job. Recently,
muslims were also accused of spreading Corona virus in India, which clearly depicts
the level of discrimination against muslims. The worst of the scenario is the plight of
Rohingya refugees—displaced muslim minority group of Myanmar. Buddhist majority
state casted a shadow of Islamophobia by sponsoring a military led pogrom against
tens and thousands of Rohingya muslims. In 2019, human rights watchdog has
classified it as an attempt of race cleaning of muslims. A report by UN Human Rights
Counsel read, ‘The 600,000 Rohingya living inside Myanmar face systematic
persecution and live under the threat of genocide.’ Aforementioned events paint the
grim picture of hydra-headed monster called Islamophobia.
Lastly, cause-and-effect relationship of anti-Islamic campaigns and protests is

detrimental for culturally diverse societies as it foster violence and hatred. Where such
protests give rise to Islamophobia, it also foments hate-speech. A number of protests
instigated by false claims against Sharia Law in U.S and Europe have been
systematically defaming muslim and provoking anti-islamic sentiments. As of 2017,
201 bills introduced in 43 states of US banning Sharia has sparked outcry in many
countries. The underlying perception that Sharia Courts threatens American
democracy and the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, incite hate crimes.
In a report published by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found that
the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes increased by 94 percent in last 4 years. Similar
trend is observed in India where anti-Muslim hate groups and campaigns were
responsible for lynching of muslims, increasingly after Narendra Modi`s second term.
Moreover, in Australia white supremacists hate crimes surged 90% in recent years. The
number of organizations opposing Muslims leaped to near-historic highs, rising from
few hundreds in 2015 to almost thousands last year. However, social media remained a
common platform for spreading hate-speech worldwide. It also served the basis of
various anti-Muslim online campaigns like ‘Corona Jihad’ in India and ‘Act for
America’ in US, which resulted in vicious cycle of violence in one form or another.
But how to tackle the catastrophe of Islamophobia? To put a lid on the rising
islamophobia, political leaders and those in authority around the world should take
action and must change their anti-Muslim rhetoric. They must stop demonizing Islam
and dehumanizing muslims owing to the problem that terrorism is a global conundrum
which needs to be tackled through collective efforts. Meanwhile, media should play a
constructive role in broadcasting unbiased views and quit prejudiced reporting. Since
mainstream media controls the minds of the people and therefore, should represent
true message of Islam, which is ‘peace’. A number of anti-hate groups are already
working to curb its spread like Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)— such
platforms can be frequently used for inter-faith engagement and face-to-face
interaction at community level. Initiatives like ‘Know your neighbors’ and several other
can help clear the misunderstanding and fear of Islamic culture. However,
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) can prove effective in dealing with plethora
of internal and external challenges surrounding muslim world. It can play a crucial part
by forming an establishment of a ‘Muslim think tank’ at OIC level to provide guidance
and counselling to its member states in developing strategies to counter the nefarious
plot of Islamophobes.
On a concluding note, Islamophobia is that hydra-headed monster which had

traumatized the humanity and challenged the civil liberties when seen through the
prism of Christchurch mosque shooting. Such a perception is systematically nurtured
via mainstream media, literature, movies and political rhetoric, irrespective of its
consequences. In the contemporary world, anti-muslim discourse has become a
playground for scoring electoral votes. Populist leaders from Donald Trump to
Narendra Modi are all capitalizing Islamophobia on political landscape to demonize
Islam and its followers. Growing influence of Islam has been falsely characterized as
‘totalitarian theocratic political ideology’ which is adopted by many anti-Islamic think
tanks like ‘Centre for Security Policy’. Behind the pretext of xenophobia and security
concerns, huge majority of muslims are being discriminated, assaulted, humiliated,
lynched and tortured to death. In the light of anti-muslim racism, white supremacist
attacks are increasing with the speed of light together with several ethno-religious hate
groups. Therefore, its high time for human rights organizations and policy makers to
take inclusive steps to limit the spread of this bigotry and abhorrence. The line from
policy to act, rhetoric to violence is very hard to draw. And the process by which
Islamophobia is rising is complex, multi causal and endlessly ramifying.

FOREIGN (INTERNATIONAL)
OPINIONS SECTION

How Pakistan Sees Afghanistan |
Foreign Affairs
MOEED YUSUF
Moeed Yusuf is National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
President Joe Biden was right to end the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan. The
regime in Kabul was clearly unable to sustain itself, and propping it up with billions
more dollars would have only delayed its inevitable collapse. In fact, given the
Afghan society’s historical aversion to foreign occupations, there was never going to
be a military solution to the conflict that was in the United States’ favor. That is why
Pakistan had been advocating for an inclusive diplomatic settlement ever since the
negotiations known as the “Bonn process” began following the U.S. invasion in
2001.
Today, Afghanistan faces a choice: it can either walk the arduous path of peace or
revert to civil unrest. The latter will have catastrophic repercussions for the Afghan
people and spillover effects for the neighborhood and beyond. The spread of
refugees, drugs, weapons, and transnational terrorism from a destabilized
Afghanistan does not serve the interests of the Afghan people or the rest of the
world, most of all Pakistan. Which of the two outcomes materializes will have as
much to do with how the international community engages with Afghanistan’s new
political reality as it does with how the Taliban choose to rule their country.

WHAT PAKISTAN WENT THROUGH
Apart from the Afghan people, Pakistan has been the greatest victim of the wars in
Afghanistan. The Soviet invasion in 1979 and the subsequent U.S.-led military
campaign after 9/11 were not of Pakistan’s making. Yet our society, polity, and
economy have borne the brunt (to suffer the worse consequences) of the conflict
over the last four decades.
In 2001, Pakistan joined the U.S. war on terrorism against the very same actors who
were hailed as freedom fighters when Washington and Islamabad together trained
and backed them to defeat the Soviets in the 1980s. After the 9/11 attacks, American
leaders issued an ultimatum to Pakistan’s military dictator, General Pervez
Musharraf, that he was either “with us or against us.” Under pressure, Musharraf
provided the United States and its partners with virtually unconditional support,
including access to Pakistan’s air bases and ground and air supply routes, and
helped arrest hundreds of members of al Qaeda.
Musharraf’s post-9/11 decision to launch an internal military campaign against

Afghanistan’s erstwhile freedom fighters, many of whom had deep cultural and
ethnic affiliations with tribesmen in the Pakistani-Afghan border regions, resulted
in a massive insurgency against the Pakistani state. Over 50 militant groups sprang
up, seeking to punish Pakistan for collaborating with the United States. They
targeted our cities and massacred our children; 3.5 million civilians were displaced
from their homes at the height of this onslaught. In the last 20 years, Pakistan has
suffered over 80,000 casualties as a result of terrorist attacks and over $150 billion
in economic losses.
The cost of providing for Afghan civilians fleeing war in their home country has also
largely fallen on Pakistan. We host approximately four million Afghan refugees even
today; this is down from a peak of well over five million in the 1980s. Furthermore,
Afghanistan’s chaos brought a “Kalashnikov culture” and narcotrafficking to
Pakistan: our country’s addiction rates rose nearly 50 times during the 1980s.
Apart from the Afghan people, Pakistan has been

the greatest victim of the wars in Afghanistan.
Yet Western governments continued to accuse the Pakistani state of being

duplicitous and asked us to “do more” to turn the tide of the war in Afghanistan.
Given the sacrifices Pakistan was making on a daily basis, Pakistanis found the
Western stance preposterous—they believed we could do no more without risking
our very survival as a modern nation-state.
This disconnect colored the Pakistani-U.S. partnership for the better part of the last
two decades. At its core, the divide stemmed from a divergence of views on how to
end the war and bring peace to Afghanistan. The United States’ solution was to
achieve a total victory over the Taliban. Even when Washington began considering
negotiations with the group, many American officials saw it as a means of creating
internal fractures within the Taliban rather than negotiating an evenhanded deal.
The Pakistani government spoke hard truths (bitter realities) to the United States
about the folly of its plans. Our position was driven by our deep understanding of
the local context and the antipathy among Afghans regarding the foreign occupation

of their country, which made it impossible for them to see the post-9/11 nation-
building enterprise as indigenous. As early as 2002, Pakistan urged the United
States and its NATO allies to recognize that al Qaeda had been dealt a severe blow
and that, even as the Western powers continued their mission against international
terrorist groups, they needed to recognize that the Taliban were a political reality in
Afghanistan. A decade ago, when U.S. troop numbers were at their peak, Pakistan
counseled using this leverage to negotiate an acceptable political settlement to the
war. Washington ignored this advice, and talks never became the principal pillar of
U.S. strategy.
Many Western governments turned a blind eye to their and the Afghan
government’s failures, which were helping resuscitate (revive) the Taliban.
Nevertheless, Pakistan engaged with the government in Kabul with sincerity of
purpose. For instance, in response to complaints from the U.S. and Afghan
governments that Taliban fighters were able to cross the Afghan-Pakistani border
freely and find sanctuary in our country, Pakistan repeatedly offered the most
logical solution: coordinated border management and visibility. Our proposals
ranged from formal standard operating procedures and military liaisons for border
management, fencing the entire border, and working together to block more than 60
informal border crossings to installing biometric controls to keep track of all cross-
border movement. Pakistan later advocated a formal visa regime, moving away from
the thousands of daily informal crossings that are customary for tribes and families
who have members on both sides of the border or livelihoods that transcend the
border.
All of Pakistan’s requests were turned down, ignored, or actively resisted. For
instance, as early as 2007, Afghan authorities physically tore down border biometric
systems that Pakistan was installing; the flimsy pretext given was that Afghanistan
did not recognize the international border and was therefore opposed to physical
controls.
It stands to reason that if the porousness of the border was really the Afghan
government’s chief concern, it would have moved swiftly to help Pakistan monitor it
effectively. The reason this did not happen was because—as the collapse of the
government of former President Ashraf Ghani has now proved—Kabul knew that the
real reasons it was losing ground to the Taliban were its own governance failures, its
massive corruption, and the consequent lack of credibility of the post-9/11 Afghan
state structure in the eyes of the average Afghan. The government in Kabul was
unwilling or unable to fix these internal failures, so it shifted attention and blame
onto Pakistan. This also suited countries that were pouring billions of dollars into
Afghanistan with little to show for it in terms of defeating the Taliban.
The focus on the border also masked the reality that terrorists based in Afghanistan
were collaborating with our archrival, India, and with elements in the Afghan
intelligence services to regularly carry out attacks inside Pakistan. As
Pakistan publicly detailed in a report released last year, India ran as many as 66
training camps in Afghanistan for groups such as the Pakistani Taliban and other
militant organizations active in our western province of Baluchistan. With Indian
support, these groups conducted targeted killings across Pakistan and high-profile
attacks on Pakistan’s largest stock exchange, a major university, and a luxury hotel
in the port city of Gwadar, among many others. Simultaneously, India worked to
taint Pakistan’s reputation through an orchestrated propaganda campaign,

using fake news networks to perpetuate a diversionary narrative that sought to
blame Pakistan for Afghanistan’s failings.
Meanwhile, the United States kept pressing for Pakistan to further escalate its own
military campaign against the Afghan Taliban. The truth, however, is that the group
had no organized presence in Pakistan and military action against a few dispersed
individuals—who may from time to time have managed to melt away among the
thousands of Afghan refugees—would not have changed the outcome in Afghanistan
but would have left thousands more Pakistanis martyred. An escalation was
therefore unacceptable to us, as we repeatedly conveyed to the United States for
over a decade. Our alternative of leading with a political dialogue that would have
forced all sides to compromise, supplemented by military and other tools as needed,
would have produced a naturally inclusive government while ending the conflict
years earlier. And yet every time we raised this, we were seen as insincere.
The rapid collapse of Ghani’s administration has left no doubt that the government’s
failures were not of Pakistan’s making. Corruption, bad governance, the refusal of
Afghans to stand behind their government and state, and the choice of the 300,000-
strong Afghan National Security Forces not to fight against a lightly armed
insurgency lie at the heart of the return of the Taliban. Shockingly, some voices in
Washington and other Western capitals continue to scapegoat Pakistan for this
failure. But blaming Pakistan is not only factually incorrect—it also undermines the
spirit of international cooperation necessary to end the cycle of violence that has
devastated Afghanistan.
THE WAY FORWARD

Afghanistan deserves peace and prosperity, and a blame game among international
actors will not get us there. Nor will a repeat of the mistakes of the 1990s,
when the United States abandoned Afghanistan and sanctioned Pakistan, its close
ally throughout the 1980s, once the Soviets had been driven from Kabul. This
isolated the region as international assistance and attention disappeared, placed
Afghanistan on a path to civil war and economic meltdown, and strengthened
international terrorist outfits—eventually culminating in the 9/11 attacks. Although
ordinary Afghans and Pakistanis will always face the greatest risks from instability
inside Afghanistan, mass migration flows and terrorism threaten the entire world. It
is therefore in every country’s interest to prevent history from repeating itself.
The prudent way forward is for the international community to engage

constructively with the new government in Kabul. The goal must be to create the
conditions for Afghan civilians to earn a respectable livelihood and to live in peace.
This will require the international community, especially the countries that were
present in Afghanistan for two decades, to play a positive role in leveraging its
influence to further the cause of peace and stability.
Pakistan has been at the forefront of international humanitarian efforts since the fall
of Kabul. It has helped evacuate approximately 20,000 foreign citizens and Afghans
from the country and has created an air and land bridge to channel emergency
supplies to the country. These efforts are important, but diplomatic engagement
with Afghanistan must go much further. Afghanistan does not have the resources or
the institutional capacity to stave off economic disaster on its own. In order to
ensure a durable peace, the international community must determine the means
through which development assistance can be provided while ensuring that its
concerns about the situation in the country are addressed. But given the precarious
humanitarian and economic situation in Afghanistan, time is of the essence. A wait-
and-see approach, although more politically tenable for many countries, would be
tantamount to abandonment.
Many Western governments turned a blind eye to

their and the Afghan government’s failures.
Pakistan’s expectations of the new government are no different than those of

Western governments: Pakistan wants a state that is inclusive, respects the rights of
all Afghans, and ensures that Afghan soil is not used for terrorism against any
country. Unlike in the 1990s, the Taliban have repeatedly stated their interest in
continued engagement with the world. This is an opportunity for the international
community. The leverage generated through assistance and the legitimacy the
Taliban will derive from it can be used to secure inclusive governance from the new
administration.
Over the past month, Pakistan has led diplomatic initiatives with Afghanistan’s
immediate neighbors and other countries in the region to discuss the way forward.
We will continue these efforts. However, Western diplomacy needs to be better
connected with regional initiatives to forge a common agenda for engagement and
decide on the multilateral and bilateral avenues available to channel assistance. A
starting point could be a major donor conference where regional players and
Western countries sit down together and draw up specific plans for humanitarian
and economic relief. An understanding is also required on the terms of the release of
the Afghan central bank’s reserves, most of which are held by the United States.
Such a forum could also be used to encourage countries that have unfinished
development projects in Afghanistan to consider completing them for the benefit of
the Afghan people.
A coordinated global approach will reduce the risks of international divisions over
how best to engage the Taliban. Although it is important to remain realistic about
what is achievable in the present context, this approach will improve the prospects
for an outcome that benefits the average Afghan and is acceptable to the
international community.
As Pakistan’s national security adviser, my job is to advocate policy options that will
protect my country. The position I have articulated here is informed by the
fundamental reality that for Pakistan, disengaging from Afghanistan is not an
option. The two countries share a more than 1,600-mile border and cultural links
that stretch back centuries. These geographical and societal connections compel
Pakistan to advocate for peace in Afghanistan, as instability there risks spilling over
into our country. The Pakistani Taliban, the Islamic State, and other anti-Pakistani
groups in Afghanistan cannot be allowed to harm Pakistan. Nor are we in a position
to accept more Afghan refugees, who will inevitably be driven onto our soil by
another spasm of violence in their home country.
Afghanistan deserves peace and prosperity, and

a blame game among international actors will
not get us there.

We are also acutely sensitive to the fact that the livelihoods of millions of Afghans
are linked to Pakistan. Being landlocked, Afghanistan depends on Pakistan for trade
and transit. The country’s geographical position could become an advantage if it
transforms itself into a transit hub that connects Central Asia to Pakistan’s warm
waters. The Ghani government had stalled these possibilities, snubbing Pakistan’s
offers of more streamlined trade and economic cooperation and the fast-tracking of
connectivity projects with Central Asia.
Such connectivity is not only key to Pakistan’s geoeconomic vision; it also

corresponds with the U.S.-led regional vision of establishing economic linkages
among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Multiple connectivity projects are
already underway, including plans to establish energy and electricity inflows from
Central Asia, a trans-Afghanistan rail project from Uzbekistan, and projects to
upgrade the road infrastructure to create a viable corridor of connectivity. U.S. and
other international and regional investments in energy, minerals, and infrastructure
could potentially herald a new era of cooperation in the region and buttress peace
efforts.
While Pakistan can and will assist in pushing Afghanistan in a positive direction, it
alone cannot guarantee the outcomes we all desire. Pakistan does not wield any
extraordinary influence over the new rulers in Kabul, as both monetary assistance
and legitimacy for the Taliban can come (or not) only from the world’s major
powers. Coordinated engagement involving the Western powers, China, Russia,
Middle Eastern countries, and Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors, however, would
maximize the chances of realizing our common objectives in Afghanistan.
A LASTING PEACE
Pakistan is committed to peace in Afghanistan and in the region. We have lost much
in blood and treasure to support the war next door and have repeatedly
demonstrated our commitment to ensuring our neighbor’s stability and economic
prosperity. We worked with the United States to facilitate the peace process in
Afghanistan, confronted the menace of terrorism at home, hosted millions of
Afghans for over four decades, and pursued a policy of strategic restraint despite
aggressive provocations from spoilers such as India. Today, Pakistan is seeking to
foster economic interdependence through regional connectivity and development
partnerships while settling political disputes amicably.
Afghanistan could serve as a model for this regional vision, but the international
community must also play its part. By engaging with the new Afghan authorities
now, the United States and other global powers can avert a humanitarian crisis, help
Afghans live in peace, and ensure that the threat of terrorism emanating from
Afghan soil is ended once and for all. This is not only their collective responsibility;
it is also in their self-interest.
Of course, the new Taliban authorities will ultimately have to prove that they intend
to govern Afghanistan in a more inclusive manner. However, history will judge us
very poorly if we do not create the most conducive environment possible to push
them in a healthy direction—for the collective benefit of Afghans and the world.
Failure to do so will leave Pakistan to bear the brunt of any negative spillover from
Afghanistan. We have already carried more than our share of the burden.

Jorge Castañeda on why America’s
civilisation will prevail | The Economist
Jorge Castañeda
Jorge Castañeda is a professor at New York University and was Mexico’s foreign
minister in 2000-03. He is the author of a dozen books, most recently “America
through Foreign Eyes” (Oxford University Press, 2020).
THE ALARM about American “declinism” comes in cycles: in the eighties Japan was
the threat; in the nineties it was Rhineland capitalism and the European Union;
today it is China. Many seek to gauge the fate of the United States in terms of power:
hard or soft, military or economic, financial or technological, cultural or geo-
political. In my recent book, “America through Foreign Eyes”, I attempted to look at
the question through the prism of American civilisation, which encompasses these
aspects but goes well beyond them. I believe that there is such a thing, as there was
once a Roman civilisation, a European one and, in a slightly different sense, an Arab
and Chinese civilisation. As with any such civilisation, the upheavals in the United
States are felt beyond its borders, not least in Latin America.
The United States continues to be the only state capable of truly projecting military
power throughout the globe, and not just in its surroundings. Pulling out of
Afghanistan with its tail between its legs is no show of strength, but no other country
has the wherewithal to deploy and sustain so many troops, in so many places around
the world, for so long.
The American economy has, together with China’s and India´s, rebounded more
strongly than any other large economy from the blow inflicted by covid-19. The
American vaccination effort was unmatched in scope and speed until it ran into the
stone wall of anti-vaxxerism. The scientific and technological prowess shown by
American companies, working with government financing, allowed the United
States to develop and produce highly effective vaccines, rapidly and in large
quantities, in cooperation with other countries, such as Germany.
American civilisation has a language of its own, a culture different from that of
others, a political and economic message of liberalism that it did not really create
but which rapidly became associated with the American creed. It has its
borderlands, or what the Romans called limites, where it exerts influence even
though they lie beyond its formal frontiers. It has idiosyncratic forms of bringing
other countries or civilisations into its orbit—by force, by persuasion, by osmosis, by
negotiation. Most important, it has its “soft power”. Rome had its highways and
legal system, its aqueducts and taxes; America has everything from Hollywood to
space travel, CNN and iPhones.
China today may be approaching the United States in technological achievements.

Autocracies more broadly may be resurgent. But it is hard to discern where
American civilisation is retreating. The South China Sea is not the Pacific or the
Atlantic; and a few dams and bridges actually built in Africa and Latin America, as
opposed to Belt and Road Projects, are not the equivalent of Apple, Google,
Microsoft and Facebook.
A more challenging question is whether one of the central pillars of American

civilisation, ie, its particular form of government, is on the wane. The greatest
menace for America’s civilisation, like Rome’s centuries ago, is the enemy within—in
this case the weakening of America’s democracy. This stems not from Viktor Orban
or Jair Bolsonaro, or from Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. It springs from Donald
Trump, and the Republican right-wing and extremist groups that are no longer on
the fringes of American politics.
It is not simply about the Big Lie and the supposed theft of the November 2020
presidential election, nor the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th. These are
the symptoms, not the cause. Nor is Mr Trump a fundamental factor: he, too, is a
manifestation of a deeper malaise. White, over-50, low-income and non-college-
educated, rural and small-town Anglo-Saxon voters are increasingly terrified of
losing their previous place in society, one they feel is well worth fighting for. People
who identify as whites are no longer a majority of the population in a growing
number of states, not least the largest one, California.
In time, their grievances will be less central to American politics. Trumpism is a

symptom of white resentment about this dwindling importance. Their traditions,
beliefs and demands are being displaced by those of ascending demographic,
electoral and ideological cohorts they have scant contact with. They feel lost,
because they are losing. Among other things, the Republican party that they
embrace has lost the popular votes in seven of the last eight presidential elections.
America’s “dysfunctional democracy” seems clearly unable to process these

resentments and rebellions—neither legislatively, electorally nor judicially.
Fortunately change appears to be on the way, and herein lies America’s incredible

capacity to reinvent itself. The response to voter suppression and to the Big Lie has
been wide and vigorous: in the runoff election for the Senate in January in Georgia,
turnout exceeded forecasts and gave Democrats victories they did not expect, not
least in securing control of the Senate. The emergence of a broad and spirited debate
about “critical race theory”, history and even socialism in the United States can be
considered a consequence of, and a rejoinder to, that déclassé white lower-middle
class. Its grievances and those of Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native-
Americans and women left out over the years cannot be addressed only by
Trumpism or by speaking out about systemic racism. That can happen only through
new forms of representation and policy. But it is a good beginning.
The novelty of the past decade or so is how Americans today are beginning to fight
over their history: not only over slavery and its legacy, but also regarding the Alamo
in Texas, Spanish missionaries in California and the genocidal military in the Great
Plains and the Trail of Tears. There are few signs as uplifting with regard to
America’s reinvention of itself.
An additional hope lies in the promises and possible accomplishments of the Biden
administration, especially if the Democrats remain in office through 2028. Its
attempt to (re)build the American welfare state promises to give the country
renewed vigour.
The success and reinvention of the United States matters in Latin America, too. The
political winds often blow from north to south. In the early 1930s, after Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s election and the launching of the New Deal, Latin America began
to take note of events in the United States. Everyone suffered from the same
economic depression: rocketing unemployment, collapsing commodity prices and
institutional breakdown. In 1930 coups had toppled governments in Brazil and
Argentina; later in the decade, authoritarian regimes fell in Chile and Cuba. The
region was searching for something new. It found inspiration and a sympathetic ear
in Washington. Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico, Getúlio Vargas in Brazil and Ramón
Grau San Martín in Cuba, among others, implemented New Deal-like policies, some
more radical than FDR’s, some more moderate.
A similar process took place in the 1980s, in reverse. In one Latin American country
after another, the foreign-debt crisis and Ronald Reagan’s election (along with
Margaret Thatcher’s in Britain a year before) gave birth to “Reagonomics in the
tropics”, or the Washington Consensus. Carlos Salinas in Mexico, Carlos Menem in
Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile (beginning a bit before) all followed the
United States’ example, most of the time more radically.
Today, many Latin American countries will undoubtedly attempt to draw

inspiration from the example of the Biden administration as soon as the pandemic
abates. Chile has once again, appeared to anticipate the new trend by channelling
mass street protests into social policy through its new Constituent Assembly.
Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia have all discovered (or acknowledged) that
their tattered social safety-nets were nearly useless in dealing with the health,
education, employment and even housing crises brought on by covid-19. Deficit
spending, tax reform and universal health care are all on the table.
Yet there are fears, too. One worry is that Trumpism and the crisis of American
democracy will prove lasting. Another is that Joe Biden’s renewed internationalism
will clash with the region’s anachronistic but powerful traditions, which have
sacralised the principle of non-intervention. As the world begins to acknowledge
that many of the globe’s challenges can be dealt with only on a global scale, that
contradiction becomes more acute. Countries like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico will
have to accept that combating the world’s ills—from climate change to corruption,
human-rights violations and future pandemics—will require universal jurisdiction of
some sort, with a hefty American presence.
A third concern is China’s growing presence in Latin America and its growing
confrontation with the United States. This has pushed some to toy with the notion of
“pro-active non-alignment”, whereby the region attempts to stand aside from the
Sino-American rivalry while at the same time engaging both powers on, say,
disarmament. That is an intriguing idea. In the end, though, American civilisation
will prevail for many decades. The United States remains the world’s “indispensable
power”; without it, a stronger international legal order is inconceivable.

Dmitri Trenin on Russia’s interests in
the new global order | The Economist
Dmitri Trenin
Dmitri Trenin is the director of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, the Russia-based arm of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a foundation in Washington, DC.
Earlier he was an officer in the Soviet and Russian army.
The swift collapse of the American-backed government in Afghanistan following the

withdrawal of its forces revives the long-running debate on American decline. Some
observers go so far as to claim that the United States is no longer a superpower.
However the reality is different. Though the country’s position and influence have
receded in recent decades, the prime reason is not so much America falling as Asian
powers, notably China and India, rising economically, and Russia making a
comeback geopolitically and militarily. The decline of American power is relative
and rooted in the basic unevenness of national development.
The other reason is domestic and it is more serious. The American economic model
took a major hit in the global financial crisis of 2007-09. The political model has
come under severe strain during the four years of Donald Trump’s presidency and
has not recovered much since. Over the past decades, the social model has been
failing to deliver to the American middle class, the backbone of society. The
pandemic laid bare more than a health-care crisis, but exacerbated long-simmering
divisions over societal values and race relations. All this points to a significant
decline of the American power base at home.
Against this background, Afghanistan stands for the ultimate collapse of the post-
cold war belief that the United States was in a position to remake the world in its
own image. The promotion of Western democracy and liberal values has run against
apparently insurmountable barriers in a number of places, from Afghanistan and

Iran to China and Russia. But this has not yet dawned on officials in Washington.
Indeed, it was President Joe Biden’s predecessors, Barack Obama and Mr Trump,
who understood the dangers of America’s global overextension and, albeit in vastly
different ways, tried to redirect resources to rebuild the home base. It is the success
or failure of that effort that will decide the fate of the country.
Difficulties at home and abroad
America today is a house divided. The tensions tearing it apart have not been tamed
by Mr Trump’s defeat and Mr Biden’s ascendance to the White House. There is even
some talk of a civil war as a looming threat. That possibility is still too far-fetched.
Americans have a habit of energising themselves by boosting threats, and a history
of re-inventing their country as a consequence. But things, without doubt, have
reached a serious point.
The United States is approaching another reinvention moment, one that requires
much more than a bumper sticker that says “build back better” and a huge
infrastructure package. And crucially, America is no longer just competing against
itself as it did after the end of the cold war. For the first time in over 100 years the
country faces the certainty of losing its position as the world’s top economy and
potentially its technological primacy as well. Should that happen, the consequences
for America’s global standing would be enormous.
Hence in foreign policy—from Mr Obama’s pivot to Asia and Mr Trump’s declaring

Beijing an adversary to Mr Biden’s preoccupation with major-power rivalry—the
country has been sharply focused on China. Having passed from a happy offensive
in the name of globalisation to an active defence in the name of protecting its
number-one status, America will respond vigorously to the challenge that China
presents.
This confrontation will be the most consequential geopolitical, geo-economic,

technological and ideological power struggle for decades to come. The world has
again turned bipolar, though the difference from the cold war is that it has not (at
least not yet) been divided into two opposing global blocs. Yet as demonstrated by
the AUKUS deal on nuclear submarines, the reinvigorated Quad group of Asia-
Pacific countries and the possible expansion of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance,
America is busy establishing a system to contain China, the principal challenger to
its global primacy.
It would be foolhardy to speculate on the likely outcome of the Sino-American

rivalry. One might suggest only that, in the end, the United States will not defeat
China. By the same token, China, even if it surpasses America in certain categories,
will not replace it as the world’s new hegemon: China has no pretensions to
universalism.
The world order that is emerging in the 21st century is likely to be multi-layered or
multi-dimensional. China and America will probably stay as the only two
superpowers, but each will not command their part of the world in the way that
leaders in Washington and Moscow did in the second half of the last century.
Instead, different sets of players—including occasionally non-state actors—will wield
influence in various functional areas and geographic regions.
A new chilly war

With the unipolar moment now history, Russia’s objective is to remain a world-
class, self-standing player. This is the current definition of the historical term “great
power” widely used in Russia today. For the country’s leaders, Russia is nothing if
not a great power—just as, for many in Washington, America’s identity is
inextricably wedded to global superiority.
For Russia, securing and holding on to that status, however, will be challenging.
Geopolitical issues include above all maintaining an equilibrium—though hardly
equidistance—in the face of America-China confrontation. Being sucked into that
fight could be as detrimental, or worse, for Russia than was its fateful entry into the
first world war.
A companion challenge for Russia is to stand on its own vis-à-vis its partners in
China and thus keep the relationship on an even keel. In relations with the United
States, leaders in Moscow and Washington need to manage the rapport carefully.
That means making sure that conflicts in which Russia and America are directly or
indirectly involved (such as Ukraine) do not spiral out of control; that a series of
incidents between their armed forces (say, in Syria) do not inadvertently lead to
actual shooting; and that a major cyberattack does not provoke a military response.
The confrontation with the United States notwithstanding, Russia’s principal

challenges will be domestic. In the political realm, the looming hurdle will be
managing the transition to a new regime that follows the current leader, Vladimir
Putin, while avoiding the Scylla of instability and the Charybdis of deepening
stagnation. In the realm of economics, unchaining the country’s potential—held
back by monopolies and corruption from unaccountable, self-serving elites—is
critical.
There are other hurdles. Mastering technological innovation and energy transition is
an urgent task. Climate change affects Russia’s vast territory even more than it does
the world generally. Russia’s demographics, despite the government’s efforts,
remain uncheerful, with low birth rates and male life-expectancy lower than
elsewhere in Europe. And immigration as a remedy has an underside, with many
newcomers from rural regions in central Asia less willing to assimilate and in some
cases falling for jihadist propaganda.
Lastly, to move ahead confidently, Russia would need to rediscover its values, such
as working together for the good of the community, patriotism not tied to the
current authorities and trust in one’s fellow citizens—and putting them into
practice, rejecting the prevailing cynicism that undermines trust.
This is a tall order. But the principal lesson of the Soviet Union’s demise 30 years
ago this December is that while big nations cannot be defeated from the outside,
they may—and sometimes do—fall under the weight of their own domestic
problems, whether neglected or mismanaged. This lesson, of course, is valid not
only for Russia but for all significant powers, whether on the rise or on the decline. ■
_______________

Nirupama Rao on America’s need for
wisdom and allies in Asia | The Economist
Noam Chomsky
Nirupama Rao served as India’s ambassador to America in 2011-13. Earlier, she was the
country’s foreign secretary and its ambassador to China, among other diplomatic roles.
IN SOUTH ASIA and the Indo-Pacific, we see ourselves as a region in churn—the

geopolitical pathways wind their way to conflict and to peace; they crisscross in
perpetual motion. India through its history has been a hub country, porous and
permeable, weathering waves of migration, conquest and assimilation, and
providing the ultimate definition of being (as the English poet Kathleen Raine put it)
“the place of every arrival”.
The region is uneasy about the likelihood of intensified America-China rivalry,

particularly after America’s debacle in Afghanistan. The two powers’ competition,
confrontation and conflict—or the alternative, an unbridled Chinese hegemony—
ought not be the sole, binary choice. A healthy multipolarity among countries, with
roles for mid-sized ones as much as for great powers, would provide the ideal
political equilibrium for the region.
All involved must understand that the strategy of each country is to safeguard
national power, uphold self-interest but also to ensure survival. When superpowers
try to trample each other, the ground trembles and fissures deepen for everyone
else. The creation of AUKUS, an agglomeration of Australia, Britain and America,
marks a new iteration of naval power in the Indo-Pacific. It is clearly designed to
counter China’s capabilities, yet it gives rise to new uncertainties and greater risks of
confrontation.
The Indian Ocean is one of the busiest trade channels in the world and its security is
of crucial strategic importance. Even as America gets tough on China over trade and
technology, and as their armed forces are adversarial, many Asian countries, notably
mid-sized powers, watch this emerging “tournament of shadows” with unease.
Choosing between superpowers is hardly easy and both belong in the region.
Governments in the Indo-Pacific want to avoid geopolitical games: they have lives to
improve, economies to develop, borders to secure, infrastructure to build and
dreams to fulfil.
New alliances for new challenges
The waning of trust in American power and influence, however, is troubling. Even
without a formal alliance with India, the United States is viewed as a natural ally: as
a democracy, a champion of freedom and pluralism, and with numerous family ties
between the countries.
This is why India places a premium on groupings like the Quad, which enable co-
operation with like-minded democracies including Japan and Australia, along with
America. India is focused on interests such as: the security of sea lanes in the Indo-
Pacific; supply chains that are resilient to disruptions and are not held hostage by
China; and the negotiated settlement of disputes in consonance with a rules-based
international order.
But the Quad must not neglect the continental dimension of the region’s priorities.
It must not turn away from salvaging a “development dividend” for Afghanistan that
empowers women and promotes minority rights. Co-operative “grids” will be
required, involving China and even Iran and Russia. Regional unity against terrorist
forces and the Taliban’s known propensity to interact with such elements is crucial.
There is also a need to ensure that Pakistan—which is said to have masterminded
the Taliban’s resurrection, and is virtually the keeper of this graveyard of empires
and thus deeply mistrusted by many Afghans—learns to work for Afghanistan’s
betterment rather than its continued ruin.
All this entails co-operation across strategic divides and the adoption of rational
approaches that work for the good of the Afghan people.
America’s lack of a grand strategy in the region lets the Chinese see this period as
one of great opportunity. The situation has helped China and Russia build a closer
partnership, in a display of strategic and political alignment. Theirs is an attempt to
define a new, political environment which emphasises dealing with threats to
internal stability above everything. Their abilities in the dark arts of online
misinformation let them disrupt the existing global order.
There is today a blurring of boundaries between peace and war, military and
civilian—grey zones where actions stay below the threshold of major conflict and
advanced technologies are deployed in virtual and physical spaces. The cyber
domain is as central to the theatre of contest in the Indo-Pacific as is sea and land.
One of the areas identified for co-operation in the Quad is technology, and there is
scope for a “grand coalescence” among members to collaborate in defence,
aerospace, infrastructure, cyber-security and science.
America’s strength in relationships
Despite the failure in Afghanistan, a perceived eclipse of its power and troubling
internal divisions, the United States does not have the luxury of time to reassert
itself. Only America, with its technological prowess, leading research institutions
and universities, open society, institutions of governance and constitutional
freedoms can provide a sustainable alternative to China’s advance in the Indo-
Pacific.
Yet America’s competition with China must not chart a course for the future of the
region in a way that causes irrevocable fault lines. Simplifications like “my enemy’s
enemy is my friend” or picking sides do not apply in South-East Asia in particular.
Nations there are not averse to practising what some call “promiscuous diplomacy”.
Hedging and balancing are in their political DNA.
This is where a better understanding of the complex environment and the support of
countries like Japan, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore can be invaluable to
navigate what would otherwise be a perilous passage for America through the Indo-
Pacific, as competition with China replaces the give-and-take of dialogue and
engagement. The future of Taiwan is just one area where both wisdom and allies are
needed.
China’s overreach can be countered by a strategy that covers demonstrations of

military preparedness, including joint exercises and training, political and strategic
dialogue with the region’s democracies, co-operation in critical technologies,
promoting trade and supply-chain integration, and infrastructure connectivity.
At the same time, America and India can tap well-established mechanisms such as
the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting—which includes
countries from outside the region. Countries in the region would prefer that
America’s hub-and-spoke approach to security (where countries are connected to it
but not to each other) be replaced by a regional order built on “multiple stilts of
different sizes and functions” that match the architectural style for houses in the
tropics, as nicely described by Evelyn Goh of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies in Singapore.
The lessons of the past 20 years since 9/11 and the failures of America’s
interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq show that more emphasis should have been
placed on strengthening multilateral institutions, on reforming the United Nations
to give voice to countries beyond a disunited five permanent Security Council
members, and on abandoning economic sanctions as a default punishment that only
raises ire against the West.
Today the world must tackle the misery and needs of millions of people displaced
from their lands by the tumult of the post-9/11 world. America needs to lead the
way, buoyed by its democratic values and an international order based on
multilateralism. ■
_______________

Biden Should Not Arm the Afghan
Resistance | Foreign Policy
Bilal Y. Saab
Bilal Y. Saab, a senior fellow and director of the Defense and Security Program at the
Middle East Institute.
U.S. President Joe Biden is convinced that exiting Afghanistan was the right thing to
do. But even he knows that putting the country in Washington’s rearview mirror is
something the United States cannot afford to do.
Under Taliban rule, Afghanistan is likely to turn into a magnet for terrorism, as it
was pre-9/11. Top U.S. intelligence officials estimate that in a year or two, al Qaeda
could regroup.Protecting the U.S. homeland from terrorists including the Islamic
State, who could use Afghanistan as a launchpad for attacks against the West,
remains a top U.S. concern.
But how can the United States most effectively meet this priority moving forward?
Now that U.S. forces have departed and the Afghan military, which Americans
trained and equipped for 20 years, has disintegrated, the options range from bad to
worse.
One of these options is over-the-horizon strikes, attacks launched from nearby

countries, which the United States has already exercised. But the risks of this tactic
are clear. On Aug. 29, the U.S. military tragically killed 10 innocent Afghan civilians,
seven of whom were children, because its members couldn’t tell the difference
between an aid worker and an Islamic State operative. Of course, not all over-the-
horizon operations are unreliable; in fact, they can be incredibly precise and
effective. But they do require local intelligence and patient target development,
which the U.S. military didn’t have for the Aug. 29 strike.
Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Mike Waltz, along with a growing number of
conservative American lawmakers, have presented another option: arming the so-
called Afghan resistance. “We’re going to lead and drive this from Congress if the
White House and the administration refuses to,” Waltz said. Meanwhile, Graham
has been active in his efforts to build support in Washington for Amrullah Saleh, an
Afghan opposition leader.
Putting aside the political motivations of Graham and Waltz, one can see why the
idea of providing weapons to Afghans who could restrain the Taliban and fight
terrorism sounds attractive.
The premise is that by applying military pressure against the Taliban through local
parties, the group’s worst instincts can be checked. More specifically, such leverage

might push the group to meaningfully cooperate on counterterrorism and pursue
more inclusive governance.
Arming the Afghan resistance also would seek to cultivate local partners on the
ground who could provide the United States with critical human intelligence and
thus enable more effective over-the-horizon operations.
Lastly, helping an Afghan faction that opposes the Taliban’s radicalism and
ostensibly supports women’s rights, it is assumed, helps atone for America’s sins
and protect previous investments in Afghan human development.
However, none of these arguments is convincing.
More than 20 years of experience in Afghanistan have clearly shown that military
pressure against the Taliban didn’t succeed in taming them one bit or in forcing
them to cut ties with al Qaeda.The case for arming local Afghan rebels in the present
circumstances of post-American withdrawal is not only based on questionable
assumptions but also fraught with tremendous risks.
If Washington pursues this policy, U.S. officials are almost guaranteeing a return to
civil war in Afghanistan. The United States can militarily defeat the Taliban by proxy
with the right level of support, but it won’t be able to uproot them or win the peace.
Some might argue that a stalemate between the Taliban and the Afghan resistance
would be enough. But threading that needle in the absence of U.S. troops on the
ground will be very difficult given the Taliban’s determination to establish
uncontested governance.
It’s also worth learning lessons from history. An internal CIA study from previous
years found that arming rebels rarely works, and the approach was even less
effective without any direct U.S. support on the ground. Of course, the United States
did succeed in kicking the Soviet Army out of Afghanistan in the 1980s without a
U.S. military presence, but Washington relied on Pakistani intelligence officers who
partnered with the Afghan mujahideen to make it work.
If the United States arms Afghan insurgents today, Pakistan will intensify its
support to the Taliban until they regain control. The last thing Washington needs in
Afghanistan is an even more strained relationship with Islamabad.
Even if Afghan fighters in Panjshir Valley manage to prevent the Taliban from
taking over their lands with U.S. military help, this will in no way promote human
rights or improve the plight of women in Kabul.
It’s also not entirely clear who these rebels are. They’re not the Taliban, but that
doesn’t mean they’re model citizens either. According to reports by international
human rights organizations and America’s own Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction, some (not all) of these militias have behaved terribly,
raping women, using violence against ethnic minorities, stealing land, and turning
underaged boys into soldiers. With no U.S. personnel on the ground, how will
Washington vet and exert control over them once it arms them?
Equally important, does the Biden administration want to send sophisticated U.S.
weapons to a place awash with terrorists who could seize those weapons? There’s
already a boatload of arms left by the Americans that were supposed to be used by
the Afghan military but now have been seized by the Taliban. The additional

proliferation of arms will also further militarize Afghan society, permit more
aggressive forms of warlordism, and worsen a bad humanitarian crisis.
None of this suggests that the reign of the Taliban will produce peace or eradicate
terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. Nor does it imply that Washington should
tolerate the Taliban’s proven misconduct and treachery.
But there are other tools, including regional diplomacy, economic statecraft, and
better-crafted remote strikes, to try to influence the Taliban’s behavior and achieve
long-term U.S. objectives.
Arming Afghan rebels does not constitute a comprehensive Afghanistan strategy,

which the United States desperately needs. It’s a feel-good tactic more than anything
else. America has caused enough suffering in Afghanistan. The least the U.S.
government can do is not make the situation worse.

Don’t Sink the Nuclear Submarine
Deal | Foreign Affairs
CAITLIN TALMADGE
CAITLIN TALMADGE is Associate Professor of Security Studies at the Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
The United States’ decision to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia is

coming under fire from some experts on nuclear nonproliferation. These critics fear
that sharing the sensitive nuclear reactor technology needed to propel such vessels
will set a dangerous precedent and open a new pathway for states to acquire nuclear
weapons.
These concerns are overblown. Furthermore, they are outweighed by the clear
security benefits of the deal—in particular, the fact that the sale will enhance
Washington’s ability to counter Beijing both militarily and politically. There are
significant military advantages to deploying nuclear-powered submarines, as
opposed to the conventionally powered submarines Canberra had originally agreed
to buy from France. The United States also has a number of ways to manage any
proliferation risks, and it likely will do so in the coming months and years as the sale
is finalized. If anything, partnering closely with Australia should help reduce one of
the potential causes of future nuclear proliferation in Asia: the perception that the
United States cannot or will not defend its allies from China.
SALE AWAY
In military terms, selling nuclear-powered submarines to Australia is a no-brainer.
Because they have essentially unlimited power from their reactors, U.S. nuclear
submarines are capable of greater speed, endurance, and range than their
conventional counterparts—important characteristics when operating in the vast
Indo-Pacific theater. Nuclear-powered submarines can also be designed to remain
stealthy at high speeds and to operate at great ocean depths. This means that
nuclear-powered submarines have a better chance at surviving Chinese attempts to
find them.
As a result, nuclear-powered submarines are more likely to be able to sustain their

missions during a crisis or a war. These include surveillance as well as protecting or
attacking ships. Such undersea tasks will be especially vital in the future, as the
surface of the ocean and the airspace above it grow increasingly contested due to
technological trends in weaponry and the prodigious growth of China’s capabilities.
Beijing’s military expansion includes an ever-larger force of attack submarines, but

the undersea domain is one in which the United States retains important qualitative
advantages. Australia’s recognition of these advantages is an obvious motive for its
sudden embrace of naval reactor technology as part of its new security partnership
with the United Kingdom and the United States, known as AUKUS. This move
would have been inconceivable only a few years ago, prior to Beijing’s blistering
rhetoric toward Canberra, tariffs on major Australian exports, and suspension of key
bilateral communication channels.
In military terms, selling nuclear-powered

submarines to Australia is a no-brainer.
Critics of the submarine deal fear that allowing Australia to use naval nuclear
propulsion technology will open a new pathway to nuclear proliferation. The main
concern is that potential nuclear aspirants—not Australia, but states such as Iran,
Saudi Arabia, and South Korea—might argue that they too should be able to build
naval nuclear reactors. This would be technically allowed thanks to a loophole in the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which permits these states to remove
nuclear materials from the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) for this purpose. The fear is that those countries, having obtained
reactor fuel on the pretext that they would use it solely to power submarines, might
then turn around and use the fuel to make a nuclear bomb. Submarines fueled with
highly enriched uranium (HEU) are particularly concerning because this material
could be used to make nuclear weapons without further modifications.
Yet history does not support these doomsday scenarios. As the political scientist
Nicholas Miller has pointed out, past exceptions to U.S. nonproliferation policy do
not seem to have undermined the overall regime. He notes, for example, that the
United States’ decision to waive sanctions on Pakistan as it pursued nuclear
weapons in the 1980s did not lead any other countries to conclude that they
suddenly had a free pass to go nuclear without consequences. Similarly, the 2008
U.S.-India nuclear deal, although criticized for seeming to bless India’s nuclear
status despite its refusal to sign the NPT, did not result in subsequent proliferation
by other states. These rare exceptions to nonproliferation policy seem to be
understood as just that—exceptions. There is little reason to think the sale to
Australia will be viewed otherwise.
Regardless, today’s nonproliferation regime has much bigger problems than the sale
of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. The collapsed Iran nuclear deal, the
fraying U.S.-Russian strategic arms control framework, and China’s rapid buildup of
new nuclear forces all pose profound challenges to efforts to reduce the spread of
nuclear weapons, with or without a perceived weakening of the rules surrounding
naval nuclear reactors. Overall, it makes little sense to undermine a new agreement
with clear security benefits for Washington in order to prevent unspecified future
damage to a set of reactor rules.
BELOW THE SURFACE OF AUKUS

The United States has a substantial ability to manage proliferation risks from the
sale. When announcing the agreement, President Joe Biden highlighted
proliferation safeguards as a major area of focus as the two countries hammer out
the details over the next 18 months. Choices about reactor design, the process for
shipbuilding, and other features of the submarines all provide opportunities to
minimize any dangers.

In particular, it seems likely that the United States will draw from its own stock of
HEU to produce the entire reactor core domestically. Then the United States will
ship the sealed core to Australia, where it will be put into submarines. Opening the
reactor to access the fuel would be extremely difficult physically and time
consuming, not to mention suicidal, since anyone doing so would be exposed to
unshielded, highly radioactive nuclear material.
In practical terms, what this means is that the deal will not give Australia the ability
to produce HEU or provide it with an opportunity to somehow divert the fuel it gets
from the United States. It also means that no HEU will be removed from
international safeguards: the stockpile of the United States, as one of the NPT’s five
nuclear weapons states, is under no such regime. It is true that Australia would be
the first nonnuclear weapons state to acquire naval nuclear reactors fueled by HEU,
but rather than giving a free pass to future nuclear aspirants, the circumstances
seem to set a very narrow precedent.
Moreover, as the nuclear policy expert James Acton has pointed out, the United
States could deliberately seek to constrain this precedent by publicly outlining the
conditions under which it would view as acceptable any future efforts by nonnuclear
weapons states to remove nuclear material from international safeguards for use in
a naval nuclear reactor. Iran, for example, would not meet these criteria due to its
previous violations of IAEA safeguards. Its record looks very different from that of
Australia, a staunch supporter of the NPT.
The AUKUS submarine deal is probably more

likely to reduce proliferation risks in the Indo-
Pacific than increase them.
Acton and other critics of AUKUS, including former NATO Deputy Secretary
General Rose Gottemoeller, have also suggested that the United States should
encourage Australia to buy French nuclear-powered submarines that run on low-
enriched uranium (LEU) instead of American HEU-fueled submarines. LEU poses a
lower proliferation risk because it is unsuitable for direct use in nuclear weapons.
Numerous nonnuclear weapons states also already possess LEU stockpiles, meaning
there would be nothing new about Australia’s use of this technology. And by
bringing France into AUKUS, these critics argue that the United States could also
heal the rift that the deal has caused within NATO.
The transatlantic rift is real, so this idea is worth studying. Yet there are two
problems with it. First, from a proliferation perspective, it is not actually clear that
giving a greenlight to LEU-fueled naval propulsion is really that much better in the
hands of a determined proliferator. LEU reactors have to be regularly refueled,
which provides a pretext for states to develop indigenous enrichment capabilities to
generate the needed fuel. Once a state can produce LEU, it is relatively
straightforward to further enrich it into the HEU needed for a bomb. At least with
HEU naval propulsion, the reactor core is inserted and sealed for the decades-long
life of the ship, providing no rationale for ongoing enrichment.
Second, U.S.-designed nuclear submarines are superior in performance to their

French counterparts. They are significantly larger and carry more weapons. And just
as important, U.S. nuclear submarines have a sensor suite of advanced hull-
mounted and towed arrays that dramatically improve their capabilities. Access to
these sensors—and to continuous software upgrades for them over time by U.S. labs
and industry—is part of what Australia is acquiring through the deal. France simply
cannot provide this capability. No doubt this is part of what motivated Australia to
form the deal with the Americans in the first place.
On balance, the AUKUS submarine deal is probably more likely to reduce

proliferation risks in the Indo-Pacific than increase them. The most likely cause of
future nuclear proliferation in the region stems from growing anxiety among U.S.
allies that they have to counter China on their own and that their conventional
defenses won’t suffice, thus leading them to provide for their own security with
nuclear weapons. The submarine deal with Australia helps assuage these fears by
signaling the United States’ political commitment to the region and bolstering a
critical conventional military capability. It is important not to overstate the benefits
of the agreement, but they seem more certain than its potential drawbacks.

The End of China’s Rise | Foreign Affairs
MICHAEL BECKLEY
MICHAEL BECKLEY is Associate Professor of Political Science at Tufts University and
Jeane Kirkpatrick Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Plenty of evidence supports this view. China’s GDP has risen 40-fold since 1978.
China boasts the world’s largest financial reserves, trade surplus, economy
measured by purchasing power parity, and navy measured by number of ships.
While the United States reels from a shambolic exit from Afghanistan, China is
moving aggressively to forge a Sinocentric Asia and replace Washington atop the
global hierarchy.
But if Beijing looks to be in a hurry, that’s because its rise is almost over. China’s
multidecade ascent was aided by strong tailwinds that have now become headwinds.
China’s government is concealing a serious economic slowdown and sliding back
into brittle totalitarianism. The country is suffering severe resource scarcity and
faces the worst peacetime demographic collapse in history. Not least, China is losing
access to the welcoming world that enabled its advance.
Welcome to the age of “peak China.” Beijing is a strong revisionist power that wants
to remake the world, but its time to do so is already running out. This realization
should not inspire complacency in Washington—just the opposite. Once-rising
powers frequently become aggressive when their fortunes fade and their enemies
multiply. China is tracing an arc that often ends in tragedy: a dizzying rise followed
by the specter of a hard fall.
Making a Miracle
China has been rising for so long that many observers think its ascendance is
inevitable. In fact, the past few decades of peace and prosperity are a historical
anomaly, caused by several fleeting trends.
To start, China enjoyed a mostly safe geopolitical environment and friendly relations
with the United States. For most of its modern history, China’s vulnerable location
at the hinge of Eurasia and the Pacific had condemned it to conflict and hardship.
From the First Opium War in 1839 until the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949,
imperialist powers ripped apart the country. After China unified under communist
rule in 1949, it faced extreme U.S. hostility; Beijing suffered the enmity of both
superpowers after the Sino-Soviet alliance collapsed in the 1960s. Isolated and
surrounded, China was racked by poverty and strife.
The opening to the United States in 1971 broke this pattern. Beijing suddenly had a
superpower ally. Washington warned Moscow not to attack China and fast-tracked
Beijing’s integration with the wider world. By the mid-1970s, China had a safe
homeland and access to foreign markets and capital—and the timing was perfect.
World trade surged sixfold from 1970 to 2007. China rode the momentum of
globalization and became the workshop of the world.

If Beijing looks to be in a hurry, that’s because its
rise is almost over.
It could do so because China’s government was largely committed to reform. After

Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) instituted term
limits and other checks on its top leaders. It began to reward technocratic
competence and good economic performance. Rural communities were allowed to
set up loosely regulated enterprises. Special economic zones expanded across the
country and allowed foreign businesses to operate freely. In preparation for joining
the World Trade Organization in 2001, Beijing adopted modern legal and tax
collection systems. China had the right package of policies to thrive in an open
world.
China also had the right kind of population. It experienced the greatest demographic
dividend in modern history. In the first decade of this century, it boasted ten
working-age adults for every senior citizen. The average is closer to five for most
major economies.
That demographic advantage was the fortuitous result of wild policy fluctuations. In
the 1950s and 1960s, the CCP encouraged women to have many children to boost a
population decimated by warfare and famine. The population surged 80 percent in
30 years. But in the late 1970s, Beijing pumped the brakes, limiting each family to
one child. As a result, in the 1990s and in the early years of this century, China had a
massive workforce with relatively few seniors or children to care for. No population
has ever been better poised for productivity.
China did not need much outside help to supply its citizens with food and water and
its industries with most raw materials. Easy access to these resources, plus cheap
labor and weak environmental protections, made it an industrial powerhouse.
Reversal of Fortunes
But once-in-an-epoch bonanzas don’t last forever. For the past decade, advantages
that once helped the country soar have become liabilities dragging it down.
For starters, China is running out of resources. Half of its rivers have disappeared,
and pollution has left 60 percent of its groundwater—by the government’s own
admission—“unfit for human contact.” Breakneck development has made it the
world’s largest net energy importer. Food security is deteriorating: China has
destroyed 40 percent of its farmland through overuse and become the world’s
largest importer of agricultural products. Partly owing to resource scarcity, growth
is becoming very expensive: China must invest three times as much capital to
generate growth as it did in the early years of this century, an increase far greater
than one might expect as any economy matures.
China is also running out of people, thanks to the legacy of the one-child policy.
Between 2020 and 2035, China will lose roughly 70 million working-age adults and
gain 130 million senior citizens. That’s a France-sized population of consumers,
taxpayers, and workers gone—and a Japan-sized population of pensioners added—
in 15 years. From 2035 to 2050, China will lose an additional 105 million workers
and gain another 64 million seniors. The economic consequences will be dire.
Current projections suggest that age-related spending must triple by 2050, from ten

percent to 30 percent of GDP. For perspective, all of China’s government spending
currently totals about 30 percent of GDP.
Dealing with these problems will be especially difficult because China is now ruled
by a dictator who consistently sacrifices economic efficiency for political power.
Private firms generate most of the country’s wealth, yet under President Xi Jinping,
private firms are starved of capital. Instead, inefficient state-owned enterprises
receive 80 percent of government loans and subsidies. China’s boom was
spearheaded by local entrepreneurs, but Xi’s anticorruption campaign has scared
local leaders from engaging in economic experimentation. His government has
essentially outlawed negative economic news, making smart reforms nearly
impossible, while a wave of politically driven regulations has squelched innovation.
As China has become more assertive and authoritarian, the world has become less
conducive to Chinese growth. Beijing has faced thousands of new trade barriers
since the 2008 financial crisis. Most of the world’s largest economies are walling off
their telecommunications networks from Chinese influence. Australia, India, Japan,
and other countries are looking to cut China out of their supply chains.
ECONOMIC QUAGMIRE
With the end of its four-decade holiday from history, China now faces two trends—
slowing growth and strategic encirclement—that spell the end of its rise.
Owing to its accumulating problems, the Chinese economy has entered the most
protracted slowdown of the post-Mao era. China’s official GDP growth rate dropped
from 15 percent in 2007 to six percent in 2019, before COVID-19 dragged growth
down to a little over two percent in 2020. Even those figures are
overstated: rigorous studies show that China’s actual growth rate could be as low as
half the government-listed figure.
Worse still, most of China’s GDP growth since 2008 has resulted from the
government’s force-feeding capital through the economy. Subtract stimulus
spending and China’s economy is hardly growing at all. Productivity, the key
ingredient for wealth creation, declined ten percent between 2010 and 2019—the
worst drop-off in a great power since the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
For the past decade, advantages that once helped

China soar have become liabilities dragging it
down.
The indications of this unproductive growth are ubiquitous. China has more than 50
ghost cities—urban centers with highways and houses but not people. Almost two-
thirds of China’s infrastructure projects will never recoup the costs of their
construction. The result, unsurprisingly, is out-of-control debt. China’s total debt
jumped eightfold between 2008 and 2019. We know how this story ends: with
investment-led bubbles that collapse into prolonged slumps. In Japan, excessive
lending resulted in three lost decades of negligible growth. In the United States, it
caused the Great Recession. Given the size of China’s debt mountain, its downturn
could be even worse. The problems that the massively indebted Chinese property
developer Evergrande is now experiencing may simply be signs of things to come.

The party isn’t admitting defeat: Xi hopes to renew rapid growth through
technological innovation, and R & D spending has tripled since 2006. Yet these
efforts have failed to boost productivity, and China still accounts for small shares of
global markets in most high-tech industries. The main reason is that China’s top-
down R & D system, although excellent at mobilizing resources, stifles the open flow
of information and capital necessary for sustained innovation. The ongoing political
clampdown, by incentivizing intellectual conformity, will compound the problem.
Beijing has, for example, spent tens of billions of dollars on a domestic microchip
industry yet still relies on imports for 80 percent of the country’s computing needs.
China threw tens of billions of dollars into biotech, yet its COVID-19 vaccines can’t
compete with those produced in democratic countries. Innovation won’t save China
from slowing growth. And that slump will shake the system as another threat—
strategic encirclement—closes in.
Ring of Fire
Eurasia has often been a deathtrap for aspiring hegemons: there are too many
nearby enemies that can make common cause with offshore superpowers. For
almost 40 years, a rising China avoided strategic encirclement by downplaying its
global ambitions and maintaining friendly relations with the United States. But that
period is over. As Beijing has become more aggressive in the South China Sea, the
Taiwan Strait, and elsewhere, it has engendered hostility nearly all around.
Over the past five years, the United States has abandoned engagement and
embraced neo-containment. Washington has carried out its largest naval and
missile expansion in a generation, imposed its most aggressive tariffs since World
War II, and implemented its tightest restrictions on foreign investment since the
Cold War—all directed at China. Arms sales and military support to frontline states
have increased; U.S. technological sanctions are threatening to destroy Huawei and
other Chinese firms. In 2021, China’s deputy foreign minister complained that “a
whole-of-government and whole-of-society campaign is being waged to bring China
down.”
Xi Jinping will wonder whether he can deliver on

his grandiose pledges. And that’s when the world
should get really worried.
The United States’ turn against China has contributed to a broader backlash against
Beijing’s power. In Northeast Asia, Taiwan has become more determined than ever
to maintain its de facto independence, and the government has approved a bold new
defense strategy that could make the island extremely hard to conquer. Japan has
agreed to cooperate closely with the United States to fend off Chinese aggression in
the region. Through its own belligerence, Beijing has given the U.S.-Japanese
alliance an explicitly anti-China cast.
The countries around the South China Sea are also starting to hedge against China.
Vietnam is acquiring mobile shore-based missiles, Russian attack submarines, new
fighter aircraft, and surface ships armed with advanced cruise missiles. Singapore
has quietly become a significant U.S. military partner. Indonesia increased its
defense spending 20 percent in 2020 and another 21 percent in 2021. Even the
Philippines, which courted China for most of President Rodrigo Duterte’s term, is
now reiterating its claims in the South China Sea and ramping up air and naval
patrols.
China’s ambitions are provoking a response beyond East Asia, too, from Australia to
India to Europe. Everywhere Beijing is pushing, a growing cast of rivals is pushing
back. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue—a strategic partnership that includes
Australia, India, Japan, and the United States—has emerged as a focal point of anti-
China cooperation among the most powerful democracies in the Indo-Pacific. The
new AUKUS (Australia–United Kingdom–United States) alliance unites the core of
the Anglosphere against Beijing. The United States is forging overlapping mini-
coalitions to ensure that advanced democracies stay ahead in key technologies,
while the G-7 and NATO are staking out tougher positions on Taiwan and other
issues. To be sure, counter-China cooperation remains a work in progress, because
many countries still rely on trade with Beijing. But these interlocking partnerships
could eventually form a noose around Beijing’s neck.
Flaming Out
China is a risen power, not a rising one: it has acquired formidable geopolitical
capabilities, but its best days are behind it. That distinction matters, because China
has staked out vaulting ambitions and now may not be able to achieve them without
drastic action. The CCP aims to reclaim Taiwan, dominate the western Pacific, and
spread its influence around the globe. Xi has declared that China seeks a “future
where we will win the initiative and have the dominant position.” Yet that dream is
starting to slip away, as growth slows and China faces an increasingly hostile world.
That may seem like good news for Washington: the chances of China effortlessly
sprinting past the United States are low. But it’s not entirely reassuring. As China’s
problems take hold, the future will look menacing for Beijing. The specter of
stagnation will haunt CCP officials. Xi Jinping will wonder whether he can deliver
on his grandiose pledges. And that’s when the world should get really worried.
China’s leaders are determined to move fast

because they are running out of time.
Revisionist powers tend to become most dangerous when the gap between their
ambitions and their capabilities starts to look unmanageable. When a dissatisfied
power’s strategic window begins to close, even a low-probability lunge for victory
may seem better than a humiliating descent. When authoritarian leaders worry that
geopolitical decline will destroy their political legitimacy, desperation often follows.
For example, Germany waged World War I to prevent its hegemonic aspirations
from being crushed by a British-Russian-French entente; Japan started World War
II in Asia to prevent the United States from choking off its empire.
China today checks many worrying boxes. Slowing growth? Check. Strategically
encircled? Check. Brutal authoritarian regime with few sources of organic
legitimacy? Check. Historical axe to grind and revanchist ambitions? Check and
check. In fact, China is already engaging in the practices—the relentless military
buildup, the search for spheres of influence in Asia and beyond, the effort to control
critical technologies and resources—to be expected from a country in its position. If
there is a formula for aggression by a peaking power, China exhibits the key
elements.
Many observers believe China is throwing its weight around today because it is so
confident in its continued ascent. Xi certainly appears to think that COVID-19 and
political instability in the United States have created new possibilities to advance.
But the more likely—and much scarier—possibility is that China’s leaders are
determined to move fast because they are running out of time. What happens when
a country that wants to reorder the world concludes it might not be able to do so
peacefully? Both history and China’s current behavior suggest the answer is:
Nothing good.
NATIONAL+ OPINIONS SECTION

Time of peril | Dawn Opinion
Maleeha Lodhi
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK & UN.
MUCH of the international community saw the Trump years as deeply destabilising
for the world. The former US president acted not just irresponsibly and
unpredictably but was intensely divisive both for his country and the world. His
brand of populism was infused by xenophobic and racist views with his ‘America
First’ slogan shaping his unilateralist foreign policy. At home he mainstreamed and
emboldened the far right, fringe extremist groups and white supremacists who have
become an enduring part of the American political landscape.
The world watched in horror when Trump refused to accept the results of the
November 2020 presidential election, declined to cooperate in the transfer of power
and incited a violent mob to storm Congress to prevent it from certifying the
election result. This was followed by his historic impeachment (dethroning) on the
charge of “incitement of insurrection”, becoming the only president to be impeached
twice.
Bob Woodward’s new book, Peril, co-authored with Robert Costa, chronicles these
dramatic events and much more. It is the third in his trilogy, the first two being Fear
and Rage about Trump’s turbulent time in office.
Woodward writes the ultimate ‘insider’ accounts about American presidents, politics
and foreign policy. His 2010 book Obama’s War has lost little of its relevance, and is
worth revisiting after America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. It shines a
light on the internal ‘wars’, policy rifts and personality clashes in the Obama
administration over the course to follow in America’s longest war. The policy
muddle and strategic flaws in Washington’s approach to Afghanistan are
persuasively recounted based on authoritative sources.
His new book is just as compelling. The most sensational disclosure for which it
received much pre-publication publicity is how the senior-most US military officer
assured his Chinese counterpart that America wasn’t about to attack his country
given the alarm both in China and elsewhere that an increasingly unhinged (crazy)
Trump might “go rogue” and order a military strike. This episode forms the book’s
prologue. Another chapter describes this in more detail as also Gen Mark Milley’s
conversation with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, during
which she sought assurances that Trump would be prevented from any reckless
course including resort to nuclear weapons.
A compelling new book chronicles the dramatic

events that almost pushed America over the
edge.
These disclosures triggered intense controversy which echoed in

recent Congressional hearings on Afghanistan when Milley, chairman of the joint
chiefs of staff, was asked if they were true. He acknowledged he made two calls to
Gen Li Zoucheng of PLA, one before and another after the election, because the
Chinese were worried about a US attack. But he said this with the knowledge of top
Trump officials and also because he was mandated to ensure “strategic stability”. As
for the conversation with Pelosi he told lawmakers he had “sought to assure her that
nuclear launch is governed by a very specific and deliberate process”. He also
acknowledged he had been interviewed by Woodward. In fact, the book seems to
rely heavily on Milley’s accounts of events. He was among more than 200 people
interviewed by the authors.
The book’s short chapters go back and forth between Trump’s erratic conduct and
Biden mulling over whether to run for the White House a third time and how he
wanted his family to make that call given the many tragedies it had faced. Several
chapters offer vignettes (description) of both men in the eventful days leading up to
the election and insights into how they ran their campaigns. Trump’s attempts and
failure to challenge and delegitimise the election is also dealt with in great detail.
The role of US military chiefs looms large in the treatment of Trump’s reaction to
the protests against racism that erupted after the death of George Floyd in police
custody. They resisted and foiled (prevented) his attempt to deploy troops on the
streets and deal with demonstrations by invoking the Insurrection Act.
The Jan 6 violent assault on the US Capitol is described by an almost minute by

minute account. Days after the attack, Milley, says the book, noted in his daily dairy:
“Big Threat: Domestic terrorism.” He identified the attackers as far right militias,
extreme Tea Party and new Brown Shirts, a US version of the paramilitary wing of
the Nazi party. And he concluded it was a planned revolution. In fact, US security
agencies had been warning earlier — this is not mentioned in the book — that armed
white supremist groups had emerged among the most lethal threats to the country.
In Congressional testimony in October 2019, the FBI director had revealed that
“racially motivated violent extremism”, principally from white supremacists,
represented “the majority of domestic terrorism threats”. It is these groups that
Trump encouraged.
Biden review of Afghanistan Policy:
Readers in Pakistan will be most interested in Chapter 60 which deals with Biden’s
review of Afghan policy. This goes over familiar ground of how as vice president he
opposed Obama’s troop surge. Now as president he wanted to hear a range of views
on this although everyone knew he wanted since 2009 to end US involvement in
Afghanistan. In two months, there were 25 National Security Council meetings
among others in one of “the most wide-ranged policy reviews ever held”.
Biden was “determined not to be jammed” by the military as Obama had been. This
chapter has him asking a series of key questions — had the US not long gone beyond
its original aim to defeat Al Qaeda? Was the nature of threat such as to require
keeping thousands of troops there? The answer came in his decision to completely
pull out and end America’s ‘forever’ war. The book claims that the Pentagon and
Nato ministers argued for a slower “gated” withdrawal to provide leverage for
diplomatic efforts for a political settlement. But when Secretary of State Antony
Blinken proposed a delayed pullout to the Taliban in Doha they rejected it and
warned that if this happened, they would attack US forces and provincial capitals.
Biden then stuck to his decision and “seemed at peace” with it. And the rest, as they
say, is history.

Police reforms | Dawn Opinion
Maria Taimur
The writer is a police officer.
GOVERNANCE models are undergoing transitions across the world and policing is
no different. In the latter context, police-public relations are constantly being
debated. Although community policing covers the force’s relations with the public,
reforms in policing inevitably set the tone and pace for police-community
interaction.
‘Police reforms’ is the buzzword (key word/issue) these days. From Asia to America,
the role and position of police is being continuously redefined. A discussion on the
topic is not out of place because traditional crime is mutating into crime through
technology. Crime and criminality are taking a new shape and keeping pace with the
advancement in gadgets and technology. Hundreds of years ago, human mobility
and the flow of information were slow. Criminal behaviour has always taken
advantage of the progress of the times.
There are essentially two dimensions to police reform;
▪ One focuses on internal systemic changes which affect the efficiency,

performance and transparency of the system.
▪ The other covers expectations regarding public service delivery and

accountability. As all police organisations tread their unique paths of
evolution, the paradigm of internal reform gives them more power to harness
change from within.
This new approach to reforming the criminal justice system enables the police
leadership to engage with methods which save time and increase efficiency in
performance. Wherever technology has been employed for service delivery in

policing, it has helped simplify processes and ensured easier access to a number of
services. For instance, the process of acquiring character certificates or driving
licences, for Pakistanis in the country as well as abroad, is less cumbersome now.
Technology-led policing is also needed to predict crime. Most technology, if

employed, is currently being used for tracing and detecting crimes already
committed. Police officers must shift their focus to controlling crime and disorder —
scientifically.
Evidence-based policing:
In fact, to prevent crime, a new discipline has been evolving since 2008: evidence-
based policing. It is an approach that helps policymaking and tactical decision-
making in police departments. The main emphasis is on statistical analyses,
empirical research and randomised controlled trials with a view to adopting data-
driven policing methods. Evidence can be used in a number of ways from enforcing
laws to preventing crimes.
▪ This led the British Home Office to establish the College of Policing in 2012
and make use of crime reduction toolkits. Data is collected and analysed at the
Centre for Crime Reduction and evidence-based policing decisions are made at
the policy and tactical level. These can range from the effectiveness of CCTV
cameras and hotspot policing to neighbourhood watch, victim-offender
mediations and mass media campaigns. If there is evidence that the
intervention works, the practice continues; if it does little to bring down crime
levels, the practice is discontinued.
In Pakistan’s context:
Fortunately, Pakistan police has been able to instal an evidence-based policing

system in a few cities in line with the ‘safe city’ concept. With this progressive
model, evidence-based policing appears to be the logical next move to bring the
police nearer to their goal of crime prevention. Research and development units can
be utilised to process data so that policy decision-making can take its cue from the
available evidence.
Apart from its modern character, evidence-based policing is cost-effective. A lot of

time, energy and resources can be saved by applying its principles to criminology. It
offers a practical solution to the need to balance out public safety, community
service needs, available funds and taxpayer expectations. It is a brilliant blend of
science and community policing to control crime and disorder.
An added advantage is that instead of completely overhauling the system, which

would be tedious and time-consuming, such evidence-based interventions can help
achieve bigger results. Most internal police reforms are embedded in policy
decisions and business processes and evidence-based policing can bring about
positive change.
Change that is rooted in research positively impacts the outcomes of police work. It
is needed to implement guidelines and assess processes, units and officers. Constant
evaluation of police operations, mainly gaps and failures, in the recent past and in
the present is imperative because it can connect research-based strategies to
improve public safety outcomes, permitting the police to move beyond a reactive,
response-driven approach and be smarter about crime control.

Dr James Martin, author of The Meaning of the 21st Century, believes that just like
fire-proof cities were built in the 20th century, terrorism- and crime-proof cities will
be built in the 21st century. To this end, evidence-based policing opens up a vast
horizon of possibilities to look forward to and work upon.

Biden’s contain-China strategy | Dawn
Opinion
Maleeha Lodhi
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, Octob
ADDRESSING the UN General Assembly last month, President Joe Biden promised
a new era of “relentless diplomacy” and renewed US commitment to multilateralism
that his predecessor so disdainfully (scornfully) rejected. In his first foreign policy
speech since the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden declared that US
military power would now be an option of last and not first resort. He called for
international cooperation to meet common challenges and pledged to work with
allies. He also said the US was “not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into
rigid blocs.”
Welcome assertions that contrasted sharply with the blustering rhetoric of President
Donald Trump. But the Biden administration’s actions have been at odds with many
of these words. Both policy towards China and Washington’s treatment of allies
have not been consistent with these pronouncements (announcement). Consider
what happened on the heels of the US departure from Afghanistan. As if to swiftly
make good on the promise to pivot to bigger challenges — ie China — Washington
forged a new trilateral security pact with the UK and Australia named AUKUS. The
coalition’s aim is to counter Chinese power in the Asia Pacific region by assisting
Australia to build eight nuclear-powered submarines equipped with Tomahawk
missiles.
This effort at enhancing Australia’s naval power to challenge China’s military

ascendancy in the western Pacific met a sharp response from Beijing. Accusing
AUKUS nations of an “outdated zero-sum Cold War mentality”, Beijing denounced
the move as “irresponsible” and said it would “undermine regional peace and
security and intensify the arms race”. To be sure this deal is consequential for the
international non-proliferation regime. As former IAEA official Tariq Rauf recently
wrote, “it could well open up a Pandora’s box of proliferation with non-nuclear-

weapon states also going in for nuclear-powered submarines and keeping nuclear
fuel outside the scope of IAEA safeguards”.
The world’s most consequential relationship is

drifting into uncharted waters in a fraught
environment.
The immediate diplomatic fallout from the deal was a rift among America’s allies.
Paris, which was not kept in the loop and saw Australia abandon its plan to acquire
diesel-electric French submarines, reacted furiously. France’s foreign minister
described it as a “stab in the back”. While Washington sought to calm French anger
in a phone call from Biden to President Emmanuel Macron, the damage to relations
was already done. The signal sent to Europe was that the US could act as it wished
without taking allies on board. It laid bare the gap between Biden’s pledge to consult
partners and his policy steps. Building a coalition against China by AUKUS opened
up cracks in the transatlantic alliance which Biden had earlier sought to shore up for
his anti-Beijing diplomatic strategy. The security pact also made many Asean
countries nervous — their economies being closely integrated with China’s global
supply chain.
In the week following the AUKUS announcement Biden hosted a summit of Quad
leaders — US, Australia, Japan and India — in another effort to fortify an anti-China
front among regional states. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue was resuscitated
by the Trump administration in 2017 with the aim of countering China. But, as
many Western analysts pointed out, Quad has now been undercut by AUKUS. US
officials described it as non-military and “informal”. The haste with which
Washington acted after its Afghan withdrawal — perhaps to shift attention away
from that debacle — involved moves that appeared so haphazard as to leave many
allies disconcerted.
▪ For example, a former Indian foreign secretary Nirupuma Rao said there was
“a strategic ambush of Quad by AUKUS” and questioned its rationale when
Quad already existed.
The statement issued after the Quad summit committed member countries to a “free
and open Indo-Pacific”. While it never mentioned China, the meeting — and indeed
Quad itself — is focused principally on offsetting China’s rising power. The Chinese
foreign ministry spokeswoman responded to the Quad summit by cautioning the US
not to engage in “closed and exclusive small circles” while Global Times — which
reflects Beijing’s views — depicted it as an attempt to “incite disputes and
confrontation in the western Pacific”. What both the AUKUS and Quad moves have
done is to intensify US-China tensions and confirmed to Beijing that a US-led
contain-China strategy continues to unfold.
But while the Biden administration is stepping up anti-China efforts on the global
front, at home its domestic agenda has been mired in the country’s intensely
polarised environment. The irony is that while much energy is being expended
abroad Biden’s grip on his own party is being tested by two key pieces of domestic
legislation, an infrastructure bill and the social safety spending package, on which
Democratic party liberals have strong reservations. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans
who had blocked a debt limit bill came around to support stopgap legislation offered
as a last-minute compromise by the ruling party. This averted a government
shutdown and debt default but will keep government funding going only till
December. It therefore kicks the can down the road with more bruising
Congressional battles ahead.
Perhaps because of these domestic troubles Biden is adopting a more aggressive

stance towards Beijing than expected as it is on the international front that he has
greater room to manoeuvre. But he is also reflecting political consensus in the US
for a tougher posture towards Beijing. For their part, Chinese officials see little to
distinguish between Trump and Biden’s policies on China. On trade their approach
is identical as Trump-era tariffs remain intact. Chinese leaders have repeatedly
warned the US against engaging in a Cold War and see the Biden administration
pursuing a strategy of ‘confrontational competition’.
▪ In September when President Biden had his first phone conversation with
President Xi Jinping in seven months the Chinese leader is reported to have
declined Biden’s suggestion for a summit meeting, insisting that the US first
dial down its belligerent rhetoric and improve the atmosphere for such
engagement.
China’s interest nonetheless lies in steadying (unfaltering) rocky relations as it has

much to lose from prolonged confrontation. But in the face of a tough US posture, it
has little option but to push back which it is doing ever more vigorously. All this
indicates more turbulence ahead for the world’s most consequential relationship as
it drifts into uncharted waters in a geostrategic environment that is already so
unsettled.

After the amnesty | Dawn Opinion
Huma Yusuf
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
AFTER all the brutality and bloodshed, an amnesty is in the offing (likely to
happen). Much has already been written about the moral dubiousness and
clumsiness of the government’s plans to re-engage and potentially pardon the TTP.
Let’s for a moment assume that such an amnesty could work, and a core of the TTP
is rehabilitated (restore to good reputation). What would happen next?
An amnesty process would further mainstream and legitimise the TTP’s extremist
viewpoints, creating an even more conducive environment for hardline jihadist
perspectives, and all but eliminating public space and protections for women,
minorities and progressive or dissenting positions. At the same time, hard-line
militants who do not participate in the amnesty will be pushed out to a further
extreme.
And such splintering is inevitable. The TTP is a militant Frankenstein (monster)

comprising numerous sub-groups; since July 2020 it has absorbed around eight
disparate outfits. Not all of these will want to reconcile with the Pakistani state.
Global jihadi trends over the past two decades, including in our region, show that
the future of militancy is ‘glocal’. Centralised groups such as Al Qaeda and IS have
been dismantled, and replaced by ever-proliferating, increasingly localised outfits
that effectively marry high-level jihadi narratives with grassroots political
grievances. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which began as a Syrian incarnation of Al Qaeda,
rebranded and began to focus on political dynamics within the Idlib province. It is
now a key political influencer, reportedly receiving Turkish support.
Persistent hyper-local violence will become the

norm.
The mainstreaming of regional groups such as the Afghan Taliban and TTP, will lead
to further entrenchment of splinter outfits that exploit niche social divides, whether
sectarian, ethnic, linguistic or driven by geopolitics. The variety of issues that these
splinter groups will champion (anti-Hazara, anti-China, anti-secular education, etc)
will ensure that disgruntled (disappointed) or aspiring militants have vast choice
when seeking group affiliation. Indeed, global trends indicate that splintering and
localisation increases militancy levels; experts estimate that there are four times as
many jihadis in the world today than there were on Sept 11, 2001.
All this will unfold against a backdrop ripe for jihadi recruitment. A burgeoning
(quickly spreading) youth population confronting resource scarcity linked to climate
change — particularly hapless agricultural labour wondering how to survive as land
productivity declines — growing socioeconomic inequality, mass labour deskilling,
and more cultural conflict is likely to find the certain ideology (and financial
incentives) of militancy attractive.
Proponents of an amnesty for TTP will no doubt cite the group’s 2018 decision to
change targeting guidelines, minimising attacks against civilians and instead
focusing on strategic targets. But the list of legitimate targets is still long,
encompassing state security forces and members of the political elite and judiciary.
It is unclear (and unlikely) that non-mainstreamed TTP splinters would adhere to
these guidelines. They will also either engage in conflict with each other, or build
alliances and pool resources.
In all scenarios, persistent hyper-local violence, which our prime minister has
dismissed as ‘just a spate of attacks’, will become the norm. But such a norm is not
sustainable. It highlights poor governance and the state’s weakness, and fuels more
grievances that exacerbate violence.
There is also no guarantee that post-amnesty militant violence will remain low-level.
Writing in the CTC Sentinel, Colin Clarke analyses militant groups’ interest in
cutting-edge technologies. He looks ahead to a future in which violent extremists
use printed 3-D explosives, weaponised drones, driverless car bombs, and bio-
weapons, all paid for with cryptocurrency.
▪ A recent Brookings report argues that Pakistan’s nukes are well protected
against militant groups, but other vulnerabilities exist, particularly connected
to energy. Moreover, with some part of the TTP mainstreamed, fringe groups
will be compelled to seek out attention-grabbing, legitimacy-building tactics.
In any event, Pakistan cannot be complacent at the prospect of an ever-rumbling

militant threat. There are consequences in the form of political and economic
isolation, lack of investment, and even sanctions. Last week, merely the distant (and
unlikely) possibility of sanctions in the form of a US bill calling to examine
Pakistan’s role in the Taliban victory in Afghanistan led to plummeting stocks and
the rupee hitting a historic low.
Clarke also points to a future in which localised, violent extremist groups

increasingly merge with the state, citing the example of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and
warning of a “morphing into hybrid entities with political, military, social, cultural,
and economic responsibilities”. This would no doubt be the future of a rehabilitated
TTP. Do we want to live with that?

The growing Taliban challenge | Dawn
Opinion
Muhammad Amir Rana
The writer is a security analyst.
THE reported upsurge in the TTP’s terrorist violence in Pakistan in recent months
has coincided with the Afghan Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August. While
there are fears of a further escalation in terrorist violence, the real challenge lies in
the persisting shades of religious extremism which have the potential to complicate
the country’s security and political landscape.
Afghan issue: Implications for Pakistan
The Afghan situation will have multiple implications for Pakistan in terms of
insecurity and militancy, cross-border terrorism, refugees’ influx, and economic
instability. That is what makes it imperative for Pakistan to continue supporting the
Afghan peace process through influencing the Afghan Taliban to enter intra-Afghan
negotiations and work towards the formation of an inclusive government. Although
Pakistan is confident it can deal with the possible fallout of the Afghan conflict in
terms of security and violence, an unstable and violence-prone Afghanistan will
certainly encourage violent radical and extremist narratives and movements in
Pakistan, which will not be easy to deal with.
Pakistan’s religious landscape is fertile for radical ideologies. As the moderates

struggle to make themselves relevant in society, the clergy declares them
‘innovators’ or biddati, who, they say, reject the traditional tenets of the religion.
The clergy in Pakistan is largely literalist in its understanding of religion and takes
pride in being the so-called custodian of tradition. A literalist mind sees the world
through very narrow lenses. Although such a mindset is not healthy for the legal,
jurisprudential and academic discourse of religion, more worryingly when it
becomes a political stakeholder it tends to absorb radical tendencies easily.
The Afghan Taliban are literalists too, and continue to inspire like-minded militant
and religious political actors especially in Pakistan. This is happening across the
sectarian divide. The Taliban victory has apparently made them a role model for
Deobandi, Barelvi, Ahle Hadith, and even Shia religio-political parties.
▪ One must recall the happenings of the late 1990s to understand how the
Taliban were then inspiring religious groups in Pakistan. Following in the
Taliban’s footsteps, a banned sectarian outfit Sipah-i-Sahaba launched a
campaign to enforce Sharia rule in district Jhang. The Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam
and Jamaat-i-Islami had adopted aggressive and threatening postures. A
movement for the enforcement of the Sharia began in certain tribal agencies. A
religious leader from district Chakwal had announced a ‘death or Sharia’
campaign and started a march towards Islamabad. Jihadi groups were
glorifying militancy on campuses and in the streets. The banned Jamaatud
Dawa was running a successful campaign on media. Local ‘Sharia courts’
mushroomed with militant groups providing ‘speedy justice’ to the people.
Then 9/11 happened.
One can argue that the situation is completely different now: the militants are not
on the horizon; the state has eliminated ungoverned spaces; and sectarian groups
are under control. But what is important to note is that radical and extremist
tendencies persist in religious segments. Certain groups may have been weakened,
but their ideology is still nurturing toxic narratives in society. The clergy still
controls a vast network of religious schools and generates financial resources to
further expand the madressah network, apart from cultivating a political support
base.
The perilous situation of Madressah and its students:
One institution and one issue will continue haunting the security establishment in
the country. The institution is that of the madressah, which has undergone a huge
transformation over the last 20 years. The issue is that of ‘blasphemy’ which
multiple religious actors will continue to exploit in order to gain power and keep the
pressure on the state and state functionaries. The madressah provides ideological,
logistical, and political support to like-minded political and powerful state actors.
However, a sense of resentment is increasing among madressah graduates, because

of market dynamics. Not every madressah graduate can be accommodated in a
mosque or madressah. The formal education sector is their top priority, where they
have bagged a major job share, but the number of graduates is increasing, and the
education sector cannot employ them all. On the other hand, the religious elite,
which comprises the leaderships of madressahs, religious groups and religio-
political parties, is getting richer and is influential in social and political domains.
This paradoxical trend is triggering anti-establishment sentiments among the new
madressah generations. The Taliban takeover emerges as an alternative model for
them to vent their anger.
The religious leadership has created an impression that the state institutions are
under the influence of foreign forces and secular lobbies and have compromised on
the issue of protection of the honour of the Prophet (PBUH). Though the prime
minister and the heads of other institutions have raised this issue on several
international forums and are trying to sensitise it at various levels, these attempts
haven’t proved fruitful and religious groups, particularly the banned Tehreek-i-
Labbaik Pakistan remain suspicious about such efforts. The TLP and similar groups
think that a Taliban-style government can force the international community to take
strict action against the blasphemous attempts of individuals.
The Taliban victory has increased the confidence of religious groups and encouraged
the madressah generations. Any blasphemous act anywhere can trigger anger both
in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban want to consolidate their rule and they
will exploit it to the maximum extent. The religious groups in Pakistan will be more
aggressive and will follow what the Taliban do in Afghanistan.
State institutions are discussing the issue and may be worried about the
implications of the Taliban victory for Pakistan. However, any plan to deal with the
situation is still missing. But till now the state has been tolerating the group for
many years overlooking domestic and international concerns. The disadvantage of
the approach is that religious groups seek legitimacy and political power through
such responses. On the other hand, state institutions have been harping on the same

argument of ‘narratives’ and ‘counter-narratives’ without offering a real-world
solution to problems related to extremism.
Wayforward:
A critical challenge is emerging ahead and the Afghan Taliban’s white flags, which
were raised at Jamia Hafsa recently in the federal capital, were just one sign of the
danger ahead.

Of colonialism and nationalism | Dawn
Opinion
Jawed Naqvi
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
WERE the choice to be one between nationalism and internationalism many would
have had no hesitation to support and own the latter for a host of sound reasons.
However, the current defining stand-off shaping up between China and US-led allies
tends to take away the choice of internationalism as an option. The battle here is
between strident (extreme) nationalism and an anachronistically robust colonialism.
Chinese nationalism is bad, to put the prevailing argument on its head, because it
covets culturally and linguistically the Chinese inhabited island of Taiwan as
historically its own. By the same bizarre logic, British colonialism is deemed to be
agreeable for laying claim to and going to war over distant islands that should have
struck more cultural and political kinship with their Argentinian neighbours than
with the Anglo-Saxon occupiers residing 8,000 miles across the Atlantic.
Argentinians called the cluster of islands Malvinas, the British preferred the name
Falkland.
In a similar vein, another offshoot of colonial Britain’s control of distant and varied
real estate is the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, which legally, historically
speaking, belongs to Mauritius, but has been occupied since decades by the US
military, a close UK ally, as one of its most crucial bases around the planet.
Mauritius wants Diego Garcia back, and has even offered to let it be used by the
current occupants on a 99-year lease. The US won’t hear of it. Countries like India
have traditionally supported the island’s return to Mauritius.

Now, given New Delhi’s newly minted anti-Chinese worldview and its embrace of
the US-led Quad with Japan and Australia as other partners, it remains to be seen
how it balances the yawning contradiction between diplomatic morality and
domestic expediency.
What are the bald facts about Taiwan’s China claim? Cutting through its ownership
under various Chinese dynasties, it was colonised by the Japanese before it was
returned to China in 1945, only to become the base for the Kuomintang after Mao’s
revolution. In 1979, the US switched its loyalty to the People’s Republic of China as
part of intensified efforts to isolate the USSR, which was not different from the way
it has wooed India in the post-Cold War era to counter China.
What lies ahead in the stand-off between the US-

led alliance and a resurgent China is too early to
tell.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been talking of China’s penchant (liking)
for expansionism without naming the country, rightly or wrongly, but what did
Margaret Thatcher call the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands? She called it
‘Operation Goa’. What was the implication in that for India? Simply, that India’s
annexation of Goa under Nehru was as out of line as Argentina’s invasion of the
Falklands. India calls the 1961 event ‘Liberation of Goa’.
The dubious factors behind the Falklands war were not dissimilar to the reasons
spurring American policy towards China, currently. Both Mrs Thatcher and
Argentinian military ruler Leopoldo Galtieri were running up terribly poor grades
on the popularity chart. In Britain, there were serious moves within the
Conservative leadership to evict Mrs Thatcher. She was simply unpopular. Galtieri
was similarly desperate to improve his ratings at home. By an error of judgment, the
military conflict became a competition between the two contestants to improve their
domestic popularity, which had otherwise slipped for both for entirely unrelated
factors.
The US role in the Falklands conflict has been less discussed. It was the solidarity of
the Five Eyes — the espionage club of five English-speaking countries — that
prompted the US to give up on Argentina, an ally who it had helped set up a military
establishment. Galtieri was a guest at the White House as one who had helped the
US in Nicaragua. And then, quietly, he was abandoned.
According to a report by Michael Getler in the Washington Post, the US Navy was
not opposed to lending Britain an aircraft carrier during the “1982 campaign to
retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina if the Royal Navy lost either of its two
carriers”. This fact should interest policymakers in India and Pakistan, particularly
the fact that the US can drop allies like a hot potato.
Pentagon officials decided to speak after The Economist broke the story. According
to the magazine, the campaign “could not have been mounted, let alone won,
without American help”.
▪ According to the WP story, “Pentagon confirmed many of the details in the

report, including the fact that the United States repositioned a spy satellite,
using up scarce fuel and thus shortening the satellite’s life in space, from its

Soviet-watching orbit in the northern hemisphere to a place over the South
Atlantic where it could provide intelligence to the British fleet.”
Apparently, US intelligence, which did not rely merely on satellites, might have
made “the key difference between winning and losing because the Argentine attacks
on the Royal Navy would have been even more effective if the British had not had
the information”. It is this information-sharing club of English-speaking countries
that has been revived despite the political cost.
The somersault (forward bloc) in foreign policy was not America’s preserve alone.
Mrs Thatcher was initially planning to hand over Falklands to Argentina as part of
her plan to pare down the military budget. “To Argentina’s military junta, the British
government was patently eager to dispose of the Falklands,” wrote The Guardian.
“When the plan was mauled in the Commons and talks stalled, the invitation to the
Argentinian junta to imitate India’s seizure of Goa in 1961 was irresistible. The
invasion was named Operation Goa.”
As Thatcher was perceived to have failed to defend the islands from a surprise attack
by Argentina, she knew disaster was imminent. “She faced humiliation and possible
resignation. Overnight she came into her own, changing from a Chamberlain to a
Churchill.”
Future likelihood:
What lies ahead in the stand-off between the US-led alliance and a resurgent China
is too early to tell. What is evident is that the shaping event is full of feigned
morality while it is actually rooted in a sordid past, one that refuses to pass into
history anytime soon. We know that sordid past as colonialism.

Beyond amnesties | Dawn Opinion
Owen Bennett-Jones
The writer is author of The Bhutto Dynasty: The Struggle for Power in Pakistan.
THE vast majority of Pakistanis would agree with these statements: people who are
supposed to pay tax should do so. There is too much corruption in Pakistan. Violent
jihadism has caused unjustified suffering.
And yet it is not quite as simple as it seems. For example, many liberals who
strongly oppose violent jihadists and their enablers don’t pay their taxes. ‘Why
should I?’ they say, ‘what does the state do for me?’ Equally, many nationalist
bureaucrats who have some ideological sympathy with the violent jihadists are
corrupt: ‘Why should everyone else be allowed to make money while I have to
survive on a meagre salary?’ they argue.
Pakistan’s deep state atrocities:
But there is one group of people who are not really bothered by any of the three
issues. Tax evaders, corrupt politicians and violent jihadists all know they can
always do a deal with the hidden mechanics of Pakistan’s deep state — the men in
the shadows whose capacity to cut deals enables them to engineer so much of what
goes on in Pakistani society. The men who see corruption not so much as a crime
but an opportunity. Because when people — especially popular politicians — are
corrupt, it gives the deep state a lever. The same goes for tax evaders. And as for
violent jihadists, they know full well that they can get away with murder — literally
— if it serves the state’s purpose.
The recent talk of an amnesty for the TTP highlights the tendency of the Pakistan
state to think that if you let people off a crime, they will see the light and mend their
ways. After all, in recent years there have been amnesties for murderers (remember
the NRO), corrupt politicians, tax evaders, multiple passport holders and now the
organisation that fought the army and caused tens of thousands of deaths, the TTP.
The rich and powerful may go to jail but not
because they’ve broken the law.
The argument against these amnesties is obvious: why would anyone obey the law if
they think there is a reasonable chance that within a short period of time the
government will roll over and announce an amnesty?
But in a sense these amnesties are the least of Pakistani problems. The biggest factor
in undermining the rule of law on Pakistan is that even in periods when there is not
an amnesty in place, laws are still not enforced. As everyone in Pakistan knows, the
allocation of punishments is not determined by an individual’s degree of
wrongdoing but rather on the basis of how powerful they are and how much wealth
they have to distribute. That’s not to say the rich and powerful never go to prison.
They do — but they do so not because they have broken the law but because they are
in a power struggle with another element of the state.
Nationalist defenders of Pakistan have an answer to these arguments. They portray

themselves as the victim of an unreasonable and malign information campaign.
‘Why single us out?’ they complain. ‘All legal systems are faulty.’ Actually, that’s not
quite right. Most would probably say: ‘Why single us out? The West’s legal systems
are also faulty’, overlooking the blindingly obvious fact that the Chinese system of
justice is even more flawed than that in the West. Nonetheless, the point they are
making deserves a response because however awful China’s justice system is, the
fact remains that Americans who can afford good lawyers fare better than those who
can’t. And these are important issues with profound implications. The nature of the
justice systems in the US and China are key factors behind those countries’
economic success. And the relative lack of the rule of law in Pakistan and
Afghanistan helps explain their economic problems.
So, what distinguishes the implementation of law and order in Pakistan

and China and the US?
Perhaps the key point is this: when a powerful person in the US and China is
sentenced — fairly or unfairly — they face severe punishment. True, a handful in
both systems get pardons but, that notwithstanding, people who get tangled up in
the courts face real jeopardy. In Pakistan, by contrast, powerful defendants face
mild punishment (think of those cells with their air conditioners) until such time as
the politics changes and they can secure their release.
I remember meeting a man in army custody in the Swat valley in 2010 who had
beheaded eight people. I asked the army officer who was detaining him if he thought
the man would ever face punishment. Ruefully (mournfully), he shook his head.
Why not? He didn’t want to say but we all know the reasons — the TTP who stood
behind the beheader would always be capable of doing a deal.
Amnesties are, more often than not, a terrible idea. But failing to implement the law
the rest of the time is even worse.

An unfair taxation system | Dawn Opinion
Faisal Bari
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic
Alternatives, and an associate professor of economics at Lums.
ONE of the bigger issues with our tax system is the deep-rooted unfairness that has
been built, by default but often by design, into the system. Those who are
documented and in the tax net, by choice but often due to the nature of their
job/business, pay a lot. At the same time, those who are able to avoid
documentation have been getting away with paying very little or nothing for a long
time, and, to add insult to injury, many have been rewarded repeatedly by the state
through amnesties of one sort or another. In addition, the state has removed many
taxes to again benefit particular classes, while there are also entire sectors that have,
at one time or another, been exempted from taxation.
How should those who are in the net and have to pay all taxes feel about
the tax system and about the state?
The other side of the unfairness is that most of those who have to pay taxes or are
fine with paying these taxes also feel they do not get much in return from the state.
The state offers health and education facilities of poor quality generally speaking.
Most of those who are in the middle-income and higher-income groups choose to
access private providers in these areas. The provision of water and sewerage, waste
collection and even security is often supplemented by accessing private sector
providers or is wholly dependent on the ability to buy services from private
providers.
Many taxpayers feel that the unfairness extends further. Several taxpayers are able
to buy services from the private sector but many citizens, who do not have enough
resources, depend on services (water, sewerage, health, education, security)
provided by the state. They get poor quality service. So, even for those who depend
on the state, if the state, from the revenues collected through a system that lacks
fairness and is coercive in parts, cannot provide for those who depend on it, how can
citizens feel comfortable with such a situation?
Income tax rates go from five per cent to 35pc. If you are in the middle or a bit above
that in terms of your monthly income, and happen to be in the tax net — true for
almost the entire salaried class and documented businesses — it is likely you are, on
average, paying 15pc to 20pc of your income towards income tax alone. The salaried
do not even get to pay this; they get their salaries post-income tax deductions.
Then there is the sales tax which, on most goods and many services, is around 16pc
to 17pc. There are special levies and taxes on the provision of a lot of goods and
services that have inelastic demand (good and services where price increases do not
dent demand by much) or from where the state can collect tax easily and with low-
collection expenditures. These include telephone bills, gas and electricity provision
as well as petroleum products. Twenty-five per cent of the amount I paid for my
electricity bill this month was additional taxes and surcharges. The level of taxation
on petroleum products, though kept a lot more opaque on purpose, is substantial
too. All other services, road tax and local water and other surcharges included, are
taxed as well.
Injustice with taxpayers:
Salaried people and those who happen to be documented and in the tax net,
probably and on average, end up giving about 50pc of their income back to the state
in the form of one tax or another. This is not, by any means, an insignificant
proportion.
Those who are not in the tax net and/or may have been given exemptions, on
average just end up paying the indirect taxes. The unfairness is clear. Why should
the agriculturalists not be taxed? Why should traders pay much less, or people
making gains in property markets or capital markets? To say that the state is unable
to build taxation systems for them is part of the unfairness. This situation has
persisted over decades. Why has the state failed to create a fairer system over these
decades?
But the rub becomes a lot more abrasive when taxpayers feel the state does not give
anything back to them, for all the tax they pay or have to pay. Most of the taxpaying
population rely on private provisions for access to health, education, water, waste
collection, and even services like security. There are no pension benefits or other
benefits for employees in the private sector. I will, post 60, get Rs9,000 a month
from the old-age benefit scheme. This too is money that is largely employer
contribution.
And, to make matters worse, the quality of services that the state provides, is
generally poor. So, citizens who have to depend on state provision for any access to
these services continue to suffer while those who pay taxes are doing their part and
more. This adds to the perceived and real unfairness of the system.
Despite promises made by successive governments, the state has been unable or
unwilling to expand the tax net. But the need for revenues and the pressure to
generate revenues increases every year. The state, whether it likes it or not, ends up
either relying on indirect taxes or on milking those who are already in the tax net
even more. Both options increase the unfairness of the tax system.

Wayforward:
We need a way forward that will disrupt this dynamic. If it is not disrupted the
ability of the state to generate more revenues, even with coercive means, will go
down and this could be disastrous for our economic growth and stability. The
impact on citizen loyalty and social contract can be significant as well.

Controversial Curriculum: A Recipe for
Disaster | Daily Times
Wasim Shabbir
The writer is an educationist working with the Punjab government.
In the past, multiple experiments were carried out by various regimes, including
those of Ayub, Bhutto, Zia and Musharraf, to reform the poor education system of
Pakistan. Deplorably, no earnest and pragmatic measures were taken to deliberate
and detect the dominant pitfalls and hazards in this noble sector. The provision of
quality education to the students has been the dream in this land of pure since its
creation.
Following suit, Prime Minister Khan precipitously (sharply) launched Single

National Curriculum to ameliorate (improve) our rotten education system by
diminishing existing curriculums’ incongruities between public and private schools.
After the successful completion of its three years, to manifest its rapid performance
and fulfil its covenants, the PTI government is now entirely focused on delivering in
the remaining two years what it had vowed to garner immense public support for
general election 2023. Therefore, analysts believe that the objectives behind the
implementation of SNC are political, not reformatory concerning education. As a
fact, when the important sector of education of any country falls prey to the evil
machinations and indifference of its government, it leads to disastrous impacts in
that society.
In the contemporary era, the socio-economic and political development of any

country is directly linked to the propagation of education at a large scale.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the government allocates only up to 2.5 per cent of the
budget for education and is intransigently (inflexible) imposing the SNC while
neglecting other important areas. New curriculum development is, indubitably
(unquestionably), a lengthy process that requires services from experts. Imagine a
curriculum designed by amateurs and then imposed hurriedly. How will it
transform the existing education system?
Diversity of curriculum urges students to keep pace

with the changing international educational trends.
Challenges to SNC:
The federal government is of the view that the SNC will end “education apartheid.”
To my great surprise, how can this government act this insanely; equating
elimination in curriculum disparities to overall education uplift. Beyond SNC
imposition, inequalities persist in many areas. How can the SNC bring public
schools to the level of elitist private schools providing the best learning environment
along with other educational facilities which public schools entirely lack? This wide
gulf will continuously exist until the government takes some concrete measures to
make structural changes in the existing systems and focuses on improving learning
standards at public schools.
As per the latest authentic reports, 48 per cent of schools in Pakistan are deprived of
basic facilities, including toilets, clean drinking water, electric lights, fans,
whiteboards, and proper buildings. More than 50 per cent of public schools lack
playgroups. How can students absorb and learn a newly imposed curriculum under
these severe conditions? These are some highlighted issues at public schools, which
indispensably look out for the government’s deep attention than SNC’s false
ostentation.
Diversity of curriculum:
Diversity of curriculum is the essence of learning at various education levels. It

provides learners with an opportunity to acquire a variety of knowledge by not
confining to a uniform syllabus. It also urges students to keep pace with the
changing international educational trends by studying multiple curriculums as per
their choice. Currently, several curriculums are being taught at private schools in
Pakistan including Cambridge, Oxford, and Beaconhouse School System. How can
the students from public schools be equal to the students who acquired their
education by studying the aforementioned diverse syllabi?
Government must reform and revamp the education sector but by elevating all low-
level public schools to the level of elite private schools by providing the best
infrastructure, a conducive environment, provision of capacious playgrounds and all
other important basic facilities instead of launching SNC. At present, 2.3 million
children are reported to be out of schools and the government is dodgingly seeking
an exit from such challenges under the garb of SNC.
Regrettably, the PTI government is bent on eroding the advanced learning

standards of top parochial schools by forcing them to adopt and implement SNC.
Aitchison and Beaconhouse Schools were even threatened by federal education
minister Shafqat Mahmood for the non-implementation of SNC. Moreover,
pressuring provinces to adopt SNC also contradicts the 18th amendment. How can
education sector thrive under undemocratic behaviours is a big question mark on
the mindset of the incumbent government.
Moreover, SNC badly discourages the English medium of learning. All textbooks at
the primary level have been written in the Urdu language. Does this seem like a
rational and sensible approach? How can a government be this antagonistic;
repelling students from acquiring education in a language that is an international
medium of communication? Thus, this flawed SNC is pushing us from globalism to
regionalism.
Wayforward:
In nutshell, SNC is certainly not a bad idea if it is designed cautiously by taking all
parties on board. Beyond SNC, the government should supply heavy funds for the
construction of new schools for out of school children. Government must hire well
qualified and experienced teachers to enhance the education standards of all public
schools. Specialists in Arabic and religion need to be appointed to deal with the
subject of Islamiyat. Finally, students must be provided with a better environment
for their better learning.

Initiating Dialogue with the TTP | Daily
Times
Malik Muhammad Ashraf
The writer is Special Advisor (Pakistan Institute of Management) and Foreign
Research Associate (Centre of Excellence, China Pakistan Economic Corridor).
As per the press release of ISPR, TTP terrorists targeted security forces in Spinwam,
North Waziristan, on Saturday and martyred four Frontier Corps soldiers and one
Levies sub-inspector. The attack occurred just one day after the prime minister, in
an interview with Turkish TV, had said, “We are in talks with some of them on a
reconciliation process. We might not reach some sort of conclusion or settlement in
the end, but we are talking.”
Replying to a question about help by the Afghan Taliban in this regard, he

confirmed that the talks were going on in Afghanistan so it could be said that they
were helping. He reiterated, “I do not believe in military solutions as a politician, I
see political dialogue as the way forward as I said about Afghanistan. We will forgive
them once they surrender after which they will be able to live like ordinary citizens.”
A faction of TTP fighting the security forces in South Waziristan also announced a
ceasefire on Friday, saying, “Our leaders have asked all fighters to observe ceasefire
from today as they are engaged in some secret talks.”
The Saturday attack on security forces might have been carried out by a group of
TTP, which is probably not yet in the loop regarding reconciliation talks. The
incident, however, does underline the imperative of reaching out to all the fighting
factions of TTP.
Wars and insurgencies are mostly resolved

through dialogue
The fact that the Afghan Taliban are supporting this effort is indeed an encouraging
development, especially considering that the spokesman of the Taliban Zabihullah
Mujahid had said in August, “It is not Afghanistan but Pakistan that has to deal with
the issue of TTP.” However, he had remarked that the TTP considered the Afghan
Taliban as their leaders and would, therefore, have to listen to the new Kabul
rulers—whether the TTP liked it or not. The bonds between TTP and Afghan Taliban
are confirmed by the fact that the former along with the Afghan Taliban have been
fighting against the occupying forces.
With the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban and their commitment of not
allowing anyone to use its soil for attacks against any other country, the TTP and
other proscribed organisations, including Baloch groups operating from
Afghanistan, have been barred from targeting Pakistan.
Negotiation is a rational choice:
Nobody in his right mind can take an issue with Prime Minister’s insistence on
resolving issues through political dialogue. The members of TTP factions are
citizens of Pakistan and if they can be persuaded through dialogue to lay their arms
and live like peaceful citizens, it is worth trying. Successive governments in Pakistan
have been trying their best to bring Baloch insurgents into the national mainstream
through dialogue though the efforts did not succeed due to a host of external factors.
The prime minister has also urged dialogue with Baloch insurgents. World history
testifies to the fact that wars and insurgencies are mostly resolved through dialogue,
which is even more important while dealing with internal upheavals.
While there is no doubt that our valiant forces—with the unflinching support of the
nation—have subdued the phenomenon of terrorism to a great extent, there is no
harm in giving peace a chance. Pakistan’s relations with the Taliban are very cordial.
They have publicly acknowledged our efforts for peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan is
trying its best to convince the world of the necessity to remain engaged with the
Taliban and extend all possible help to them in fulfilling their promises. Under such
circumstances, the help by the Afghan Taliban concerning reconciliation with TTP is
of great value. Hopefully, the TTP factions based on Afghan soil will not find it easy
to spurn the efforts of the Afghan Taliban for reconciliation with Pakistan under the
changed ground realities.
Opposition stance:
However, the opposition parties in Pakistan do not see the process of talks with TTP
in the same context as the government. They believe that since the issue is sensitive
and of national importance, the parliament should have been taken into confidence.
Some believe that the statement of Prime Minister Imran Khan is akin to rubbing
salt in the wounds of the relatives of martyrs. This contention is an emotional ploy
that belies logic and suggests finding a solution to the problem with the barrel of the
gun. The nation is greatly indebted to the martyrs, who sacrificed their lives for the
national cause. It has full sympathy for their relatives who had to endure the loss of
their near and dears in the fight against terrorists. Now that an opportunity has
emerged to deal with the problem through negotiations, why not grab it?
Logical way to go ahead:
There might be some logic in the demand of opposition parties for taking the
parliament and the political parties in confidence about the parleys in progress. The
issue does demand national consensus and ownership. If an open debate cannot be
held in the parliament for some sensitive considerations, at least the parliamentary
leaders could have been taken into confidence and briefed about the effort to win
their support. Maybe then, the opposition parties would also positively contribute to
firming up the government’s strategy.

The Rising Rape Culture | Daily Times
Hira Naz
The writer is a communications specialist and a researcher.
The corporate chitter-chatter and the lunch break discussion had turned into a
much earnest discussion. The participants stood divided. Everyone had an opinion
– democracy at its finest, one would assume, but just like the democratic system,
only opinions were being thrown at each other mixed with emotional outbursts. All
of that to no end! The modern way of ending an argument is to “Agree to Disagree.”
However, the discussion stayed with me, and a part of me wanted to break the spiral
we are all stuck in understanding the “Rising Rape Culture” in Pakistan. It is easy to
point fingers, but so many of us have failed to understand the rape epidemic truly,
which calls for a greater reflection on a personal and societal level.
The numbers on rape in Pakistan are horrifying. According to statistics, 10 rape

crimes are recorded every day in Pakistan, with more than 22,000 rape incidents
registered to the police in the last six years. Punjab accounted for 85 per cent of the
total. However, only 77 of those indicted have been found guilty, accounting for
approximately 0.3 per cent of the total.
With each new molestation and rape case, we witness the same media uproar, social
upheaval, and public outcry. Every time, the government and the law enforcement
agencies are pushed a little to take concrete actions, the latest being the launch of
the “Women Safety App” by the Punjab Police.
So what is the answer? The west that promotes women’s rights and gives them
freedom has a comprehensive legal structure that still failed to curb the rape culture.
On the other side of the spectrum are theocratic states like the Vatican, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, etc. – everyone is well aware of the suppressed truth about sexual
violence and crimes there. And then there are patriarchal societies like ours
confused between gender parity and still caught between the confusion of the east
and the west.
Where are we humans, the social animals, and all intelligent beings failing? Is sexual
violence just another psychological disorder that we do not fully understand yet? Or
is it the outcome of a deteriorating social construct? Psychological or social, let’s
agree that sexual violence, oppression, or rape is a criminal offence and must be
dealt with harshest of punishments. But is punishment enough? What is being truly
done to control the rape epidemic, or will we keep on treating the symptoms? I have
gone through pages after pages of researches, and there doesn’t seem to be a
definitive answer. There are just theories, hypotheses, and an endless list of focus
groups of victims and perpetrators.
And then it struck me, I was looking in all the wrong places for answers, so I began
to have serious discussions on what truly needs to change. I believe there are so
many things that need to be transformed on an individual level before we can see a
profound comprehensive impact. I pondered upon the discussions and thought of 5

Key C’s that help us take a step in the right direction- Content, Contact,
Communication, Consideration, and Confront.
Content: we as a society must ponder upon the content being produced and
consumed. It is the moral responsibility of content producers to abstain from verbal
and visual profanity. Parents must pay close attention to the content their children
watch regardless of age. According to a study in the US, adolescent or young men
are more likely to commit rape compared to men at later age groups. The media and
news agencies need to control the content they broadcast. Since Pakistan is amongst
the highest porn-consuming countries, harsher measures need to be in place against
the access to explicit content.
Contact: We are vastly judged by the company we keep. In my opinion, we do

become like the people we are primarily in contact with. This is true for children and
adults alike; Parents must not only keep a close eye on the people their child comes
in contact with, but they must also always speak to young adults about the
importance of keeping the right company. Another important aspect is women not
warning other women about their company if you believe that your female friend is
in a bad company. It is often out of the fear of losing the relationship that we lose
the person.
Communication: There seems to be a wall in our society about subjects like sexual
violence. Firstly, we need to stop associating rape with one gender only. Recent
incidents have proven that perpetrators spare no one! But the real question is that
are we communicating this concern on a broader level? Where is the lawyer’s
movement? Why are educators quiet? Why aren’t there any mass awareness
campaigns about the rape laws and punishments? Everyone seems to be busy in
their lives until the next unfortunate event. There needs to be constant ad consistent
communication about sexual violence and rape. Statisticians must dig deep, law
enforcement agencies must take rapid action, and the media must communicate the
reality.
Consideration: It should not be hard to show kindness and give consideration to the
victims of rape and assault. However, it seems this is where we have failed as
humans globally! Too often, rape victims are blamed for their appearance, choice of
company (contact), and mannerism. But think about it does anyone ever asks for
being raped and stigmatized for the rest of their lives. Then why is it many of us
seem to have less empathy for the victims or their families?
Confront: it is about time we confront the demon in front of us! Most rape crimes
are not reported due to the stigma attached to them. The public and civil society
must come together in confronting everything that promotes the rising rape culture;
every one of us will have to play a much more significant role, go out of our comfort
zones and perhaps even dedicate a part of our lives to confronting the challenge that
faces us.
I am confident that there is a lot more that can be done. But it is said, Charity begins
at home. Let us all take a look around us and start taking baby steps towards
spreading awareness and against normalizing rape in our society. If the next time
you hear or read about such a crime, don’t shun the thought, ask yourself, “what is it
I can do to make the society safer?”

Overpopulation: A Ticking Bomb | Daily
Times
Iftikhar A Khan
The writer is a Lahore-based columnist.
The cities in the country are expanding most haphazardly. Villages are turning into
towns, towns into cities and cities into megacities. In 1971, the population of then
East Pakistan was about 65.5 million and ours was 58 million. According to stats,
Bangladesh’s present population stands at 166.3 million and ours have gone beyond
220 million. Even the city of Lahore has crossed the 13 million mark.
After becoming independent, Bangladesh’s successive governments managed to

control the growth of its population while we continued to go into free fall. As a
result, when Bangladesh improved its GDP, health and education levels, we are
grappling with the idea of a Single National Curriculum. There’s no doubt that
overpopulation stymies growth in all sectors related to public welfare.
Understandably, the clergy in Bangladesh cooperated with the government in
controlling the population by advising people not to compete in procreation.
At our end, Maulana Tahir Ashrafi, the special representative for religious harmony,
could advise the public to restrain themselves from multiplying. He could be
effective in this matter since he regularly appears in the news media. His persuasive
skill, impressive attire and demeanour would be enough to convince people to divert
to other activities than focusing on the single pastime of enlarging their families.
Overpopulation stymies growth in all sectors

related to public welfare.
Undeniably, most of our civic problems stem from the exploding population. The
newspapers often report public complaints of mistreatment in government
hospitals, public offices and other government institutions because the civic
facilities are scarce and the needy have multiplied. Too many vie for too little. Most
heart wrenching it is to read when some kill themselves, their wives and children for
failing to feed them. It happens in the land where one segment of society rolls in the
abundance of everything imaginable and the other layer, the largest one, languishes
in extreme poverty. The latter cannot even meet its daily needs to survive.
Overpopulation adversely affects all facets of national life. The cost of living goes up
because the cost of housing and commodities of daily use go up. The government
fails to create jobs at the pace at which the population grows. And unemployment
results in a higher crime rate. Not only that, unemployment coupled with a low
literacy rate degrades the value of human life. The nation begins to look more like a
mob than a civilised society.
The civilised nations ensure to control their population to be able to provide the
people with all necessary amenities of life. Consider New Zealand. Its population
has hovered around 5 million for some years while we added 5 million to our
population every year. New Zealand boasts of achieving universal health coverage
for its people, including mental health and long-term care of the elderly. Not to
mention its literacy rate at 99 per cent. On the other hand, we seem destined to live
like hordes of teeming millions – semi-literate and underfed. It’s for the leaders to
think about.
Various governments in the past ignored the importance of population planning.

Why take refuge behind the euphemism of ‘planning’, why not declare
overpopulation as a ticking bomb about to explode. The irony is that the educated
among our society have relatively fewer children but the uneducated and lower rung
of society breed no holds barred.
Instead of creating unproductive jobs in the public sector, the government should
consider establishing vocational institutes to train the unemployed youth in various
skills. These institutes should be set up in rural areas to discourage large-scale
exodus of the population to main cities. Those trained in vocational institutes
should be given diplomas recognizable in other countries. For example, diplomas in
plumbing and cookery that meet a certain standard are readily acceptable in
Australia. The plumbers in Australia earn as much as the doctors.
It reminds me of an anecdote. In the late sixties, we had a geography teacher who

had just returned after doing his masters from Oxford. The immaculately dressed
handsome bachelor was the favourite of the boys. They frequently questioned him
why the then East Pakistan’s population was much more than ours. “Because it rains
for days on end and people remain confined to their homes, hence the high growth
in population”, he answered. The students giggled and enjoyed his explanation
while he displayed an innocent face. The rains never lessened in Bangladesh, how
did the country manage to control its population? What if we had such intensity of
rains?

Taliban's Victory and the Outside World |
Daily Times
Ali anwar
The writer is an old Aitchisonian who believes in freedom of expression, a freelance
columnist, entrepreneur and social activist.
Perhaps the most relevant, and also the most overlooked, outcome of the Afghan
war is that the Taliban have reminded the world of the true meaning of the concept
of jihad. For, even as the whole world is waxing eloquent about how Afghanistan is
the graveyard of empires, and how it sent the mightiest superpowers of the time –
England, Soviet Union, the US- back home with a red nose, they fail to mention that
in none of those campaigns was Afghanistan’s formal military responsible for the
victories.
It was always the average people of the country, most of whom have always been
very poor farmers, fruit sellers, blacksmiths, etc, who answered the call for jihad and
defeated foes many times stronger each time. When America had gone to war in
Afghanistan, it was the world’s only superpower and also a military hyper-power.
And it simply beggars belief that such an extensive, sophisticated and expensive
military complex was humbled by very ordinary, untrained fighters who barely
afford to live in their mud houses.
It took them 20 years and only God knows how many lives, but they finally
announced a successful end to their latest jihad with the departure of American
forces from their country. They’ve also allayed all sorts of fears by announcing an
inclusive government, which will be represented by all segments of Afghan society,
and also protection for minority and women’s rights. That is the most prudent way
forward and the very people who fought for the land and are now responsible for
keeping the peace in it know better than outsiders how to approach the next phase,
which must be reconstructing and rebuilding the war-torn country.
And even as Washington still tries to keep some leverage over the country by rolling
back its aid and freezing the central bank’s money abroad, it bears reminding the
world that the Americans were one of the first countries to offer the Taliban an olive
branch when they first came to power in 1996; even though they didn’t formally
recognise their government. The reason was that they were salivating for oil and gas
deals that would see pipelines built from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and
into Pakistani ports on the Arabian Sea for subsequent export.
Washington is trying to use the money to try to retain some sort of

influence over the Taliban.
They had been lobbying for rights through Afghanistan since before the Taliban
came to power. But they needed stability in the country, which was not possible
during the civil war. And once the Taliban took over, it was for the first time since
the rule of Ahmed Shah Durrani more than two centuries ago that the whole country
was governed by one seat of power and there was complete peace. At that point, to
try to cuddle the Taliban, the US gave it $500 million, while a Unocal executive
team travelled as far as Kabul and Kandahar to negotiate with the Taliban
leadership. But when their sharia compliance ruled out any such project, which was
meant to exploit oil and gas demand in certain countries to make windfall profits for
powerful corporations, the American goodwill suddenly, and quite expectedly,
turned into very stiff opposition.
This time also, Washington is trying to use money, which Afghanistan needs very
desperately at the moment, to try to retain some sort of influence over the Taliban
and save face in the international community, where it is being very severely
criticised for losing such a long and expensive war to a rag-tag militia of people, a
large majority of whom live in the kind of poverty that can’t possibly be imagined in
the US. But the Taliban will never bow to such pressure. Fortunately, countries
closer to it realise the need to keep the Asian region in order, for which peace in
Afghanistan is a central requirement; as everyone has seen and realised over the last
four decades. The Afghan government is now taking steps that it believes are best
for its people. And countries in the region are lining up to lend it support, and also
enough money to begin rebuilding the country, so there is no immediate financial
crisis at the very least.
Pakistan will, as always, be affected most by how things unfold in Afghanistan. That
is why Islamabad has been lobbying western countries to resume aid to Kabul,
which was taken away as soon as the Ghani administration fell and the disgraced
president fled with as much money as he and his inner circle could smuggle out of
the country. Even then, close to 80 per cent of Afghanistan’s budget comprised of
aid and grants. To expect the country to function without any money in the present
circumstances would be asking far too much.
That is why Islamabad’s recommendation that the developed world should prepare
a Marshal Plan for Afghanistan, makes a lot of sense. It is essential to keep the
country from descending into civil war yet again. Already, it’s not as if the departure
of occupying forces has led to an end to all sorts of fighting there. There is still the
presence of the so-called Islamic State (IS), which is bent upon wreaking havoc in
the entire region. The Taliban will need funding for that fight as well, in addition to
all the reconstruction that must now take place.
Therefore, the jihadists who have just rewritten history in the grandest way possible
once again face yet another monumental challenge. That is to run the country
peacefully now that they have wrested it from the clutch of occupiers; as their
forefathers did before them whenever so called upon. It is the right time for the
world to engage with the Afghan Taliban sincerely to ensure peace in the volatile
region. Afghanistan direly needs education, health and road infrastructure after
decades of destructions that it witnessed in its surroundings.
Afghanistan needs sincere world’s attention, which is well-rooted on humanitarian

grounds.

Inclusivity and Sustainability — The
antidote for Pakistan’s Economy? | Daily
Times
Hasnain Javed
The writer is Special Advisor (Pakistan Institute of Management) and Foreign
Research Associate (Centre of Excellence, China Pakistan Economic Corridor).
I had the opportunity of meeting Mr Shaukat Tarin recently. Pondering upon our
discussion and listening to his interviews lately, I could see a pattern emerging. It
seemed that Mr Tarin has been sharing the formula for financial stability and
growth for Pakistan – Inclusivity and Sustainability.
However, is it truly the antidote to the country’s deteriorating economic health?

With two years left in the elections and a trail of unpopular decisions by the PTI
government, are we finally on the right track?
For the nay-sayers, let me quote the figures they support the argument with, the
debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 87 per cent in the FY 2020, but most will not quote that
the global debt-to-GDP ratio has increased by 13 per cent. Not to mention the
mounting external debt of $122 billion and the rising import bills, sceptics have
broken all hell on the PTI leadership for putting Pakistan in a grave position. But
these sceptics will never admit that what truly led to this humongous debt profile or
the outrageous import bill is the deliberate efforts by the leaders in the last 30 years
to gain personal profits. The agricultural sector was slowly put on the backburner
with cotton crop replaced by sugar for personal gains. There was no strategic
alternative to the evident food shortages and food imports left to soar out of control.
Now that the economy is badly dented and dependent, criticism seems more
convenient.
If one is a person of true economic calibre, they will realise the structural changes
brought to ensure that the economy survives and thrives in the long run. My most
considerable criticism of the previous economist is their deliberate efforts to
squeeze the economy when there was no actual need and their sheer inability to
leverage Pakistan’s position of strength when the country was a partner in the
orchestrated war on terror.
Mr Tarin has put his foot down on the profit

mentality of the banks.
With all his financial wit, Shaukat Tarin has successfully dissected the economic
challenges facing Pakistan. Despite harsher IMF conditions, Prime Minister Imran
Khan’s team was able to meet 26 requirements and has shown tremendous
character in fighting for the masses on the issue of increasing tariffs. In his own
words, Mr Tarin clarified that “after 1972 PTI is the only government that has
formally strategized every aspect of the financial economy.” Due to the deep
understanding of financial and economic instruments, Pakistan’s economy only had
a negative impact of 0.5 per cent on growth during the pandemic. In fact, our
economy was hailed as one of the most resilient globally.
The critics often find it convenient only to depict a part of the picture when it comes
to criticizing the sudden spike in the dollar and the out-of-control inflation. When
talking about the dollar hike, most will not tell you that Pakistan is currently
operating according to the mechanic of a free market, where the dollar price and the
exchange rates are left to react to the market dynamics. Covid-19 has driven food
inflation across the globe, with the US at 8.5 per cent, the UK is experiencing a 31
per cent increase, while the Global Food Price Index is showing a rise of 33.9 per
cent compared to last year. Also, Pakistan is amongst the 45 countries identified by
the UN in dire need of external food assistance. Therefore, my question to the nay-
sayers is what led to Pakistan being a net importer of food? Who will they hold
responsible for pushing our textiles on the brink of closure by replacing cotton with
sugar? Who should we hold accountable when the selected few enjoyed the perks of
low commodity prices while the interests of poor farmers and the country.
The masses must now understand the initiatives taken by Mr Tarin. In the darkest
hours of this pandemic-stricken economy, the government focussed on the
underprivileged in society. Construction, Agriculture and Export Industries were
focused on driving employment opportunities for the labourer class and
strengthening the economy. After decades of being ignored, agriculture has become
the prime focus for driving inclusive and sustainable growth. The following
initiatives by Mr Shaukat Tarin are a true testament to his statesmanship.
Kamiyab Pakistan Programme: Aimed at the revival of the agriculture sector, this
holistic programme will focus on the economic independence of farmers through
high-quality seeds, mechanization, interest-free loans, elimination of Arti, and
more.
Banking Reformation: As one of the veterans of the Banking Sector, Mr Tarin has
put his foot down on the profit mentality of the banks and called for reformations in
the interest of the state. Currently, the banking sector supports 33 per cent of the
GDP with a 45 per cent share of lending of out the total. This indicates that only 15
per cent support is provided by the formal sector. Also, 85 per cent of the credit is
consumed by nine cities, with the corporate sector being the largest consumer at 75
per cent. While agriculture and SMEs only consume about six per cent each. With
little or no money going to the deserving Pakistanis and the huge disparity in the
bank’s loan-to-deposit ratio, the system needs reforms. Mr Tarin and the State Bank
of Pakistan are devising a strategy to put the banking sector in order.
Fixing the Money Leakages: One of the most absurd sources of financial drainage in
the governmental system is the “White Elephants” operating under the façade of
Public Sector institutes with no benefit to the public. Organisations such as PITAC,
PIM, PILDAT, SMEDA are causing losses up to Rs 286 billion. In his discussion
with me, Mr Tarin confirmed the need to privatize these institutions much similar to
Sarmaya-e-Pakistan. The institutions will govern under a private body equipping
them with an appropriate governance structure keeping in view the best
international practices led by a team of technocrats and industrial experts.

Targeted Growth Sectors: With the identification of 14 critical growth sectors
complete, the government will move ahead with full throttle to boost the
performance in these areas through incentivisation, investment, and enhancement
opportunities. Sectors like tourism, Information Technology, SME, Micro
Enterprises, Construction, and more will be prepared to contribute to the
government’s export target of $50 billion.
With all that being said, I genuinely believe in Shaukat Tarin’s vision of Inclusive
and Sustainable growth. As Mr Tarin said, harsh lessons learned from Ishaq’s
melodrama and free-market economy cannot operate freely, calling for balanced
and intelligent intervention to achieve stability and growth targets.

Pakistan’s Strategic Relevance in South
Asia | Daily Times
Dr. Zia ul Haq
Dr. Zia ul Haq is the author of the book ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict
Management Between India and Pakistan’.
Pakistan is blessed with a geographical location that makes it an extremely

important player in the entire region in general, and South Asia, in particular.
Pakistan’s geography, topographical features, and access to warm waters of the
Arabian Sea make it uniquely attractive to the international players of the past,
present and future. Unfortunately, the successive governments in Pakistan failed to
correctly visualise the importance of its geographical location. Therefore, it could
not effectively sell the idea of transnational connectivity, and a cost-effective
economic corridor for Russia, Afghanistan, and the Central Asian States.
When China started its journey of development in the late 1970s under the
leadership of Deng Xiaoping, it initially concentrated on the development of “the
Pearl River Delta (close to Hong Kong), the Yangtze River Delta surrounding
Shanghai, and the Bohai Bay region near Beijing.” But, to ensure uniform
development across its wide territory, China soon started to invest in its least-
developed western regions. For this, it needed access to nearby ports, because the
only available sea route through Malacca Straits would have taken much longer, and
was obviously not cost-effective at all. China had managed to develop its western
regions through the same route. But for the sustenance and initiation of its One Belt
One Road (OBOR), it looked towards Pakistan’s strategically-located Gwadar Port
on the Arabian Sea.
Pakistan responded positively to China’s OBOR initiative and signed numerous

projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which has since then
become a flagship project of the OBOR. While the selection of projects and
contractual obligations under the CPEC has been hotly debated in Pakistan, one
thing is for sure: Pakistan has started to make good use of its otherwise dormant
strategic relevance due to its strategic location.
Pakistan has now started to realise that its

strategic location can be best used, away from
geostrategic significance to geo-economic
importance.
The regional countries have now been invited and shown interest in joining the
CPEC, while the extra-regional players have shown reservations about the increased
influence of China on Pakistan’s fragile economy. The US has been critical of the
CPEC, primarily due to China’s presence on the strategic Gwadar Port, and
threatened to sanction some Chinese entities involved in certain projects in
Pakistan.
Pakistan has now started to realise that its strategic location can be best used, away
from geostrategic significance to geo-economic importance, and therefore, offers
regional connectivity to the countries within the region and beyond. The various
infrastructure projects under CPEC, which would provide better means of
communication between major cities of Pakistan, are near completion. Pakistan has
started to offer the regional countries an opportunity to invest in numerous
purpose-built Special Economic Zones (SEZs) established across the country.
This article aims to highlight the strategic relevance of Pakistan from the viewpoint
of geo-economics and Pakistan’s initiatives of establishing SEZs to attract foreign
investment to enhance its importance in the region as a major player. Some of the
important SEZs include Rashakai Economic Zone (REZ), located near Nowshera in
the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), which offers investments in “Garment
and Textile Products, Home Building Materials, General Merchandise, Electronics
and Electrical Appliances, and Automobile and Mechanical Equipment.”
Another important and largest SEZ is Allama Iqbal Industrial City (AIIC),
Faisalabad-Punjab, which is Pakistan’s textile hub and offers investment
opportunities for multiple businesses, including automobiles, cellular technologies,
pharmaceuticals, and textiles etc.
While REZ and AIIC have established a few production units, other SEZs to be
established in Islamabad, Dhabeji-Sindh, Bostan-Balochistan, Port Qasim-Sindh,
Mirpur-AJK, Mohmand-erstwhile FATA now KP, and Moqpondass- in Gilgit-
Baltistan (GB), are in various stages of approval and development.
Though the initiative to adopt a definite direction towards geo-economics is

appreciable, the leadership may be mindful that the opportunity is not lost in the
domestic politicisation of the concept. The national interests of Pakistan must
remain supreme while deciding the projects, and negotiating the conditions of
investments with foreign states and entities. Moreover, the bureaucratic delays
often dissuade the investors. Therefore, efforts may be made that the entire process
is transparent and relatively free of unnecessary hurdles.
The leadership may be cognizant of the fact that Pakistan’s strategic location would
continue to attract global players for the sake of geostrategic reasons, even if it
decides not to side with any particular power in geopolitical contestation. Therefore,
it is incumbent upon the politico-military leadership of Pakistan that it is not
perceived as part or proxy of a major regional player, so that it can truly maintain its
strategic relevance as a transnational corridor for all the regional and extra-regional
states.

Chairman NAB: Law and his Extension |
Daily Times
Gohar Ali Khan
The writer is a Supreme Court Advocate.
There cannot be two opinions about the core principle of any democracy being
“accountability in public life.”
And no one (Government or Opposition) disagrees. The question is – could it mean

different things for different people? In our democracy, yes. We mean “misconduct
or corrupt practice” when we say “accountability.”
That is what was introduced otherwise previous laws used the term “disqualification
law” than “Accountability or Ehtesab” laws. And the “difference” is not just the
“name.”
Before going to the topic, consider its history to understand the “importance of head
of any investigation agency.” The first law on the subject Public Representative
(Disqualification) Act, 1949 was enacted to apply with effect from 14-08-1947. It was
applicable only to “elected representatives” (not government or civil servants). The
“Governor-General or Governor” in his “discretion” to hold inquiry may file
“Reference” before Federal Court, High Court or Tribunal for an alleged
“misconduct” of the public representative. And the Court, only to report back to the
Governor-General or Governor. It mainly aimed at “disqualifying” the
representatives. It was repealed in 1954 but no other law was simultaneously
enacted till 1959 when the Elective Bodies (Disqualification) Order, 1959 was
promulgated to remain “valid law” till 31-12-1960.
In the 1959 law, “misconduct” was expanded. So much so that an activity that could
contribute to “political instability” was termed as “misconduct.” And even “general
reputation of being corrupt” was a “misconduct’.” And for these, representatives
were “not charged, prosecuted or convicted by an impartial tribunal,” yet “several
representatives” stood “disqualified to hold public office.” Because it contained a
provision-take an offer to retire from public life till December 1966-and that would
close all proceedings against that representative. There was no “right to appeal.”
Instead, it provided the “order of tribunal shall be final and not called in question in
any Court or forum.”
And it was only in 1963 that the Elective Bodies Disqualification (removal and
Remission) Ordinance, 1963 was promulgated to provide that “the President on
application by a disqualified person, may ‘remove or remit’ the ‘disqualification.”

When Chairman NAB entered upon his office
(10-11-2017), his TENURE as Chairman NAB was
ONLY for four years.
The 1959 law had a sunset clause to lapse on 31-12-1960. And on 09-01-1977, two
separate laws were enacted, one called Holders of Representative Offices
(Prevention of Misconduct) Act, 1976 to deal with “an offence of misconduct” which
included the taking of illegal gratification, a valuable thing without consideration,
dishonest misappropriation, obtaining pecuniary advantage or having assets beyond
reasonable sources of income. It provided “trial by High Court” and upon
conviction, a sentence of imprisonment for seven years. But this was only be
invoked if the accused representative was still holding his office. And another law
known as Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership)
Act, 1976, was to cover mainly what is now known as “misuse of authority” cases.
Under that law, trial by High Court and upon conviction, it only provided a sentence
of disqualification to hold office till next General Elections. However, an “accused
could be ‘charged”’ under either of these Acts. But two offices were “exempted”-
Prime Minister and Chief Minister could not be tried under either of these Acts.
These laws were substituted by similarly worded and named “Orders,” promulgated
by Martial Law Administrator General Zia in 1977.
Those Orders of 1977 were formally repealed when Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996 was
enacted. With Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996, this so-called “accountability law” came
into force with effect from 01-01-1985 and when replaced by Ehtesab Act, 1997, it
was with effect from 06-11-1990.
Under these laws, whether you call it disqualification or accountability, the

impression has been, that mostly, the victims are “political opponents.” Therefore,
to ensure “fair and impartial inquiries,” investigation including trial, the emphasis
has always been on the “person who decides to invoke this law in the first
place.”That means -Chairman, NAB.
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAB Ordinance) was enacted on 16-11-

1999. A permanent Accountability Bureau was established to be headed by
Chairman. Section 6 of NAB Ordinance provided that “There shall be Chairman
NAB to be appointed by the President and he shall hold office during the pleasure of
the President.” This reflected that mode and manner of appointment of Chairman
NAB or his qualifications or terms and condition of service including tenure not
provided for in the law. When NAB Ordinance was challenged before Supreme
Court, “tenure of Chairman NAB” was one of the “issues” for the purpose of
“independence of NAB.”Supreme Court decided those petitions challenging NAB
Ordinance known as Asfandyar Wali Case (PLD2001SC607) on 24-04-2001. While
holding that the law was constitutional, Supreme Court directed “appropriate
amendments,” which included specific directions with respect to – (i) Chairman
NAB, (ii) Deputy Chairman NAB, and (iii) Prosecutor General NAB.
With respect to Chairman NAB, it was directed by Supreme Court that Section.6 of
the NAB Ordinance be amended to include that “Chairman NAB shall be appointed
by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan. He shall hold
office for a period of three years. And shall not be removed from office except on the
grounds of removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan….”

It was also held that then-Chairman NAB “should be deemed to have been
appointed for three years from the day he entered upon his office.”
With respect to Deputy Chairman NAB, it was directed he shall be appointed for “a
minimum” period of two years. And with respect to Prosecutor General, it was
directed that “he should hold a tenure post of not less than two years.”
NAB Ordinance 2001 was amended on 10-08-2001 and the Tenure of Chairman
NAB, Deputy Chairman NAB and PG, NAB was fixed for three years. After General
Elections 2002, a law was amended on 23-11-2002. This time, the tenure of Deputy
Chairman and PG was fixed at Three years and Chairman NAB at Four years. But
each one for a “non-extendable period.”
Can such a “non-extendable period” be “extended” by any means? Such an issue was
taken up before Supreme Court against the then Prosecutor General, NAB Irfan
Qadir who after serving full term had been appointed afresh for another term.
Supreme Court held (PLD2010SC1109) that “non-extendable term, referred to a
duration of time which was incapable of being enlarged or extended or lengthened
or prolonged or stretched.” Supreme Court also observed that “the intention of the
law-giver by inserting the said word through an amendment in the relevant
provision is obvious i.e. that since the Prosecutor-General could be called upon to
prosecute the holders of the highest of public offices in the country including the
sitting Prime Minister, therefore, he should be a person who should be placed above
all kinds of temptations and greed and should not at any time be looking for any
favour from any quarter which could become a hindrance in his way of fearlessly
discharging his said obligations.”
The reappointment of PG was declared illegal.
These principles were quoted with approval by the Supreme Court (PLD2011SC365)
in the case of former Chairman NAB, Deedar Hussain Shah who had assumed office
on 08-10-2010 and whose “appointment had been challenged on the ground of no
consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.”
During the course of proceeding earlier notification dt.08-10-2010 was rescinded

and another Notification was issued on 09-02-2011 to “overcome the issue of
consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.”
Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles that tenure of Chairman NAB was for a
“non-extendable” period of four years that practically means “an appointment of a
person for one term of office only and no fresh appointment of the same person can
be made to that office whether he completes the original term of office or not.”[And
incumbent Chairman NAB (Justice (R) Javed Iqbal) was heading that Bench of
Supreme Court.]
For a valid and important purpose, the words “non-extendable” have been used in
the statute. It is not just for Chairman NAB but also for Deputy Chairman and
Prosecutor General, even though their tenure is for three years. Can this be
“amended” for the “sole purpose” to confer extension either by providing that “the
same person (an expression used by Supreme Court) may be reappointed” or that
“the same person shall continue till his successor is appointed.”
When Chairman NAB entered upon his office (10-11-2017), his TENURE as
Chairman NAB was ONLY for four years. Even to continue as Chairman “till his

successor” is appointed, another notification is to be issued. No such notification
can be issued even if the “non-extendable” word is “deleted.”
Because the same person (who held the office for “non-extendable period”) cannot
“hold that office” under any name for any other period” because the end of four
years marks the end of his office for all purpose. The appointment of another
Chairman NAB is mandatory. And that too in light of directions of Supreme Court as
held in the Choudhry Nisar Ali Khan case (PLD2013SC568) when the then
Chairman NAB Fasih Bukhari’s appointment was declared “illegal.” If at all, an
amendment in the law is made, although “bad intention” cannot be (legally)
attributed to the legislature but in such a situation (to achieve a specific purpose), it
would be difficult to attribute bona fide to it (as once observed by Justice Asif Saeed
Khosa, in 2013SCMR1752).

Afghanistan on way to further turmoil? |
Global Village Space
Aeliya Zaidi
The author is a research associate and sub-editor at GVS. She has previously worked
with Express-News Islamabad.
The past few months have been like a rollercoaster ride for everyone across the
world. From Biden announcing US withdrawal from Afghanistan and ending a two-
decade war in the region to Ashraf Ghani abandoning his people to the mercy of the
Taliban who barged in Kabul to declare their rule. It has been a whirlwind ride but
this makes us wonder how Afghanistan is going to look like in the incoming years.
The Taliban administration has a huge responsibility of rebuilding the war-torn
country and hopefully come up with reforms that can provide relief to Afghan
people especially women.
Hours after the U.S. departure that ended America’s longest war, celebratory gunfire
erupted across the country as Taliban fighters took control of Hamid Karzai
International Airport — long a potent symbol of Washington’s power.
A recap
The last flight out of Kabul, which met the Biden administration’s Aug 31 deadline
for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, was described as a historical moment by
the Taliban.
“Congratulations to Afghanistan,” the group’s spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told

reporters at a news conference at the airport. “This victory belongs to us all.”
The world is looking at the Taliban through the lenses of the past frame therefore we
do not see much hope from the international community perspective. The arrival of
the Taliban in Kabul was met with mixed reactions; some celebrated their arrival
while others were running towards the exit points of the country. We still haven’t
forgotten the images of people clinging to a military aircraft’s wheels and
unfortunately ending their lives.
Afraid of Taliban reprisals once the U.S. departed, Washington airlifted more than
123,000 people out of the country, including about 6,000 American citizens,
according to the State Department. Many Afghans who left had aided U.S. forces
during the 20-year occupation.
Actions speak louder than words
The Taliban promised that they will not take any revenge on the Afghan people and
will bring better reforms for the sake of their people. But unfortunately, we do not
see much being done at the moment.

In the areas of the country that fell under their control in the lead-up to the
Taliban’s final assault on the capital, reports emerged of the same kind of brutality
that had made the movement infamous and turned the country into a pariah state.
In a region north of Kabul, folk singer Fawad Andarabi was fatally shot by the
Taliban just days after they had searched his home, the singer’s family says.
Among their edicts when last in power, the Taliban banned music as un-Islamic.
Earlier, a popular comedian in the country’s south, Nazar Mohammad, better

known as Khasha Zwan, was seen in a video being beaten by Taliban fighters. He
was later gunned down. Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman, promised that the two
men seen in the video attacking Khasha Zwan would be put on trial.
The biggest dilemma stands for the women of this country who are fighting the
battle for their rights and an air where they could breathe the same rights as men.
The Taliban has announced their government and have gone against their words
when they didn’t include any women in the government. They had formerly
introduced many harsh measures against the country’s population.
For instance, they banned women from working, closed schools for girls, and forced
men to grow a beard. Nowadays, it seems that they will be relatively more flexible in
their political perspective. The expectation that they have learned from their
political mistakes is quite high and therefore the possibility of political recognition
of the new regime is much higher than before but can they be truly reformed?
Taliban announces expansion of new cabinet with no women

representation
The new policy for Afghanistan’s premier university is another major blow to
women’s rights under Taliban rule, and to a two-decade effort to build up higher
education.
The Taliban have announced that women in Afghanistan will only be allowed to
study at university in gender-segregated classrooms and Islamic dress will be
compulsory, stoking fears that gender apartheid will be imposed on the country
under the new regime.
The international community has been keeping a close watch on how the new, all-
male, Taliban regime is treating Afghan women in order to gauge just how much the
Taliban’s pledges of moderation are a reality.
The real question arises if the situation will remain the same in the future with no
inclusion of women in government. Only time will tell
Humanitarian crises in Afghanistan
Since the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the humanitarian emergency there has
worsened. The focus is now shifting to a much larger, multi-faceted humanitarian
crisis throughout the country. Violence, displacement, drought, and the COVID-19
pandemic hit the Afghan population with accelerating force in recent years, and the
humanitarian disaster gathered pace in May as the final withdrawal of U.S. and
allied forces began. Afghans teemed across borders seeking refuge after the
government collapsed on 15 August.

Unprecedented numbers of civilians were killed and injured in the early months of
2021 and at least 560,000 people were displaced, including nearly 120,000 fleeing
to Kabul as they sought refuge from Taliban advances. Those numbers represent the
worst-ever period in what for some years has been the world’s deadliest conflict. The
count of displaced people in Afghanistan over the last seven months was twice the
monthly average in the last five years, and the figures are expected to grow as aid
agencies’ accounting catches up with the scale of the crisis. Some 80 percent of
those fleeing violence since the end of May have been women and children. Will
Russia and China will step forward in helping Afghanistan to step forward from this
crisis since both countries have shown great support for the Taliban regime?
Will the US really take a step back from Afghanistan?
A few days ago President Biden said that the U.S. will continue to support Afghans
through “diplomacy, international influence, and humanitarian aid.”
“Human rights will be the center of our foreign policy, but the way to do that is not
through endless military deployments but through diplomacy, economic tools, and
rallying the rest of the world for support,” Biden said.
With the U.S. exit from Afghanistan complete, Secretary of State Antony Blinken
said Washington was prepared to be “relentless” in efforts to help individuals escape
the country even without boots on the ground.
“A new chapter of America’s engagement with Afghanistan has begun,” Blinken said
in a statement. “It’s one in which we will lead with our diplomacy.”
It is hard to imagine that the US will really take a step back as we know that the US
has always been interested in Afghan soil due to various reasons and one of them is
the resources that Afghan soil provides.
Also, the US will never ignore the fact that the Taliban administration is getting
support from China, Russia, and Iran so the US has to step up its diplomatic game
to measure up to their rivals and compete with them in power politics.

What the world does not want to
understand about Taliban & Afghanistan
| GVS
Moeed Pirzada
Moeed Pirzada is Editor Global Village Space; he is also a prominent TV Anchor and
a known columnist. He previously served with the Central Superior Services in
Pakistan.
There is something that the world does not want to

understand about the Afghan Taliban – and perhaps about
Afghanistan. Yet that "something" is the real missing piece
of the jigsaw puzzle of Afghan history, culture, its past,
present, and the future. Without putting this "missing
piece" in our mental picture of Afghanistan, it is not
possible to understand what has happened thus far - and all
efforts for a sustainable peace and stability may falter. It
was not a reclusive Mullah Omar, but Spanish- origin
American philosopher, George Santayana, who had warned
the world: "Those who do not learn history are doomed to
repeat it."
London engraver and cartographer John Spilsbury is credited for producing the
first-ever jigsaw puzzle around 1760. However, a further bit of research reveals that
the art of cutting painted maps, using saws, into pieces existed much before him –
thus the name “jigsaw puzzle.”
Early puzzles, known as dissections, were produced by mounting maps on hardwood

sheets and cutting along national boundaries, creating a puzzle useful for teaching
geography to students. But the Afghan jigsaw puzzle is more than just geography.
It is about the history of the regions in and around Afghanistan; it is about all those
areas we now call Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, and it is
about Pashtuns, tribal cultures, Islam, and the human mind’s in-built inertia – its
resistance to change. But then this resistance of the mind, its refusal to let go,
surrender its ideas, is on both sides or perhaps all sides.
Most have heard of the ‘”Great Game,'” a strategic rivalry between the expanding
British and Czarist Russian empires in the 19th century. However, far too little is
remembered of how it was precisely this mutual fear and insecurity between the
English and the Russian imperial systems that forced boundaries of a modern state
onto Afghanistan.

Before that, Afghan kings and princes existed – and some of them had been very
successful in amassing large territories, such as Ahmed Shah Abdali, who defeated
the Maratha empire in 1761 – but they controlled an ill-defined corridor between
Persia, Central Asia, and Hindustan.
It was this ill-defined corridor through which generations of invaders descended

towards what was then called ‘Hindustan’ – Aitzaz Ahsan’s Indus civilization. One of
them was Zaheer Ud Din Babar, the founder of the Mughal Empire who originated
in Ferghana, now in modern Uzbekistan, not far from Tashkent. It was an era of
city-states.
The Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878–1880) resulted from the refusal by Emir Shir
Ali (reigned 1863 to 1866, and from 1868 to 1879) to accept a British diplomatic
mission in Kabul. In the wake of this conflict, Shir Ali’s nephew, Emir Abdur
Rahman, known as the “Iron Emir,” came to the Afghan throne.
During the reign of Iron Emir (1880–1901), the British and Russians officially
established the boundaries of what would become modern Afghanistan – it was thus
not by the internal will or political dynamics of the Afghans but by the coercion of
the outside powers that wanted to define their frontiers and keep Afghans as a
buffer between them.
Abdur Rahman’s reforms of the army, legal system, and a centralized structure of
government gave Afghanistan a degree of unity and stability, which it had not
known before. But the British, sitting in Delhi – or more appropriately in
Rawalpindi cantonment – retained effective control over Kabul’s foreign affairs, a
humiliating situation that only ended with the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919.
Afghanistan’s Pangs of Modernization
King Amanullah Khan, son of Habib Ullah Khan, moved to end his country’s
traditional isolation in the years following the Third Anglo-Afghan war. This was a
time when the Muslim ruling elite in all countries – from Turkey to Egypt – wanted
to modernize and thus openly advocated western-style secularism. Amanullah
established diplomatic relations with most major countries and ended up becoming
a great admirer of Kamal Ataturk – the founder of the modern Turkish state.
But Ataturk’s influence first came into his life in 1913, when as a prince, he fell in
love with his would-be wife, Soraya, daughter of Mahmud Beg Tarzi. Mahmud Baig
subsequently became Amanullah Khan’s Foreign Minister, influenced the young
King’s mind, and introduced several reforms intended to modernize Afghanistan.
Tarzi – forgotten today in an Afghan discourse focused on Taliban, America, and

ISIS – was Afghanistan’s biggest reformer of the 20th century. He was a poet and
philosopher who was fluent not only in his native Pashto but could also converse in
Farsi, Dari, Turkish, French, Arabic, and Urdu.
He had spent time in exile in Karachi, Syria, and Turkey under the Ottoman empire
in the last decades of the 19th century and had imbibed ideas of a changing world
from his exploration of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean. He had
encountered the great Muslim modernizer of the age, Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, in
Constantinople. Tarzi was an ardent supporter of education for women.
He fought for Article 68 of Afghanistan’s first constitution (declared through a Loya

Jirga), which made elementary education compulsory. However, some of the
reforms that were put in place, such as the abolition of the traditional Muslim veil
for women and the opening of several co-educational schools, quickly alienated
many tribal and religious leaders – but that was not the only thing.
Soraya – Mahmud Baig Tarzi’s elegant daughter – who was born in Syria and grew
up across the Ottoman world, was the first Queen of Afghanistan in 1926. However,
her modernizing influence on Kabul dates to the day young prince Amanullah fell in
love with her in 1913 (or earlier). She forced him to renounce his Harem and made
him monogamous, accepting her as his only wife – a new thing for an Afghan king.
Queen Soraya: The woman who helped shape modern Afghanistan
Afghanistan Queen Soraya was the first Muslim consort who appeared in public
together with her husband, something which was unheard of at the time. She
participated with him in the hunting parties, riding on horseback, and in some
Cabinet meetings as well. Under the influence of Mahmud Tarzi, Soraya, and the
modernizers they brought in, Amanullah drew up the first constitution, establishing
the basis for the formal structure of the government and setting up the role of the
monarch within the constitutional framework.
Soraya, from 1921 onwards went on to create a revolution in Afghan cultural life; she
founded magazines for women like “Ishadul Naswan (Guidance for Women)” and
organizations, like “Anjuman-i Himayat-i-Niswan” which promoted women’s
welfare. She organized a theatre in Paghman for breaking the isolation of their
harems and created an office where women could report mistreatment by their
husbands, brothers, and fathers.
Encouraged by Soraya, King Amanullah publicly campaigned against the veil,

against polygamy, and encouraged the education of girls not just in Kabul, but also
in the countryside. The emancipation of women became part of Amanullah’s reform
policy, and the women of the royal family, particularly his wife and sisters, acted as
the role models for of this change.
This unveiling of women was a controversial part of the reform policy – -and it was
being pushed too fast, and too hard. Women of the royal family already wore
Western fashion before the accession of Amanullah, but they did so discreetly only
within the enclosed royal palace complex and always covered themselves in a veil
when leaving the royal area – the kind of veil that was again seen on the streets of
Kabul and Jalalabad after the US occupation (2001-21).
But throughout her husband’s reign, Queen Soraya wore wide-brimmed hats with a
diaphanous veil attached to them. Her official portraits, of the 1920s, with bare arms
and exposed shoulders, would have created a storm in Hamid Karzai’s Afghanistan.
On August 29th, 1928, Amanullah held a Loya Jirgah, a grand assembly of tribal
elders, to endorse his development programs; 1,100 delegates were required to wear
European clothes provided for them by the state.
Amanullah was clearly trying to emulate Turkish modernizer Mustafa Kamal

Ataturk, who had forced Turkish nobility and later farmers to wear European hats
instead of traditional Ottoman-era Turkish Fez. But there were huge differences
between a gradually modernizing Turkey across the melting pot of the
Mediterranean, and a landlocked tribal Afghanistan.

Modernizers provoked the First Afghan Civil War
King in this Loya Jirgah, argued for women’s rights to education and equality. He
told the Jirga that “Islam did not require women to cover their bodies or wear any
special kind of veil” and asked his wife to discard her veil. At the conclusion of the
speech, it is said that Queen Soraya, in almost an almost dramatic gesture, tore off
her veil (hejab) in public, and the wives of other officials present at the meeting
followed this example.
After that, Soraya appeared in public without a veil, and the women of the royal
family and the wives of government employees followed their example. This policy
was also endorsed in Kabul by reserving certain streets for men and women dressed
in modern Western clothing. This was the beginning of the first Afghan Civil War
(1928-29).
Though the revolt of the Shinwari in November 1928 was quelled, a concurrent
Saqqawist uprising in the North eventually managed to depose Amanullah, leading
to Habibullāh Kalakāni taking control of Kabul. Soraya and her family found exile in
Italy; she never returned before her burial in 1968.
Though, Prince Mohammed Nadir Khan, cousin of Amanullah Khan, King

Amanullah Khan and Queen Soraya Tarzi during their tour of Europe circa 1926
soon defeated and executed Habibullāh Kalakāni in November 1929, and was
declared King Nadir Khan. But as he began consolidating power and regenerating
the country, he abandoned the reforms of Amanullah Khan in favor of a more
gradual approach to modernization. In 1933, however, he was assassinated in a
revenge killing by a student from Kabul.
Mohammad Zahir Shah, Nadir Khan’s 19-year-old son, succeeded to the throne and
reigned from 1933 to 1973 till the coup by his cousin, Sardar Daud Khan, who later
fell to the Marxist rebellion under People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan
(PDPA).
What happened in the first quarter of the 20th century marks an important and
painful chapter in the Afghan history. In an ill-defined country that was beginning
to become a state under the diktat of imperial British and Russians, local ruling
elites – imagining themselves to be in Istanbul or Damascus – tried imposing
modernity and centralization, and the tribal society, used to its autonomous lifestyle
stye and medieval cultural values rebelled against this sudden change. Islam
inevitably became the poster of resistance in such a cultural clash – though it was
not about Islam.
Marxist Modernizers destroyed the equilibrium of Afghan society
Afghan elite under Zahir Shah and his changing cabinets did not surrender the
cause of modernity or centralization – but they were cautious. By 1973, Afghanistan
had achieved a new equilibrium of its own with westernized elite living in cities like
Kabul and Herat, where women in universities could be found in pants or even
skirts, and people from conservative Peshawar used to arrive to enjoy freedoms
from the stultifying life of Pakistan’s growing conservatism.
But this Afghanistan that facilitated thousands of tourists trotting the globe and
entering Pakistan from Khyber Pass had a balance between the liberal cities and
conservative countryside. Then came the mad modernizing Marxists of PDPA –
modern day Huns – in the Saur Revolution of 1978, who overthrew and assassinated
Sardar Daoud Khan. Their unrelenting fanatic pursuit of modernization, the
emancipation of women, and the strong central state ignited the new civil war that
has not ended till now.
Once in power, the PDPA implemented a Marxist–Leninist agenda. It moved to

replace religious and traditional laws with secular and Marxist–Leninist ones. Men
were obliged to cut their beards, women could not wear a chador, and mosques were
placed off-limits. The PDPA made a number of reforms on women’s rights, banning
forced marriages and giving state recognition of women’s right to vote.
Anahita Ratebzad, a prominent Marxist leader and a member of the Revolutionary

Council wrote the famous New Kabul Times editorial (May 28th, 1978) declaring:
“Privileges which women, by right must have, are: equal education, job security,
health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of
the country, educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close
government attention.” The PDPA also carried out socialist land reforms and moved
to promote state atheism.
The PDPA invited the Soviet Union (USSR) to assist in modernizing its economic
infrastructure (predominantly its exploration and mining of rare minerals and
natural gas). The USSR sent contractors to build roads, hospitals, and schools and to
drill water wells; they also trained and equipped the Afghan army.
On paper, all looked good as something that was needed to jolt a medieval rural side
into the 20th century. But the accompanying repressions plunged large parts of the
country, especially the rural areas, into open revolt against this new Marxist–
Leninist government.
By spring 1979, unrest had reached 24 out of 28 Afghan provinces, including major
urban areas. Over half of the Afghan army had either deserted or joined the
insurrection. Most of the government’s new policies clashed directly with the
traditional Afghan understanding of Islam, making religion one of the only forces
capable of unifying the tribally and ethnically divided population against the
unpopular new government and ushering in the advent of Islamist participation in
Afghan politics.
This chaos against the central authority brought the Soviet Army to Kabul in
December 1979, and then came CIA, ISI, MI6, RAW and all other troublemakers to
fight jihad against infidels. When the Soviets were forced to leave in February of
1988, and Dr. Najib’s communist government fell in 1992, the country was plunged
into another civil war – far more fratricidal than all conflicts and wars that had
happened before.
Kabul and other cities were not demolished by the Red Army, but by the rockets of
the so-called Mujahideen and their rivals from the North. It was this chaos that
drove away whatever urban intelligentsia was left in the cities.
And when the Taliban emerged from a shattered countryside in 1994 as products of
this chaos, all layers of urban modernizers – the genotypes of Khalid Hosseini,
author of Kite Runners – Afghanistan had accumulated since 1880’s had either left,
fled, or were killed.
Birth of the Taliban 1.0

Taliban, a product of “Freudian Regression” of a complex social order, were rural
men, with a primitive belief system, without any conception or cognizance of the
modern world outside their frontiers. Their challenge was widespread chaos and
tyranny of war lords and their solutions for justice – floggings, hangings, and
amputations – were coming straight from the book of the village mullah.
It’s like, if a civil war destroys Islamabad, denudes it of its complex multi-layered
intelligentsia and a new city administration later emerges out of the villages
surrounding Islamabad, then that administration naturally will not have the
sophisticated cerebral mind that Pakistan’s beautiful capital city has accumulated
over the past 60 years.
The New Taliban (Taliban, 2.0) is now an evolved product of a protracted process of
war and negotiations. The Doha Agreement Deal between Washington and the
Taliban is an important milestone, in the history of this region and the world, that
offers us all an exit from the nightmares of the past.
Dealing with these New Taliban through regional and international carrot and stick
and financial pipelines offers the best future for gradual modernity for Afghanistan,
for women’s education, minority rights, and above all, peace, and stability in the
region.
This is not a time for media demonization, diplomatic abandonment, sanctions,

freezing funds, and suspending IMF and World Bank programs, but for pursuing
engagement with greater vigor. Afghanistan and the world have a chance to bring
back the Kabul of the 1970s and heal the wounds of 100 years of war.

Why criticism on the single national
curriculum (SNC) is a welcome step? |
GVS
Dr Zohaib Zahid
Dr. Zohaib Zahid is an Assistant Professor at Islamia University Bahawalpur, Rahim
Yar Khan Campus.
One system of education for all, in terms of curriculum,

medium of instruction and a common platform of
assessment so that all children have a fair and equal
opportunity to receive a high-quality education. Single
National Curriculum is a step in that direction but recently
this initiative has received criticism explains, Dr. Zohaib
Zahid, an Assistant Professor at Islamia University
Bahawalpur.
Single National Curriculum (SNC) is one of the major breakthroughs given by the
PTI government. Excessive knowledge may vary from institute to institute but the
basic knowledge must remain the same for all. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has
paid special attention to the SNC resulting in its completion after three years of the
PTI government.
Professor (R) Pervez Hoodbhoy, an illustrious researcher, Nuclear Physicist and

Activist, along with a like-minded school of thought, have raised certain objections
as far as the development of the SNC is concerned. They believe the SNC needs to be
revised and upgraded for the following reasons.
The SNC has failed to introduce concept-based learning
Professor Hoodbhoy objects to the essence of the SNC claiming that it is based on a
cramming system and the students have not been given an opportunity to make
their concepts clear in the SNC. The answer to his first objection is that curriculum
development is based on theories, societal priorities, nationalism and the modern
scientific approach. The teachers act as tools to help the students to make their
concepts clear about any social or scientific content.
An adult can understand the concepts easily unless it is not based on some complex
scientific approach (Help is required to understand scientific concepts for adults
too) but a child of four or five years old looks forward towards the teacher for
concepts. The child adopts whatever is conveyed by the teacher. Objection to the
missing conceptual framework in the SNC does not hold water and it should better
be addressed by the government by developing a strong mechanism to train the
teachers providing them capability and capacity to convey the conceptual knowledge
to the children.

The Professor says that cramming is in vogue in Pakistan to attain marks and the
contents of the SNC also urge the students to cram and get marks giving secondary
importance to the concepts. This objection does not qualify for the development of
the SNC and is better linked with the examination system, especially board exams.
The performance of the teachers is judged on the basis of the marks obtained by the
students, not on the basis of the concepts given to the students. To better perform
the teacher finds no other option than to focus on the final exam results. Once the
top-notch education policymakers decide to set papers on a concept basis the
teachers will have no other choice than to focus on making the concepts clear.
He objects that no one thinks conceptually when the matters are concerned with
education and teaching in Pakistan. This objection is valid and based on rational
assessment. The examination system is based on cramming and the teachers have
been compelled to show good grades, not good concepts. No effort has ever been
made to transform the examination system. The objection can be addressed by
evaluating the performance of the teachers on the basis of good concepts, not on
good grades.
The situation has been prevalent since the creation of Pakistan
He raises the objection that learning the Ahadith and Quranic verses in Arabic will
put immense pressure on the minds of the students. He supports his argument by
saying that Arabic is not our mother tongue and learning Arabic will leave no space
in the minds of the children resulting in poor performance. He has criticized the
SNC developers for making it compulsory to learn the Arabic verses which will be of
no good in either way. This objection is based on his personal opinion as the
children in Pakistan learn the subjects of science and mathematics in English
putting pressure on the young minds. Similarly, learning Ahadith and Quranic
verses will not affect the learning capacity of the children.
Mr. Hoodbhoy objects to the curriculum development committee for their haste to
publish the books. He opines the SNC developers must have waited for others’
concerns too so that it could have been addressed before publishing. He argues that
the scientific topics included in classes one to five are the traditional ones and this
objection is justified because the most modern scientific theories and experiments
need to be taught to the students at the earliest level.
He draws the attention of the government towards an alarming situation of millions

of children not attending the schools and the development of the SNC is futile as
half of the children do not join the schools. Administrative measures must be taken
by the government to get all the children enrolled in the schools.
The country is lagging behind in education and the discussion on the development
of the curriculum is a healthy activity that must be welcomed by all the circles. The
criticism will help to bring improvement to the education system and curriculum. A
number of circles take the criticism as an attack on their ideology which is a gross
misconception as the positive criticism makes headway if analyzed rationally.

The Pandora's box of our dirty offshore
legacy | GVS
Hassan Aslam Shad
Dr. Ikram ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, is a member of the Advisory Board and
Visiting Senior Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) and
Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).
The Pandora Papers have revealed, yet again, how this

country has been literally raped by the elites. We stand
exposed yet again. While PM Khan promises an
investigation & accountability, it is necessary that Pakistan
adopts an aggressive and offensive lawfare against
corruption - argues Hassan Aslam Shad in collaboration
with Dr. Ikram ul Haq in an eye-opening piece!
Based upon the most expansive leak of tax haven files in history, the Pandora Papers
investigation reveals the secret deals and hidden assets of more than 330
politicians and high-level public officials in more than 90 countries and territories,
including 35 countries’ leaders. The Pandora Papers lay bare the global
entanglement of political power and secretive offshore finance—the largest
investigation in journalism history exposes a shadow financial system that benefits
the world’s most rich and powerful, International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists (ICIJ).
What the Pandora Papers reveal
A new investigation published on October 3, 2021, by ICIJ, titled, Offshore havens

and hidden riches of the world leaders and billionaires exposed in the
unprecedented leak, called The Pandora Papers, reads: “Millions of leaked
documents and the biggest journalism partnership in history have uncovered
financial secrets of 35 current and former world leaders, more than 330 politicians
and public officials in 91 countries and territories, and a global lineup of fugitives,
con artists and murderers.
The secret documents expose offshore dealings of the King of Jordan, the presidents
of Ukraine, Kenya, and Ecuador, the prime minister of the Czech Republic, and
former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The files also detail the financial activities
of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “unofficial minister of propaganda” and more
than 130 billionaires from Russia, the United States, Turkey, and other nations.”
The Offshore havens and hidden riches of the world leaders and billionaires exposed
in the unprecedented leak contains “the leaked records reveal that many of the
power players who could help bring an end to the offshore system instead benefit
from it—stashing assets in covert companies and trusts while their governments do
little to slow a global stream of illicit money that enriches criminals and
impoverishes nations.”
The ICIJ obtained the “trove of more than 11.9 million confidential files and led a
team of more than 600 journalists from 150 news outlets that spent two years sifting
through them, tracking down hard-to-find sources and digging into court records
and other public documents from dozens of countries. The leaked records come
from 14 offshore services firms from around the world that set up shell companies
and other offshore nooks for clients often seeking to keep their financial activities in
the shadows. The records include information about the dealings of nearly three
times as many current and former country leaders as any previous leak of
documents from offshore havens”.
The Pandora Papers, according to ICIJ, “in an era of widening authoritarianism and
inequality,” provides “an unequaled perspective on how money and power operate
in the 21st century—and how the rule of law has been bent and broken around the
world by a system of financial secrecy enabled by the U.S. and other wealthy
nations”. It is clear from the reading of the greatest leak so far the “deeply secretive
finance has infiltrated global politics—and offer insights into why governments and
global organizations have made little headway in ending offshore financial abuses.
According to ICIJ’s “analysis of the secret documents identified 956 companies in

offshore havens tied to 336 high-level politicians and public officials, including
country leaders, cabinet ministers, ambassadors, and others. More than two-thirds
of those companies were set up in the British Virgin Islands, a jurisdiction long
known as a key cog in the offshore system”.
In fact, The Pandora Papers is larger and more global than even ICIJ’s landmark
Panama Papers investigation, which rocked the world in 2016, spawning police raids
and new laws in dozens of countries and the fall of prime ministers in Iceland and
Pakistan.
The Panama Papers legacy and Pakistan
The following part is relevant for Pakistan:
“The Panama Papers revealed that the children of Pakistan’s prime minister at the
time, Nawaz Sharif, had ties to offshore companies. This gave Khan an opening to
hammer Sharif, his political rival, on what Khan described as the “coalition of the
corrupt ravaging Pakistan.”
“It is disgusting the way money is plundered in the developing world from people
who are already deprived of basic amenities: health, education, justice, and
employment,” Khan told ICIJ’s partner, The Guardian, in 2016. “This money is put
into offshore accounts, or even western countries, western banks. The poor get
poorer. Poor countries get poorer, and rich countries get richer. Offshore accounts
protect these crooks.”
“Ultimately, Pakistan’s top court removed Sharif from office as a result of an inquiry
sparked by the Panama Papers. Khan swept in to replace him in the next national
election”.“ICIJ’s latest investigation, the Pandora Papers, brings renewed attention
to the use of offshore companies by Pakistani political players. This time, the
offshore holdings of people close to Khan are being disclosed, including his finance
minister and a top financial backer”.
Read more: Rich playing ‘Black Joke’ on world: Movie on Panama Papers uncovers
Dark Secrets
The Prime Minister’s new challenge
The Pandora Paper is thus a challenge for the Prime Minister, who has been
reiterating time and again his resolve against corruption and retrieving of looting of
national wealth. Now that his own people of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) are
allegedly involved in the same nefarious activities, what will be his next move? The
Prime Minister has ordered the creation of a ‘High Powered Cell’ (hereafter ‘Cell’) to
investigate offshore firm owners.
Reportedly, a separate probe will also be launched by the Ministry of Information

and Broadcasting and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority
(PEMRA) to investigate if any media owners who established companies in the “safe
tax havens” had committed any wrongdoings.
It has been reported that Law Minister Farogh Naseem would head the Cell and that
it would comprise officials of the NAB, FBR, and FIA. Moreover, the terms of
reference of the Cell are expected to be announced in a few days.
A non-starter?
The Cell and the agencies it would be supported by would be another non-starter
unless the right team of individuals heads this lawfare against corruption. As
suggested by us in our joint article titled “China’s lawfare against corruption—
lessons for Pakistan—I” Daily Times, November 9, 2018, and “China’s lawfare
against corruption—lessons for Pakistan—II” Daily Times, November 10, 2018,
China’s lawfare against corruption succeeded because of a vertical top-down purge
of corrupt officials of all ranks (regardless of their role and clout) who were taken to
task through a relentless anti-corruption drive.
The Prime Minister, despite having the sincere resolve and unshakeable belief of
uprooting the corruption, is, in the end, trapped by the so-called electables. The vast
majority is suffering from a policy of appeasement towards the rich and mighty.
The skyrocketed inflation and lack of justice are pushing the marginalized and
weaker section of society to the wall. In these circumstances, the slogan of
establishing an egalitarian society and process of selected accountability will lead
the country towards more instability, economic meltdown, and diplomatic isolation.
The path is to take all to task and make the country a place worth living for all. It is
not possible with present policies of appeasement and amnesties for real estate
tycoons and elites. Tax evasion is rampant, and the nation is deprived of funds
required for schools, hospitals, roads, and other public services.
How to institutionalize Pakistan’s lawfare against corruption
It is humbly submitted that the Cell set up by the Prime Minister is not capable of
getting to the bottom of this rabbit hole of corruption that afflicts Pakistan. Some of
those who are a part of the Cell would either be direct beneficiaries of corruption, or
the inclusion of certain individuals in the Cell would further entrench corruption
once they receive large sums of money to exonerate the corrupt.

Most importantly, Pakistan’s lawfare against corruption should now be treated as
a vital national security threat. Corruption has been weaponized against Pakistan by
Pakistan’s elite. This is akin to the human body going into a mode of self-destruction
when the cells start preying on the vital organs. Needless to say, the weaponization
of corruption in Pakistan has weakened the rule of law and institutions to the point
of decay.
It is, therefore, time to adopt an aggressive and offensive lawfare against corruption.
This lawfare must be well-thought-out, well-calibrated, ‘across the board’ and
conducted by individuals of repute (yes, a few still remain) and those with the
required technical, legal, and other skills. The individuals must be carefully vetted to
make sure they have no conflict of interest that would prevent them from
discharging their duties with honesty and integrity.
As the Cell and the associated agencies would have limited to no resources to get to
the bottom of the alleged corruption underscored in the Pandora Papers, the Cell
must acquire the services of an international team of experts (forensic, financial,
legal, etc.) with a proven track record of confirming the veracity or lack thereof of
the explanations offered by Pakistanis named in the Pandora Papers.
Pakistan’s NAB would also need to consider entering into a robust asset recovery
agreement that enables Pakistan to recover the looted wealth uncovered by the
lawfare. (It would, however, be very important to avoid the Broadsheet saga
mistakes and to ensure that previously engaged “legal experts” who drafted the
worst possible agreement between Pakistan/NAB and Broadsheet have no role in
this lawfare).
Since the ‘affectees’ of the investigation would include high profile elites with
considerable clout across the entire spectrum and who would inevitably hold sway
over the legal system of Pakistan, the Prime Minister should consider promulgating
an Ordinance that strategizes the lawfare, sets out the objects and purposes of the
lawfare in a manner that it becomes a “parallel” legal process that is unscathed by
the existing legal and judicial system of Pakistan that has failed to deliver results.
The Pandora Papers have revealed, yet again, how this country has been literally
raped by the elites. Since Pakistan aspires to follow China, it is time that Pakistan
adopts an aggressive lawfare against corruption like China did to stand on its feet
and, as a result, took millions out of poverty. Only an aggressive no holds barred
lawfare against corruption can lessen corruption’s capacity of mayhem for Pakistan.
We stand exposed yet again. However, this time around, we can expose all those
who have looted this country’s wealth and breached the sacred trust reposed in
them by this nation. The time to act is now.

Iran prompts Israel to weigh
acknowledgement of its own nuclear
weapons | GVS
Dr. James Dorsey
Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and scholar and a Senior
Fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute
The proliferation of nuclear technology in the

politically volatile Middle East greatly increases the
likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war. It is widely
accepted, while not openly declared, that Israel has
nuclear weapons and that Iran has enriched enough
nuclear material to build them. So what are the
repercussions of such actions, discusses Dr. James M
Dorsey, an award-winning journalist.
On their way from Tel Aviv airport to Jerusalem in 1977 then Israeli Deputy Prime
Minister Yigael Yadin asked President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to ever
officially visit Israel, why the Egyptian military had not moved deeper into the Sinai
during the 1973 Middle East war. “You have nuclear arms. Haven’t you heard?” Mr.
Sadat replied.
Mr. Sadat’s strategic calculations in the war, the last all-out military confrontation
between Israel and Arab states, takes on renewed significance coupled with a recent
report that asserts that Iranian nuclear advances are irreversible and have reached a
stage at which Iran needs only one month to produce enough weapons-grade
uranium for a single bomb.
The beginning of a public debate

The report has sparked a public debate in Israel about whether the Jewish state,
which is long believed to have multiple nuclear weapons but consistently stopped
short of confirming or denying the assertion, should finally do so to lay down a
marker for Iran.
Israeli acknowledgment of its nuclear capabilities would likely force it to join Iran as
a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It
would also constitute a tectonic shift in the geopolitical environment that frames
thinking about a future security architecture in the Middle East.

The debate theoretically creates an opportunity for the administration of US
President Joe Biden to position the rejiggering of the United States’ commitment to
the region’s security in a totally different light and make a significant contribution to
a situation in which the Middle East’s numerous conflicts and disputes can be better
managed in the absence of resolutions.
The administration has a first chance to explore the opportunity when Eyal Hulata,
the head of Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s national security council, meets
this week in Washington with Mr. Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan has just returned from a visit to the Middle East during which he
focused on the war in Yemen and Iran and became the administration’s highest
official to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, days before the
third anniversary of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Mr. Bennett, despite warning in remarks last month to the United Nations General
Assembly that Israel would not shy away from military action to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon, reportedly disagrees with the conclusion of the
report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The report’s conclusions are supported by the likes of former Israeli prime minister
and chief of staff Ehud Barak and Aluf Benn, the editor of the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz.
Why Israel should reconsider its nuclear policies?

A senior Israeli official said that Mr. Bennet had read Mr. Barak’s assertion in a
recent oped that Iran had “probably crossed the point of no return” and that Israel
should reconsider its policy of nuclear ambiguity.
“Bennett doesn’t think that it’s game over about Iran’s nuclear program. He thinks
that Iran is indeed very close to that point, but that there is still time, and if Israel
acts on its own and with its allies in a systematic way, it is still possible to stop
them.,” the official said.
Mr. Bennett’s position appears to be backed by former prime minister Ehud Olmert
who argued that Israeli acknowledgment of its nuclear capability would allow Iran
to justify the development of a capability of its own. Mr. Olmert’s opposition is
rooted in his belief that Israel is not able to permanently destroy Iranian nuclear
facilities with a conventional military strike.
Even so, acknowledgment would facilitate an international negotiation that focuses

not only on Iran but also on Israel and, in doing so, helps lay the groundwork for a
more sustainable regional security architecture.
John Carlson, a nuclear expert, argued, in a report published earlier this year by the
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDR), that negotiation of a
Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons would “itself help build regional
confidence and trust.”
In the absence of a tectonic shift in Israeli policy

Israeli Chief of Staff Avi Kohavi has suggested on various occasions this year that
Israel was developing “operational plans” for a potential strike prompted by Iran’s
nuclear progress. Mr. Kohavi said last month that Israel had “greatly accelerated”
preparations.

The potential opportunity created by an Israeli acknowledgment would not only
contribute to averting the threat of a new Middle East war but also help fend off
possible Saudi and Turkish thinking about expanding the region’s nuclear club. That
league is currently a club of one if one ignores Pakistan that sits on the Middle East’s
periphery.
The moral of Mr. Sadat’s reply to Mr. Yadin’s question is that Israeli ambiguity
about its nuclear capabilities may no longer serve a purpose and that
acknowledgment of its long-standing open secret may help ensure greater regional
stability.
Mr. Sadat was telling Mr. Yadin that both he and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad
were fully aware of Israel’s nuclear capability as they planned the war and were
determined to ensure that the attack would not push the Jewish state to the point
where it would use nuclear weapons to ensure its survival. In other words, it was the
knowledge of Israeli capabilities, not whether Israel acknowledged them, that
shaped their strategy.
Disagreement in Israel’s national security community is not limited to whether the

Jewish state should radically shift gears but also includes the question of how close
Iran may be to being able to produce a nuclear weapon.
Countering alarmist assessments, Maj.-Gen. Tamir Hayman, the head of Israel’s

military intelligence, argued this weekend that “there is an enriched amount [of
uranium] in volumes that we have not seen before, and it is disturbing. At the same
time, in all other aspects of the Iranian nuclear project, we see no progress. Not in
the weapons project, in the financial area, not in any other sector… They are not
heading toward a bomb right now: It may be in the distant future.”

The Afghanistan Debacle: Marco Rubio
vs Reality | Daily Times
Samad Yousafzai
The writer is Director Programmes for an international ICT organization based in
the UK and writes on corporate strategy, socio-economic and geopolitical issues.
To say that America’s Afghanistan debacle has put the cat amongst the pigeons
would be a grave understatement! For now, the area has become a hotbed of more
uncertainty and instability. An abrupt and poorly planned end to more than 20
years of occupation will do that to a region. On cue, recriminations have started
flying left, right and centre to find a convenient patsy for another American foreign
and defence policy failure. Add to that list, the recent outpouring of gems from the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, especially Marco Rubio – a Republican with a
failed presidential bid under his belt. Consider.
First – “the Pakistani role in enabling the Taliban is ultimately a victory for those
pro-Taliban hardliners in the Pakistani government”. Lest the esteemed Senator
overlook history, the enabling of such a group of hardliners began years ago by the
CIA and at the behest of the American foreign policy of containment. Right then,
wrong now? Quite recently, and when all else failed, it was the American
government that was negotiating with the Taliban in Qatar. He should acknowledge
that the Taliban’s “talk, talk – fight, fight” strategy emboldened them to quite an
extent and frankly outwitted the Americans. Furthermore, while it is true that in the
80s and 90s there may have been hardliners in the Pakistani government, it is
equally true that now there are almost none. This is because, over the last two
decades, Pakistan has been at the receiving end of extremist retaliation and has
been – per force – at the forefront of the war on terror. Pakistani loss of life ranges
to the hundreds of thousands! Who in their right mind would want to make those
sacrifices again?! Nevertheless, like any other country, Pakistan also can’t isolate
itself from its neighbour and would want to ensure that stability reigns in
Afghanistan and outside interference subsides. And unlike in the past, Pakistan does
not want to go against regional and international sentiment on what the Taliban
must do to be engaged constructively by the world. Even Prime Minister Imran
Khan echoed this policy, “if they do not include all the factions, sooner or later they
will have a civil war, that would mean an unstable, chaotic Afghanistan and an ideal
place for terrorists. That is a worry.”
The idea to play the world’s policeman seems just too tempting to ignore for
the Americans.
Second – “the Taliban had unchallenged safe haven in Pakistan.they were able to
rest, retrain and recruit.”
Since the new millennium and especially after 9/11, even if there were any sporadic
hideouts in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, they were
eliminated. Simply because Pakistan had paid a heavy price for aligning with
America’s misplaced policy of containment! Particularly with the influx of refugees
and related social and human upheaval. One of these days, Senator Rubio should be
parachuted into the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border so that he can
find out himself how difficult it is to search and destroy these sanctuaries. Which, by
the way, the Pakistani military has done without prejudice on this side of the
border! Alas! The same can’t be said on the other side of the fence!
Moreover, the American record on collateral damage in Afghanistan is enough

fertile ground for recruitment of elements hostile to the occupying army! A recent
example of this is a misplaced drone attack on August 29, 2021 where only innocent
civilians died. “The strike was a tragic mistake,” Marine General Frank McKenzie,
head of US Central Command, told a news conference. “I am now convinced that as
many as 10 civilians, including up to 7 children, were tragically killed in that strike.”
Third – “If the United States could have a third-rate power like Pakistan unravel its
aims, what chance do they have of confronting China?”
A little introspection would have shown that America – and interested parties such
as India – miscalculated big time when it came to the power dynamics of
Afghanistan! Subsequent US administrations believed that puppet regimes of
Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani could do their bidding in Afghanistan without any
backlash from the rest of the country. These imported leaders didn’t have much
political constituency, to begin with, and all they did was allow rampant corruption
in government and amass fortunes in their little time at the top of the pyramid and
then make a swift exit! Hence, American foreign policy (read: folly) in Afghanistan
didn’t need any outside help to unravel its aims. After all, the place is not called the
graveyard of empires for nothing. Persians, Mongols, British, Russians and now
Americans have learnt that although it is possible to capture Afghanistan
temporarily it is next to impossible to keep it for long when it is rampant with forts,
castles, tribes, guerrillas and fighters.
In the final analysis – not only did the US bet on the wrong horse(s), but it also
overlooked the history of Afghani resistance to foreign occupiers. Nonetheless, this
is not without precedence. Wherever American intervention has happened, either in
the form of puppet governments or otherwise, it has been a disaster for the history
books! But yet, the idea to play the world’s policeman seems just too tempting to
ignore for the Americans. What’s that saying? The road to hell is paved with good
intentions!
Other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee spoke along similar
lines. Chairman Senator Robert Menendez, mentioned the “double-dealing” by
Pakistan and Senator James Risch said that the US must understand Pakistan’s role
in this entire matter. The solitary thing that Rubio was correct about is the fact that
all this leaves the world in a terrible situation. Pakistan – for its part – doesn’t have
an easy road ahead either. One, it needs to deal with an inspired TTP at its doorstep
and see how a realistic reconciliation and disarmament – if at all feasible – can be
executed. Two, it is expecting a colossal number of refugees if the world turns its
back on the people of Afghanistan again. Three, its negligible influence on the
Taliban means that it may not be able to convince them to stop cross border attacks
from Afghanistan into Pakistan.
The Marco Rubios of this world will do better to get their historical context right and
stop playing to the galleries unnecessarily. It is not that mistakes have not been
made in the past, it is the lessons we learn out of these mistakes which enable us to
move forward. And if this means engaging with the Taliban, in exchange for a
degree of stability and a promise of inclusive governance and not allowing
Afghanistan to be used for terrorist activities, then so be it. The alternative is to be
sucked into The Great Game again resulting in an unwinnable, everlasting and
catastrophic conflict.

Using Nuclear Technology for Peace |
Daily Times
Zafar Iqbal Yousafzai
The writer is a Senior Research Associate (Strategic Vision Institute).
Pakistan has been facing an immense energy crisis for quite a long time. According
to a World Bank report, electricity shortage is a bigger obstacle to business as
compared to corruption. To fulfil, or at least shorten, its energy shortage, Pakistan
and China are working in close collaboration. Some states like India have been
questioning Pakistan’s nuclear cooperation for peaceful purposes. However, all
business related to nuclear is according to the IAEA regulations and safety
mechanism. This article looks at China-Pakistan cooperation in the peaceful nuclear
energy sector and how they are taking care of the obligations of the IAEA and other
nuclear regulatory agencies.
Peaceful use of nuclear technology has significantly increased in modern times

where other sources are expensive as well as environmental pollution. Nuclear
technology is significant in several fields: agriculture, energy production, medical,
pharmaceuticals, scientific research, and industries. Nuclear technology is not only
economic but also environment-friendly. Hence, Pakistan has been looking to seek
collaboration in the nuclear energy sector under the non-proliferation regulations.
Being a close ally, Pakistan is actively engaged with China for collaboration in the
nuclear energy sector for peaceful uses.
China has been assisting Pakistan in developing nuclear power plants to provide for
Pakistan’s nuclear energy requirements in addition to improvement in a number of
sectors i.e., food processing and agriculture. However, Pakistan’s supply and
demand gap are a serious issue at the moment, which is being prioritised by
bilateral cooperation. The nuclear cooperation demonstrates strong progressive ties
between Beijing and Islamabad.
China has been assisting Pakistan in developing power plants to provide

for nuclear energy requirements.
On September 8, 2021, China and Pakistan inked a nuclear deal aimed at nuclear
energy cooperation. The agreement valid for ten years was signed between Pakistan
Atomic Energy Commission and China Zhongyuan Engineering Cooperation.
Moreover, the agreement includes Uranium processing, nuclear fuel supply, transfer
of nuclear technology and establishing reactors. The main aim of the agreement is
comprehensive nuclear cooperation to construct and maintain nuclear power
projects in Pakistan.

Earlier, China has constructed a number of nuclear projects in Pakistan. A brief
detail of Chashma Nuclear Power Complex (CHASHMA) and Karachi Nuclear
Power Complex (KANUPP) is given below:
CHASHMA I was the second unit constructed by China in Pakistan in 2000 under
the complete guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
protocols. . Its capacity is 300 megawatts. The life of the plant is 40 years. Later on,
with the Chinese funding, Pakistan upgraded CHASHMA I in 2005 and named it
CHASHMA II. This project too was under the guidelines of the IAEA. Likewise in
March 2020, the government of Pakistan agreed with the Chinese company for
CHASHMA units 3 and 4. China provided 82 per cent of the whole cost of the
project. This plant life is also 40 years.
Moreover, the PAEC (Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission) in February 2013

entered into an agreement with the CNNC (Chinese National Nuclear Corporation)
in November 2010. The Chinese Government constructed and developed the fifth
power plant of the CHASHMA nuclear complex. The power capability of this unit is
1000 MW. Similarly, Karachi Nuclear power Complex was another nuclear
cooperation between Beijing and Islamabad. KANUPP-1 and KANUPP-2, 3, and 4
are the civilian nuclear powers plants that produce 1,000 MW of electricity in
Karachi, Sindh. This nuclear complex is under the protection and inspection of the
IAEA. The construction plant was under the PAEC, and it was funded by the
International Atomic Energy Agency, China National Nuclear Corporation, the
China Atomic Energy Authority, and China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Group.
Hence, China-Pakistan nuclear cooperation for decades is a sign of their deep

friendship and trust. It is pertinent to mention all the agreements between both the
countries and projects are according to the IAEA protocols and principles. Pakistan
needs further nuclear agreements for the peaceful production of energy to cater for
the growing needs of the energy sector in the country.

A catalyst for nuclear proliferation | The
Nation
Air Marshal M Ashfaque Arain (Retd)
The writer is an author and former soldier.
The recent Australia, United Kingdom and United States (AUKUS) announcement
about the provision of nuclear-powered submarines by the US and UK to Australia
through a build and design project has set a new norm in international relations,
power politics and nuclear proliferation. The resultant cancellation of a 2016 deal
for the provision of French submarines to Australia has caused a diplomatic crisis
between the US, Australia and France as the development will have far-reaching
implications in the ongoing power struggle and evolving geopolitical environment. If
not handled well, this will create a long-term wedge between the US and France as
well as other European nations. While the US and UK are the obvious beneficiaries,
France will bear a huge financial setback. Additionally, many other nations will also
benefit or bear the negative effects of this development.
Historically, there has always been competition for sale of defence equipment and
countries use their political clout to clinch a deal. However, forcing a deal through
cancellation of an earlier concluded deal, especially of a friendly country, is
unprecedented. France, a leading member of the European Union (EU) and part of
NATO is outraged at the AUKUS decision. Demonstrating its unhappiness, it has
recalled its ambassadors from the US and Australia. The entire episode suggests
deep fissures between the EU and the US as well as US and its EU NATO members.
The provision of SSNs to Australia is aimed at countering the Chinese naval

presence in the Asia-Pacific. It is, however, surprising that the US did not provide
this technology to India, another Quad member, which promotes herself as pivotal
in US’ China containment policy. The most probable reason could be a lack of
American trust in Indian capability, especially when viewed in the backdrop of the
diminished Indian role in Afghanistan, her military’s performance in Galwan as well
as against Pakistan in 2019 and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also
possible that the US and UK trusted Australia more as all three have the same
origin.
The AUKUS deal is unique since it is the first time a non-nuclear state is being
provided with nuclear-powered submarines. The only other example that comes
close is when the US provided this sensitive technology to the UK in 1958. However,
at that time, the nuclear control regimes were not as effective. The deal, thus,
supports horizontal proliferation by setting a new norm.

While China has strongly criticised the deal, India seems happy as it provides her
with an opportunity to exploit French discontent with the US. India, for a very long
time, has been endeavouring to acquire advanced nuclear power technology, which
in the past was denied by both the US as well as France. After this development,
India will now actively endeavour to persuade France for the transfer of technology
as it would help the latter recover her financial loss as well as showcase her
independence in making decisions.
In case India succeeds in persuading France to obtain such technology, the balance
of power will shift in the South Asian region prompting an arms race. This will also
make New Delhi more belligerent towards its smaller neighbours, creating a security
situation between rival nuclear states. The French government, however, is in a
dilemma. If they sell these submarines to India, they are strengthening Quad and if
they don’t sell, they incur financial loss.
India, despite being a non-signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons (NPT), was supported by the US for inclusion in the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG).
In its China containment policy, the US seems to be unconcerned about nuclear

proliferation. It first signed a strategic partnership with India and helped its entry
into the NSG. Owing to US support, many Indian nuclear facilities continue to
remain outside the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) watch, helping it
to continuously increase weapons-grade fissile material. During the last few months,
there have been at least three reported cases of unauthorised possession,
transportation and sale of fissile material in India, without attracting much criticism
from the international community, including the US.
This trend does not bode well for the nuclear non-proliferation regime and if
remains unchecked; many other nations would aspire to acquire similar
technologies and capabilities. It is about time that the US rethink its policies, and its
reliance on Indian military and intelligence. The Indian military has repeatedly
performed poorly in the past even against smaller neighbours, therefore, it cannot
be counted as a counterweight to China. While the US has highly sophisticated
electronic intelligence and surveillance systems, it relies to a great extent on India
for human intelligence. Afghanistan is a good example where Indian intelligence,
assessments about the Ashraf Ghani government and role crumbled like a house of
cards. The US would be wise to revisit its policies and avoid reliance on India and
stop investing in its failures. Otherwise, in the long term this will hurt the entire
globe and the US will be no exception, rather, reliance on India will hurt the US the
most.

Love redefined | The Nation
Zara Maqbool
The writer is a psychologist.
Love is a funny thing; the most trustworthy and the most mistrusting feeling at the
same time. It’s like a chameleon changing colors throughout the span of a person’s
life and there is so much movement in how this emotion is given and received. A
baby demands love with so much force that even a stranger is forced to offer it. I
have yet to know of anyone who can resist perhaps the most untainted and pure
form of love that is being demanded by the rawest form of a human being; an
innocent baby.
And as time passes by, this emotion of love starts taking different shapes and forms.
A child, even as a toddler is offered conditional love in the form of, ‘if you finish your
food, you will get a candy’ and that’s the first moment of loss of that pure
unconditional love that the innocent had experienced. That makes me think that this
kind of love only exists in the pre-verbal life of a human being and as soon as he
finds a voice, love starts having so many explicit and implicit conditional layers and
it would be naïve of us to fool ourselves in imagining that a mother’s love that the
universe blows the trumpet about is free of any conditions.
A mother’s love is self-serving too, as loving her child and being loved back makes
her feel the most needed in the little baby’s world and do we all not strive for
recognition all our lives? For a moment, a day or a lifetime of an innate desire to be
seen and recognised, to make ourselves believe that we matter in this universe, that
we are not forgotten.
Love being conditional is one facet of it. What love means is another, especially an
adult’s love. Our culture repeatedly tells us that love means a significant other in an
emotional and physical intimate relationship. That is the only true essence of love
and the ultimate fantasy of love translated into a real experience. Of course, the love
of friends and colleagues has its own significance, but the idea is that true love can
only be experienced with the ‘one’! And thanks to all the movies and books we have
grown up watching and reading, the over-romanticised idea of soul mates and true
love gets internalised.
I fully endorse the idea of love and its power. Indeed, it is a very powerful all-
encompassing emotion but this notion of the ‘one’ and for that one to be a
permanent resident in our hearts and life as a partner or a husband is unrealistic.
Think about it. Do you really think that one person can offer love that will transcend
all other feelings and take us to eternal bliss? And more importantly do we have to
experience that kind of love from a romantic relationship only?
I found love in the most unexpected place. It’s not a romantic relationship and it is
not found in the realm of ‘what does this love mean and where is it going’. For me,
this love is a moment at times that makes me feel alive and visible and mostly a
silent song playing at the back of my head all the time, where I can increase the
volume of it whenever I feel like.
I found out only recently that love is really simple and can be expressed as it is
without confining it into cultural expectations of expressing my love especially
towards the opposite gender would only mean a romantic inclination. No. Saying ‘I
love you’ for me is gratitude to my friend for his capacity to receive and hold my
feelings authentically and compassionately. To offer his version of love with a ‘how
are you Zara?’ on a day when he does not have a minute to spare. An expression of
love does not mean running after a girl before she catches a flight to God knows
where or a room full of flowers! For me it’s being supported on my journey without
judgement and ill-founded expectations. For me, this is celebrating love,
undoubtedly a mighty healing emotion that made me meet parts of me that I had
not met before. It also means a gentle challenge now and then to my blind spots that
are brought to my awareness from a kind and sincere place.
Go ahead and run after your girl or guy if you need to and I hope for you that you
can catch them. But if you cannot, then allow yourself to redefine what love means
really and you might be surprised that it was always around the corner for you to
bump into it but waiting at that corner might not be a Hollywood version of a
romantic hero, but maybe someone who actually defines what love truly is.

Preventing the flight of money | The Nation
Malik Muhammad Ashraf
The writer is a former civil servant.
Corruption and the misuse of authority by public figures is a universal phenomenon

with varying degrees and is more pronounced in developing and poor countries
where the people at the helm of affairs build their own fortunes instead of changing
the economic situation of their citizens. The money is then siphoned off to various
tax havens around the globe. Corruption by the ruling elite is one of the major
causes of poverty and deprivation in developing countries and a catalyst to political
upheavals and instability.
Prime Minister Imran Khan was right on the money, when in his virtual address to
the World Leaders Summit Dialogue, organised by the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development at Barbados, he reiterated the need to halt the outflow of
$1 trillion from developing countries to tax havens. Explaining the impact of this
phenomenon he said, “The illicit outflows are crushing the people of the developing
world, not just because the money is being siphoned off to the developed world—
which could instead be spent on human development—but also because resultantly,
when the money leaves the country, it affects the local currency which devalues,
leading to inflation, and then more poverty.” More poverty surely encourages
economic migration and illegal human-trafficking. People risk their lives to reach
the shores of rich European countries, a problem which also affects those countries
and the flow of these migrants generates social conflicts and political backlash.
With regards to dealing with this problem, his contention was that the only way
financial integrity could be fostered at the global level and the flight of ill-gotten
money from the developing countries to the tax havens could be checked was the
implementation of the recommendations of the UN’s high-level panel on
international financial accountability, transparency and integrity. The
recommendations compiled after thorough research and insight into the
mechanisms involved and released in February can surely go a long way in dealing
with the problem. But the real problem comes at the implementation stage.
It is pertinent to point out that a number of international conventions and

agreements already exist on preventing money laundering and parking money in tax
havens. The ECOSOC has also devised an elaborate mechanism on the subject
requiring the exchange of information between countries and devising legal and
administrative measures to check this detestable practice, but with very little
success. The Prime Minister rightly remarked that the developed countries, which
could do something about it, had no incentive to do it.
The real problem is the attitude of rich countries which are also the destination for
stashing money accumulated through corruption by leaders of developing countries.
The money in their banks is utilised to promote trade and industry in those
countries. So why would they be interested to lose a big source of money coming
their way, though they invariably keep reiterating their resolve to eliminate money
laundering and discouraging corrupt leaders to park their ill-gotten money in their
banks.
The Prime Minister also elaborated on other challenges facing the global community
in the backdrop of the onslaught of Covid-19 and yet again, he urged rich countries
to extend debt relief to developing countries, whose economies were badly affected.
He has been a vociferous advocate of this, and in fact spearheaded efforts in this
regard. But the fact is that rich countries, instead of writing off the debt, only
provided temporary moratorium on their loans. They surely have their own
considerations stemming from strategic interests which have no relevance to
humanitarian considerations.
The Prime Minister also urged the need for vaccine equity to tackle the devastating
effects of Covid-19. Nobody in his right mind and having even a grain of humanity in
them could differ with what he emphasised. But what we have seen is that, in spite
of the efforts of WHO and other international entities, developed countries gave
priority to their own countries and consequently the global community failed to
devise an effective mechanism for vaccine equity. The US used the occasion to
malign arch-rival China for being responsible for the emergence of Covid-19 to
extract political mileage. Hence the solidarity required to deal with pandemic
became a casualty to global politics.
His advocacy for the provision of finance to developing and poor countries and
extending help to them in mitigating the impact of climate change was absolutely
justified and beyond reproach. According to a report compiled by the UN, ten
countries are responsible for emission of 68 percent of greenhouse gases that cause
global warming and climate change while a hundred countries contribute only 3
percent of it. Pakistan is one of the ten most affected countries due to climate
change. Under the circumstances, the polluters are not only required to limit the
emissions of greenhouse gases but are also under obligation to help poor and
developing countries which lack the financial resources and technical know-how to
deal with the devastating effects of climate change.
Here again, while it is universally accepted that climate change is the biggest
challenge facing humanity in the 21st century, the required cooperation and
initiative to deal with it remains as elusive as ever. The first protocol known as the
Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 11, 1997. However, owing to a complex
ratification process, it entered into force on February 16, 2005. Currently, there are
192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol prescribed levels of reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions and the signatory countries were supposed to implement
them in two phases. But the US did not ratify it and some other countries also pulled
out of it or refused to abide by set targets. The second, called the Paris Agreement
was signed on December 12, 2015, which was termed as a turning point with regards
to grappling with climate change. But again the US pulled out of it. However it is
gratifying to note that the US President has rejoined the agreement and is also
making efforts to promote and foster international cooperation in this regard. He
held the Leader’s Summit in April this year. Another UN-sponsored conference on
the subject is scheduled to be held at Glasgow, Scotland in November this year. One
hopes that this would produce a credible and practical mechanism to tackle the
challenge of climate change and the world shows impregnable solidarity in this
regard.
Prime Minister Imran Khan deserves the credit for his candid discourse on the
issues that he explained and pose a formidable challenge to the international
community. His commitment to these issues and unmitigated advocacy of how they
must be faced and subdued is unparalleled. This has raised his stature as a global
statesman.

A truth commission on TTP | The Nation
Senator Rehman Malik
Pakistan is passing through the worst span of its history when it is facing a serious
economic crisis, sharp depreciation of the Rupee, an abnormal reduction in the
growth rate, increase in inflation, trouble on its eastern and western borders,
pressure from the IMF, and its impact on the common man and unchecked
corruption coupled with nepotism. Most of these problems are because of terrorism
as, for more than twenty years, Pakistan has been fighting a war against terrorism in
which we received a huge loss in terms of loss of precious lives, economic instability
and devastation of basic infrastructure. Most crises in our country emerged due to
our war against Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as they are the ones who created
security issues that scared foreign investors.
Following the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul, the debate has begun over what to do
with the Pakistani Taliban and what is the government’s future course of action.
After PM Imran Khan’s statement of general amnesty for the TTP, some people are
strongly opposed to talks with the Taliban and some are demanding accountability
of the TTP for their heinous crimes. There should be no compromise on the
integrity, sovereignty, constitution, and law of Pakistan while giving general
amnesty to the TTP. It must be noted that the Taliban have never abided by the
agreements they had made in the past but instead always take advantage of the time
gained during dialogue and negotiations to strengthen themselves and have
continued terrorist activities. No doubt, it is a good idea to bring all those elements
of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban and other terrorist organisations who have deviated
from violent ideologies and want to follow the constitution and law of Pakistan to
the mainstream, but giving an amnesty to those who had been involved in killing
and terrorism is against the constitution and law of Pakistan. The TTP should be
held accountable for the massacre of innocent children at Army Public School,
Peshawar and the incident should be investigated, as to who was behind the attack
as the parents of the children are still waiting for justice. The handover of
Ikramullah, the suicide bomber who survived the attack on Mohtarma Benazir
Bhutto Shaheed should be demanded from the TTP as presently he is a part of their
hierarchy. The nation wants to know the facts of the attack on Malala Yousafzai, and
details of the attack should be sought from the TTP during talks with them. At
present, there are more than 25,000 TTP terrorists and more than 7000 terrorists of
Daesh who have returned from Syria in the Nuristan region of Afghanistan and the
Afghan government should immediately disarm them and hand them over to
Pakistan so that the talks can proceed successfully. The TTP would have to be made
accountable for the attacks and killings in Pakistan as the parents of martyred
children of Army Public School are still waiting for justice. The families of those
thousands of Shias who were killed in Quetta, Karachi, Gilgit, Parachinar and other
cities of the country, seek justice.
In the last twenty years, more than 80,000 innocent people including Pakistan
Army, police, law enforcement officers and personnel have been martyred by the
TTP, and if their brutal killers are forgiven then the souls and families of martyrs
will never forgive us. As a former Interior Minister, it is my observation that the TTP
will continue its terrorist activities by taking advantage of the dialogue and will
never abide by the ceasefire agreements. Talks with the TTP had begun several times
during my tenure as Interior Minister but had never been successful because the
Taliban always continued their operations and did not back down from their
nefarious intentions. Terrorists strengthen themselves by taking advantage of time
in dialogue so the government should never rely on their ceasefire announcements.
I fear that Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) must be planning to continue terrorist

activities by keeping Pakistan engaged in talks through the Afghan Taliban as it has
been experienced in the past; the Taliban have never been sincere in moving
towards peace. No hasty step should be taken against the law and the Constitution
of Pakistan.
I would like to reiterate that I am never against reconciliation and dialogue with the
Taliban and bringing them into the national mainstream and it is a good initiative
however, the TTP has never been sincere with Pakistan. The government should
take the Parliament into confidence before talking to the TTP and Prime Minister
Imran Khan should shun his ego and work with the opposition on important
national issues such as bringing TTP into the national mainstream. The government
must announce the formation of a truth commission to examine the Taliban’s
brutalities, which have been an irreparable loss to Pakistan. Let us quantify the loss
caused to the nation by TTP.

Unequal and ill | Dawn Opinion
Zubeida Mustafa
THE world could not have been more unequal in contemporary history than what it
is today. It has always been unequal but the present trend set in when the Cold War
ended with the fall of the USSR giving neoliberal forces a free rein. With the
countervailing force of the socialist bloc withdrawn and respectability granted to
elitism and the exercise of unabashed corporate power, inequality became rampant.
Not that inequities did not exist before. But today, inequality and its discontents are
unparalleled.
The outbreak of Covid has made this problem more complex with the rich becoming
richer and the poor poorer. A victim of the phenomenon has been the health sector,
notably mental health. In Pakistan mental health is in the doldrums.
The theme appropriately selected for Mental Health Day on Sunday is ‘Mental
Health in an Unequal World’ which accurately reflects the scenario today. Inequality
is an issue that is in dire need of entering the public discourse if awareness is to be
created. The fact is that generally few, even in the medical profession, understand
fully how inequality itself gives birth to illnesses, not simply by spawning physical
conditions that promote disease but also, in fact more, because of attitudinal factors.
Many of us, seemingly good-hearted people, unwittingly become the perpetrators of
social injustice and economic exploitation.
Further, it is not clearly understood how demeaning inequality can be for the victim.
Mental health is not a well-understood issue generally and is highly stigmatised as
well. Inequality has implications for the weaker parties that are beyond the
understanding of most people.
The issue of mental health is not understood well.
In a class-based society the weak suffer from lack of self-esteem and an inner sense
of insecurity as they have no control over their own lives due to the lack of
resources. The state does not provide any social security.
In class-based societies such as ours, where a huge majority is the underdog and is
fully aware of its status, it is inevitable that a pervasive feeling of resentment and
inferiority prevails. These negative traits are exacerbated by a sense of helplessness.
It is these problems that need to be addressed. They are not even defined in the
textbooks of mental health practitioners. But they are a fact of life in Pakistan that
need to be collectively recognised and addressed not just by health professionals but
also the policymakers and elites who create them.
Meanwhile, patriarchy inflicts its own brand of violence on women. The Pakistan
Association of Mental Health will launch on Sunday a neat little booklet it has
published for the occasion. Titled Criminal Abuse of Women and Children:
Updating Perspectives, this publication draws attention to inequality in the gender
context. Nine writers take up various dimensions of violence against women and
children. The themes covered by a seminar held 30 years ago on the same subject
have been revisited and updated. Seen in a historical perspective, the issue of
violence has been quite comprehensively addressed by the writers, who are veterans
in their field. What emerges is that there has been progress in many areas but there
has been serious regression in others. On the ground, matters have worsened for the
majority.
The fact is that the class divide mentioned has also put its stamp on the landscape of
the women’s struggle nationally. In the past decades women from the privileged
classes have managed to empower themselves. It is no coincidence that all the
horrible evils that befall women affect mainly those from underprivileged classes.
They are doubly burdened by patriarchal oppression of the rich and the poor alike.
This reality should be conceded by feminists. We take pride in how our movement
has reached the grassroots. This is not the full truth. We live in what economist
Kazim Saeed refers to as Do Pakistan (the title of his book) where the majority lives
below the poverty line. The two parts are not equal.
That would explain the higher incidence of mental illness in women. As Dr Haroon
Ahmed in the editorial note writes, “Twice as many women suffer from mental
health problems as compared to men, especially depression and anxiety disorders.
Besides the biological reason of procreation, the restrictions imposed by traditional
roles do not allow them to achieve their suppressed and full potential.”
Obviously this patriarchy imposed discrimination in the gender inequality context is

frustrating and often results in various mental disorders.
What Dr Haroon describes is the health, psychosocial and cultural dimensions of

inequality. It also has economic and political implications as well that can destroy
the country. By not admitting this candidly, we tend to gloss over the bitter truth.
The full truth is that the women who suffer from heinous crimes are from the
impoverished classes. They do not have the luxury to walk away from their
husbands.

Rise of the machines | Dawn Opinion
Tasneem Noorani
The writer completed his doctorate in economics on a Fulbright scholarship.
IN ancient Greek tragedies, as the villain was about to triumph over the protagonist,
a plot device was sometimes employed to force the story towards a happy ending.
This device often took the shape of a crane-mounted Greek deity that descended
onto the stage to provide relief from certain annihilation. This serendipitous
solution to an otherwise insoluble problem came to be known as deus ex machina,
or the god of the machine. Of late the abiding trust some techno-optimists have been
placing in technology’s efficacy in delivering the human civilisation from certain
annihilation shows an uncanny resemblance to the ancient crane, or machine-
mounted solution. Where technology has been a boon in various fields, its
application needs to be carefully monitored and regulated lest it become a force of
destruction itself.
Some techno-optimists, argue that we can counter climate change by throwing more
capital investment into technology, eventually developing perfectly renewable or
alternative fuels that will wean capitalism off from its fossil fuels addiction.
Technological application is also said to raise living standards since enlarging an
economy has long been associated with increasing productivity or the technology
quotient. Moreover, technology, it is argued, will enable a continuous and
unrelenting economic growth cycle since any depleting natural resources would be
substituted by an equal amount of capital, like machines and factories. There are
also purported tangible social benefits that accrue from increasing technology
applications, according to techno-optimists. These benefits come from diverse
applications like providing banking services to the unbanked through cell phones to
improving electoral outcomes through the use of electronic voting machines
(EVMs).
The problem is that these purported technology benefits are premised on some
heroic assumptions. Ecological economists have shown that using more capital
actually increases fossil fuel energy consumption making capital and fossil fuels very
poor substitutes, if at all. There are also doubts about the very rate of technological
innovation that is said to drive the economic growth process forward. Robert
Gordon, an economic historian, argues that the rate of technological innovation has
already peaked after the ‘special century’ of rapid technological innovation from
1870 to 1970. Finally, the choice of particular technologies takes place within a
certain political economic context creating winners and losers. When machines were
introduced in the British textile industry in the 19th century, it drove many artisanal
workers out of work forcing some of them to rise in rebellion against labour-
displacing technology.
Technology’s application needs to be carefully regulated lest it become a

force of destruction itself.

These challenges notwithstanding, the political economic underpinnings of
introducing new technologies like EVMs merits more reflection. The election
process in this country suffers from significant distortions even before the actual
polling day. These include alleged gerrymandering to favour particular candidates;
the use of illicit wealth to buy votes; law and order problems as well as the misuse of
state machinery, to name a few. EVMs do not directly address any of these
challenges. In addition, no official figures have been shared on how the government
hopes to pay for this technological switch. As such, there are significant costs
attached to procuring and installing the required 0.4million EVMs. Back-of-the-
envelope calculations indicate that as much as Rs70billion to Rs120bn may be
required. Detractors argue that post-election audit of paper ballots acts as a form of
quality control on the process. Detractors also point out that it would be very
difficult to ensure the electoral process’s reliability if there is a system breakdown or
if a foreign government’s agency tampers with ballot programming infecting the
machine’s memory card with malicious software. It goes without saying that even a
slight loss of confidence in the electoral process would create widespread confusion,
chaos and social unrest in the country.
Serious doubts about the safety and reliability of EVMs have led to many countries
abandoning the machines after initial trials. Citing such concerns, Germany’s
highest federal court declared the use of EVMs unconstitutional in 2009. Even those
countries that have adopted EVMs have done so carefully and incrementally. It is no
wonder that it took India 22 years to widen the use of EVMs having first used the
machines in 1982. One should not doubt the prime minister’s earnestness behind
his vehement support for EVMs. But this government’s singular focus on EVMs in
the absence of broad-based support for this initiative may be painted by some as a
strategy to win the next general elections at any cost.
Still, it is clear that societies that invest heavily in modern technologies stand to reap
the greatest benefits. According to a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, artificial
intelligence (AI) could end up adding $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030.
New technologies would still need to be modulated by humans for two chief reasons.
New technologies are often introduced to the detriment of a particular section of
society. People whose jobs are taken away by new technologies often end up
resisting violently, at times. Apart from the mentioned social disruptions in Britain,
the introduction of tractors in the early part of the 20th century drove many
African-Americans out of work forcing millions to undertake the Great Migration to
the industrial cities of north and Midwest US. In other words, if the introduction of
a new technology is not carefully managed, resistance from those who seemingly
lose out carries the potential to subvert the entire system.
On a more sombre note, some intellectuals now feel that technology — AI to be exact
— will attain ‘singularity’ meaning that at some point in the future, technology
residing in machines will supersede the human race intellectually. Leading
intellectuals believe that once machines reach singularity, they will become super-
intelligent through iterative behaviour thereby either enslaving or annihilating the
human race altogether. Let us hope that we are far, far away from that future.

Capitulation? | Daily Times
Tasneem Noorani
The writer is an independent freelance journalist based in Islamabad covering South
Asia/ Central Asia.
In his first-ever decree issued after the induction of the Taliban’s government in
Kabul in mid-August, Mulla Hibatullah Akhund, the Ameerul Momineen of the
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), ordered the formation of a three-member
commission to look into Pakistan’s issue with Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The
commission, after days of deliberation, asked Pakistan to hold talks with the group.
Talks had virtually started with TTP splinter groups much before President Arif Alvi
and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi spoke of amnesty to Pakistani
Taliban last month. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s latest announcement of holding
talks with the group several days back was also just an official confirmation of that –
and of course, a revelation that the parleys continued inside Afghanistan.
There is a heavy backlash from the opposition and the media ever since.
Holding talks with rebels is neither anything new nor bad enough. The Philippines
government held successful talks and signed a peace agreement with Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) in Kuala Lumpur in 2014. History is replete with many
other such talks and agreements in many countries of the world. Conflicts and
rebellions cannot endure for long.
Working relationship with whosoever rules Afghanistan is also a compulsion of

Pakistan. None of the countries surrounding Afghanistan is as much affected by the
good or bad situations in that country like Pakistan.
Goodwill is always reciprocal. If we can prevail upon them to broaden the base of
their government in line with the demand of the international community, we may
also give them the right to make some demand of us.
TTP commander, Mufti Noor Wali, has expressed the resolve to set up an
independent state in the tribal districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
However, decisions of this magnitude require a careful examination of all pros and
cons. In a democratic dispensation like ours, the parliament and civil society are
also taken into confidence before launching any project of that proportion.
About 2200 Pakistani Taliban were released from Pul-e-Charkhi Jail in Kabul when
the government of Ashraf Ghani collapsed as Taliban knocked at the threshold of
the city on August 15. These also included TTP’s deputy chief, Maulvi Faqir
Mohammad, who vowed after his release that his group would continue to work for
the enforcement of Islamic Shariah in Pakistan.

Another TTP commander, Mufti Noor Wali, has even gone to the extent of
expressing the resolve to set up an independent state in the tribal districts of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa.
Last month, the Pakistani Taliban also warned journalists to refrain from using the
term “terrorist” for them otherwise “they will be treated as enemies.”
It is rather a matter of concern, and ought to be raised with the Afghan Taliban, that
while the TTP remained dormant for quite some time, it has resurrected as terror
acts ever since the success of the Doha process. Nine more splinter groups have
joined the TTP conglomerate ever since the signing of the peace agreement between
the US and Afghan Taliban.
In a media statement in early September, TTP claimed to have carried out 32 terror
attacks during August, killing 38 people.
Their attacks have rather picked speed and intensity after that. They have also
changed the pattern of their attacks. Previously, the Taliban preferred to cause
large-scale destruction by targeting public crowds but now they are focusing on
security forces’ vehicles and personnel.
They have also broadened the ambit of their attacks. Previously more attacks in
Balochistan were claimed by Baloch separatist groups while the TTP usually
restricted itself to the tribal belt and big cities. Now, the group has claimed
responsibility for several attacks against security forces in Balochistan.
As soon as the Taliban took reins of power in Kabul, Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid
Ahmad boasted that terrorist activities had subsided in Pakistan as the flow of RAW
funds had stopped after the change of government in Afghanistan. The TTP
responded within days; mounting a big attack on an FC convoy in Quetta, killing
four personnel and injuring 18 others. Another attack was made in South
Waziristan.
The very next day after Prime Minister Imran Khan announced talks with “some” of
Taliban groups and the simultaneous announcement of North Waziristan-based
Shura-e-Mujahideen of Hafiz Gul Bahadur to hold a 20-day truce, five security
personnel were killed in a terror attack in the same district-a message that neither
talks had any meaning for the militants, nor the truce declared by one group could
make any difference.
Talks have been held with the Taliban in the past as well. But conditions laid by the
group were so tough that any agreement would have just marked their victory. They
have been demanding demilitarisation of the tribal areas while reserving the right to
retain weapons.
Successful terror attacks of the Taliban have also boosted the spirit of their
sympathisers inside major cities. When a party of Islamabad police visited Jamia
Hafsa of Lal Masjid last month to lower the Afghan Taliban’s flag mounted over the
female seminary, Maulana Abdul Aziz, the patron of the seminary, warned them
that “Taliban will come – Pakistani Taliban – and make an example of you.”
Havoc would have been inflicted if any politician or journalist had ridiculed the writ
of the state that way.

There is an argument that if America can hold talks with the Afghan Taliban, then
why not Pakistan with TTP. There is much difference. Afghan Taliban fought against
an intruding foreign army while TTP has challenged the writ of the Pakistani state.
Talks or amnesty, if there are any on the cards, must be across the board, not
excluding Baloch militants or even renegade political workers. That would rather
send positive signals to the international community about civil and political rights
in Pakistan.
Finally, what the state does must be from a position of strength, rather than
capitulation to non-state vigilante or militant groups.

Religious Narcissism | Daily Times
Aliya Anjum
The writer is an independent researcher, author and columnist.
Narcissism is classified as a Cluster B antisocial personality disorder. The dictionary

meaning is stated as low self-esteem countered through selfishness, a sense of
entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, characterising a
personality type.
What better way for a narcissist to gain admirers than to be an evangelist for
religion? The selfless calling of inviting others to faith and good works is the
ultimate noble endeavour.
In the Islamic world, we wear religion on our sleeves and we love to preach. We have
an insatiable appetite for everything linked to Islam.
The prospect of finding this captive audience is music to a narcissist’s ears.
When a certain female evangelist began to preach Islam, women came in droves to
the lectures. Urban women turned eager beavers when it came to donning burqas
and attending classes, where they filled notebook after notebook with Islamic
knowledge.
However, 25 years on, we do not see a spiritual revolution. We do not see an

implosion of piety. We do not see Muslims who show the character traits, attitudes
and behaviours commanded in the Quran.
What we do see is overtly religious people who are big on clothing and (empty)
rituals- who can preach religion for hours- but their faith does not go beyond that.
A few years ago, a neighbour of mine sent me an invitation for Quran tafsir
(exegesis) sessions playing the recordings of a popular evangelist’s lectures. At the
gathering, I met dars veterans of 20+ years who excelled at knowledge about the
trivia of religion. The basic premise of faith was, however, a gigantic blind spot for
them. Hence, they did not show any traits of believers.
The zeitgeist of our times is such that religious garb is a prop for projecting
piety, which bolsters the performing art of religious preaching.
True faith is solely about forming a relationship with Allah SWT. Once one decides
to make Allah SWT a central figure in one’s journey of life, then the relationship
begets the question, what can place me in the Creator’s good books?
The answer is found in the Quran and hadith.
The Quran is structured methodically. In the very beginning in Surah Baqarah,

Allah defines three kinds of people; namely believers, hypocrites (munafiq) and

those who deny the truth (kafir). Allah also states their fate: Only true believers will
enter paradise, whereas those who denied the truth (kafirs) will enter hellfire and
the hypocrites (munafiqs) will be in the lowest pit of hellfire.
It is a no-brainer then that one who is born a Muslim needs to guard against Nifaq
or hypocrisy, which is explained by Allah SWT in the succeeding verses. The Quran
says that the hypocrites think that they know the best course of action-an attitude
which is antithetical to Islam (submission to God’s will). Hadith, which is a
supplementary text for the Quran, rightfully gives further clarity. The four signs of
the hypocrite identified by the prophet (PBUH) are lying, breaking promises,
betraying trust and exceeding all norms of decency when arguing.
As a natural consequence of the mass appeal of religious lectures, we should have

witnessed a social change in the form of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, decency
in communication, impeccable manners and nobility in conduct. However, what we
see around us are the four signs of hypocrite in full bloom.
Spiritual growth is realised in people who see faith as a process rather than an
achievement. Dars sessions’ notes are not trophies and the terms Alima or Shaykha
(spiritual guru) are wrong on all possible levels. A sacred life needs no such
affirmation.
Religious knowledge is not for asserting our dominance or special position.

However, this motivation is ubiquitous.
Those who apply religious knowledge solely to judge or lecture others-who sin
differently than them-are not preparing for accountability before God. They are only
using religion for an ego trip. The mass appeal of the drama Ertugul Ghazi is also
rooted in Islam allowing us to establish our dominance over the western world.
Religious narcissism is seen everywhere.
The zeitgeist of our times is such that religious garb is a prop for projecting piety,
which bolsters the performing art of religious preaching. Piety is additionally
established through an extreme emphasis on ritual. Among rituals, foremost are the
five daily prayers and true to one of the final Quranic verses, there is an abundance
of people whose hearts are remote from their prayers.
The dark heart is busy earning its place in the lowest pit of hellfire.
The Quran points out kufr and nifaq at the outset, to establish the foundation of
faith. However, this pivotal element is only given cursory attention in religious
lectures. Lectures on the translation of the Quran, thus familiarise one with the text,
but cannot make a person internalise the core beliefs and principles needed to
establish faith. Any religious instruction devoid of teaching how to avoid becoming a
hypocrite is likely to produce them.
The main reason why this faulty mode of instruction thrives is that the motivation of
the pupils is perfectly attuned to it. People come to learn about the Quran and
Sunnah to cherry-pick what suits them and reject what is hard on their nafs (base
desires of the soul).
Religious entitlement is the ultimate entitlement.

Religious knowledge gained in such lectures is hence not internalised but is
externalised to become a shield and a weapon. Deen (faith) thus serves the Duniya
(worldly life).
Thus, one who attended a lecture on the rights given by Islam will apply filters while
listening. He/she would filter out all content that relates to others’ rights upon
him/her while memorising and internalising every tiny bit that pertains to his/her
rights upon others. Then, this individual would go out and use that knowledge to
violate others while aggressively asserting their Islamic rights-feeling emboldened
due to religious entitlement.
Both non-muslims and kafirs (those who deny the truth) strive for worldly
excellence and because their worldly affairs are in order, there is some merit in both
of them. The hypocrite (munafiq) cannot be honest, just, diligent or industrious.
He/she uses Islam to live unrighteously.
This is why the munafiq rests in the lowest pit of hellfire, below the kafir.
A classic male case would be a bearded government employee who arrives many
hours late to work and ignores his official responsibilities. He instead spends his
time emailing hadith to a mailing list of people in his personal and professional
circle. He makes no effort to dispense his official duties and gets by doing the least
amount of work possible. However, he blatantly lies about non-existent professional
achievements. Lying and skilful manipulation are his forte. He is eager to avail any
and every perk linked to his job. His office hours allow him to pray after work hours
have ended, but he uses official work time to advertise his religiosity. He creates
drama about his ritual ablution and loudly issues many invitations to other male co-
workers for a group prayer session within the office space.
Oblivious of his nuisance value, such an employee hides his laziness and ineptness
behind the shield of religion.
A classic female case would be the woman who asserts that the Muslim women must
run independent businesses following the example of the mother Khadija (may
Allah be pleased with her) and that the Prophet (PBUH) did his chores and did not
make any domestic demands for anything from his wives. Mother Khadija was
indeed a wealthy businesswoman when she married the prophet. However, she
spent a majority of her wealth on the cause of Islam. Before Muhammad (PBUH)
attained prophethood, he meditated and his mother Khadija used to cook meals and
carry the food to the cave of Hira, which was far from their house and a steep uphill
climb at that. She supported the prophet (PBUH) in his hardest time when all of
Makkah was against him (PBUH). She eventually perished as a result of the three
years of starvation, during the ostracism of the early Meccan Muslims by their
Quresh tribe at Shaib-Abi-Talib.
However, for the woman discussed above, the sole takeaway from the life of mother
Khadija is her pre-Islamic status as a wealthy businesswoman. Other facets of the
life of the beloved wife of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are the inconvenient truth
best ignored.
Religious narcissism and cherry-picking in faith is the reason religiosity is despised

and feared by those who do not need to use it to establish dominance.
Skull caps, beards, burqas and hijabs thus represent stereotypes of rude, selfish,
unscrupulous and ill-behaved people.
When western Christians go shopping for religion, Buddhism is the go-to religion
for those seeking spiritual enlightenment due to the visceral appeal of its noble
eightfold path. Islam is the last option-thanks to the self-serving and wicked
attitudes and behaviours of its adherents.

Iran prompts Israel to weigh
acknowledgement of its own nuclear
weapons | GVS
Dr. James M. Dorsey
Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and scholar and a Senior Fellow at
the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute.
The proliferation of nuclear technology in the

politically volatile Middle East greatly increases the
likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war. It is widely
accepted, while not openly declared, that Israel has
nuclear weapons and that Iran has enriched enough
nuclear material to build them. So what are the
repercussions of such actions, discusses Dr. James M
Dorsey, an award-winning journalist.
On their way from Tel Aviv airport to Jerusalem in 1977 then Israeli Deputy Prime
Minister Yigael Yadin asked President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to ever
officially visit Israel, why the Egyptian military had not moved deeper into the Sinai
during the 1973 Middle East war. “You have nuclear arms. Haven’t you heard?” Mr.
Sadat replied.
Mr. Sadat’s strategic calculations in the war, the last all-out military confrontation
between Israel and Arab states, takes on renewed significance coupled with a recent
report that asserts that Iranian nuclear advances are irreversible and have reached a
stage at which Iran needs only one month to produce enough weapons-grade
uranium for a single bomb.
The beginning of a public debate

The report has sparked a public debate in Israel about whether the Jewish state,
which is long believed to have multiple nuclear weapons but consistently stopped
short of confirming or denying the assertion, should finally do so to lay down a
marker for Iran.
Israeli acknowledgment of its nuclear capabilities would likely force it to join Iran as
a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It
would also constitute a tectonic shift in the geopolitical environment that frames
thinking about a future security architecture in the Middle East.
The debate theoretically creates an opportunity for the administration of US

President Joe Biden to position the rejiggering of the United States’ commitment to
the region’s security in a totally different light and make a significant contribution to
a situation in which the Middle East’s numerous conflicts and disputes can be better
managed in the absence of resolutions.
The administration has a first chance to explore the opportunity when Eyal Hulata,
the head of Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s national security council, meets
this week in Washington with Mr. Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan has just returned from a visit to the Middle East during which he
focused on the war in Yemen and Iran and became the administration’s highest
official to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, days before the
third anniversary of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Mr. Bennett, despite warning in remarks last month to the United Nations General
Assembly that Israel would not shy away from military action to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon, reportedly disagrees with the conclusion of the
report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The report’s conclusions are supported by the likes of former Israeli prime minister
and chief of staff Ehud Barak and Aluf Benn, the editor of the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz.
Why Israel should reconsider its nuclear policies?

A senior Israeli official said that Mr. Bennet had read Mr. Barak’s assertion in a
recent oped that Iran had “probably crossed the point of no return” and that Israel
should reconsider its policy of nuclear ambiguity.
“Bennett doesn’t think that it’s game over about Iran’s nuclear program. He thinks
that Iran is indeed very close to that point, but that there is still time, and if Israel
acts on its own and with its allies in a systematic way, it is still possible to stop
them.,” the official said.
Mr. Bennett’s position appears to be backed by former prime minister Ehud Olmert
who argued that Israeli acknowledgment of its nuclear capability would allow Iran
to justify the development of a capability of its own. Mr. Olmert’s opposition is
rooted in his belief that Israel is not able to permanently destroy Iranian nuclear
facilities with a conventional military strike.
Even so, acknowledgment would facilitate an international negotiation that focuses

not only on Iran but also on Israel and, in doing so, helps lay the groundwork for a
more sustainable regional security architecture.
John Carlson, a nuclear expert, argued, in a report published earlier this year by the
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDR), that negotiation of a
Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons would “itself help build regional
confidence and trust.”
In the absence of a tectonic shift in Israeli policy

Israeli Chief of Staff Avi Kohavi has suggested on various occasions this year that
Israel was developing “operational plans” for a potential strike prompted by Iran’s
nuclear progress. Mr. Kohavi said last month that Israel had “greatly accelerated”
preparations.
The potential opportunity created by an Israeli acknowledgment would not only

contribute to averting the threat of a new Middle East war but also help fend off
possible Saudi and Turkish thinking about expanding the region’s nuclear club. That
league is currently a club of one if one ignores Pakistan that sits on the Middle East’s
periphery.
The moral of Mr. Sadat’s reply to Mr. Yadin’s question is that Israeli ambiguity
about its nuclear capabilities may no longer serve a purpose and that
acknowledgment of its long-standing open secret may help ensure greater regional
stability.
Mr. Sadat was telling Mr. Yadin that both he and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad
were fully aware of Israel’s nuclear capability as they planned the war and were
determined to ensure that the attack would not push the Jewish state to the point
where it would use nuclear weapons to ensure its survival. In other words, it was the
knowledge of Israeli capabilities, not whether Israel acknowledged them, that
shaped their strategy.
Disagreement in Israel’s national security community is not limited to whether the

Jewish state should radically shift gears but also includes the question of how close
Iran may be to being able to produce a nuclear weapon.
Countering alarmist assessments, Maj.-Gen. Tamir Hayman, the head of Israel’s

military intelligence, argued this weekend that “there is an enriched amount [of
uranium] in volumes that we have not seen before, and it is disturbing. At the same
time, in all other aspects of the Iranian nuclear project, we see no progress. Not in
the weapons project, in the financial area, not in any other sector… They are not
heading toward a bomb right now: It may be in the distant future.”

Tsai Ing-wen: Taiwan and the Fight for
Democracy | Foreign Affairs
TSAI ING-WEN
TSAI ING-WEN is President of Taiwan.
The story of Taiwan is one of resilience—of a country upholding democratic,

progressive values while facing a constant challenge to its existence. Our success is a
testament to what a determined practitioner of democracy, characterized by good
governance and transparency, can achieve.
Yet the story of Taiwan is not only about the maintenance of our own democratic
way of life. It is also about the strength and sense of responsibility Taiwan brings to
efforts to safeguard the stability of the region and the world. Through hard work and
courage, the 23.5 million people of Taiwan have succeeded in making a place for
themselves in the international community.
Emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, authoritarian regimes are more convinced
than ever that their model of governance is better adapted than democracy to the
requirements of the twenty-first century. This has fueled a contest of ideologies, and
Taiwan lies at the intersection of contending systems. Vibrantly democratic and
Western, yet influenced by a Chinese civilization and shaped by Asian traditions,
Taiwan, by virtue of both its very existence and its continued prosperity, represents
at once an affront to the narrative and an impediment to the regional ambitions of
the Chinese Communist Party.
Taiwan’s refusal to give up, its persistent embrace of democracy, and its
commitment to act as a responsible stakeholder (even when its exclusion from
international institutions has made that difficult) are now spurring the rest of the
world to reassess its value as a liberal democracy on the frontlines of a new clash of
ideologies. As countries increasingly recognize the threat that the Chinese
Communist Party poses, they should understand the value of working with Taiwan.
And they should remember that if Taiwan were to fall, the consequences would be
catastrophic for regional peace and the democratic alliance system. It would signal
that in today’s global contest of values, authoritarianism has the upper hand over
democracy.
INDO-PACIFIC FUTURES
The course of the Indo-Pacific, the world’s fastest-growing region, will in many ways
shape the course of the twenty-first century. Its emergence offers myriad
opportunities (in everything from trade and manufacturing to research and
education) but also brings new tensions and systemic contradictions that, if not
handled wisely, could have devastating effects on international security and the
global economy. Chief among the drivers of these tensions is the rise of more
assertive and self-assured authoritarianism, which is challenging the liberal
democratic order that has defined international relations since the end of World
War II.
Beijing has never abandoned its ambitions toward Taiwan. But after years of
double-digit investment in the Chinese military, and expansionist behavior across
the Taiwan Strait and in surrounding maritime areas, Beijing is replacing its
commitment to a peaceful resolution with an increasingly aggressive posture. Since
2020, People’s Liberation Army aircraft and vessels have markedly increased their
activity in the Taiwan Strait, with almost daily intrusions into Taiwan’s southern air
defense identification zone, as well as occasional crossings of the tacit median line
between the island and the Chinese mainland (which runs along the middle of the
strait, from the northeast near Japan’s outlying islands to the southwest near Hong
Kong).
Taiwan is on the frontlines of the global contest between liberal democracy

and authoritarianism.
Despite these worrying developments, the people of Taiwan have made clear to the
entire world that democracy is nonnegotiable. Amid almost daily intrusions by the
People’s Liberation Army, our position on cross-strait relations remains constant:
Taiwan will not bend to pressure, but nor will it turn adventurist, even when it
accumulates support from the international community. In other words, the
maintenance of regional security will remain a significant part of Taiwan’s overall
government policy. Yet we will also continue to express our openness to dialogue
with Beijing, as the current administration has repeatedly done since 2016, as long
as this dialogue proceeds in a spirit of equality and without political preconditions.
And we are investing significant resources to deepen our understanding of the
administration in Beijing—which will reduce the risks of misinterpretation and
misjudgment and facilitate more precise decision-making on our cross-strait
policies. We look to maintain a clear-eyed understanding of the external
environment, both threats and opportunities, in order to ensure that Taiwan is
prepared to meet its challenges.
At the same time, Taiwan is fully committed to working with other regional actors to
ensure stability. In March, for example, Taiwan and the United States signed a
memorandum of understanding on the establishment of a coast guard working
group. This working group will improve communication and information sharing
between the U.S. and Taiwanese coast guards, while also facilitating greater
collaboration on shared objectives, such as preserving maritime resources and
reducing illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. Such an understanding
should serve as a springboard for greater collaboration on nonmilitary matters with
other partners in the Indo-Pacific.
Taiwan has also launched a series of initiatives to modernize and reorganize its
military, in order to be better prepared for both present and future challenges. In
addition to investments in traditional platforms such as combat aircraft, Taiwan has
made hefty investments in asymmetric capabilities, including mobile land-based
antiship cruise missiles. We will launch the All-Out Defense Mobilization Agency in
2022, a military reform intended to ensure that a well-trained and well-equipped
military reserve force stands as a more reliable backup for the regular military
forces. Such initiatives are meant to maximize Taiwan’s self-reliance and
preparedness and to signal that we are willing to bear our share of the burden and
don’t take our security partners’ support for granted.
Taiwan’s efforts to contribute to regional security do not end there. We are fully
committed to collaborating with our neighbors to prevent armed conflict in the East
China and South China Seas, as well as in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan lies along the
first island chain, which runs from northern Japan to Borneo; should this line be
broken by force, the consequences would disrupt international trade and destabilize
the entire western Pacific. In other words, a failure to defend Taiwan would not only
be catastrophic for the Taiwanese; it would overturn a security architecture that has
allowed for peace and extraordinary economic development in the region for seven
decades.
Taiwan does not seek military confrontation. It hopes for peaceful, stable,
predictable, and mutually beneficial coexistence with its neighbors. But if its
democracy and way of life are threatened, Taiwan will do whatever it takes to defend
itself.
THE TAIWAN MODEL

Taiwan’s history is filled with both hardship and accomplishments, and the authors
of this history are the people of Taiwan. Over the past few decades, we have
overcome adversity and international isolation to achieve one of modern political
history’s most successful democratic transitions. The key ingredients of this
achievement have been patience, resourcefulness, pragmatism, and a stubborn
refusal to give up. Understanding both the delicate balance of power in the region
and the need for support, the Taiwanese know that practical collaboration is often
better than being loud or adventurous and that a willingness to lend a hand is better
than trying to provoke or impose a system on others.
While the people of Taiwan have not always achieved consensus, over time, a
collective identity has emerged. Through our interactions with the rest of the world,
we have absorbed values that we have made our own, merging them with local
traditions to create a liberal, progressive order and a new sense of what it means to
be Taiwanese.
At the heart of this identity is our embrace of democracy, reflecting a choice that the
Taiwanese made and fought for after decades of authoritarian rule. Once the
Taiwanese had made that choice, there was no looking back. Imperfect though it
may be, democracy has become a nonnegotiable part of who we are. This
determination gives Taiwan the resilience to meet the challenges of the twenty-first
century and provides a firewall against forces, both internal and external, seeking to
undermine its hard-won democratic institutions.
Beijing has never abandoned its ambitions toward Taiwan.
A fundamental part of this embrace of democracy is a firm belief that the future of
Taiwan is to be decided by the Taiwanese through democratic means. Although
Taiwanese in some ways differ in their sense of what exactly this future should look
like, we are united in our commitment to democracy and the values and institutions
that allow us to fight back against external efforts to erode our identity and alter the
way of life we cherish. The great majority of us regard democracy as the best form of
government for Taiwan and are willing to do what is necessary to defend it. Those
beliefs are tested every day, but there is no doubt that the people would rise up
should the very existence of Taiwan be under threat.
Civil society has always played a major role in Taiwan. During the period of
authoritarian rule under the Kuomintang, the Dangwai movement pushed to lift
martial law and democratize Taiwan; even after being instrumental in ending
martial law, it continued to offer an active and effective check on government
power. Today, the extent of Taiwanese civil society’s role in governance is
unmatched anywhere in the region—a reflection of the trust between elected
officials and citizens, who as a result are able to influence policy both through and
between elections.
Taiwan’s civil society has also proved integral to the island’s international standing.
Taiwan’s exclusion from the United Nations and most other international
institutions could have led to isolation, but Taiwan instead tapped into the
tremendous creativity and capacity of its people, allowing us to establish global
connections by other means—through small businesses, nongovernmental
organizations, and various semi-official groupings. Rather than being an
impediment, the refusal of many countries to officially recognize Taiwan compelled
us to think asymmetrically, combating efforts to negate Taiwan’s existence by
deepening our engagement with the world through nontraditional channels.
In short, despite decades of isolation, the people of Taiwan have succeeded in

making a place for themselves within the international community—and
transforming Taiwan itself into an economic powerhouse and one of the most
vibrant democracies in the Indo-Pacific.
CHANGING THE RULES

Taiwan’s ability to survive and even thrive as a liberal democracy despite the
extraordinary challenges to its existence has important implications for the
prevailing rules of international relations. Our bid to play a more meaningful role in
the international community is evolving in the context of changing regional politics,
with more assertive challenges to the liberal international order, backed by the
economic and political power to turn those ambitions into action. With increasing
awareness of the potential impact of such authoritarian ambitions, more and more
countries have been willing to reexamine their long-standing assumptions about,
and self-imposed limitations on, engagement with Taiwan.
Through its evolution as an economic powerhouse and a participatory democracy,

Taiwan seeks to be—and in many ways already is—part of the solution to emerging
challenges with ramifications on a planetary scale, from climate change and new
diseases, to proliferation and terrorism, to human trafficking and threats to supply
chains. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the world is now so
interconnected that the outbreak of a disease in one corner of the planet can, within
a matter of months, reach pandemic proportions. In many cases, the speed with
which new emergencies arise and spread is beyond the ability of states and existing
international institutions to respond. To prepare for future emergencies, the
international community must move toward inclusiveness rather than rigidly
adhering to current structures.
Even as it experienced a flare-up in COVID-19 cases last spring, Taiwan has

demonstrated to the world that democratic systems can respond effectively to a
pandemic, harnessing the powers of artificial intelligence, big data, and surveillance
networks while ensuring that the information gathered is used responsibly. The
pandemic has also given Taiwan an opportunity to share its experience with the
world and to provide much-needed medical assistance to struggling countries. This
is so despite its long exclusion from global institutions such as the World Health
Organization, which has left Taiwan little choice but to develop its own methods of
cooperating and communicating with international partners. Being left out of the
United Nations and other multilateral institutions has encouraged resilience and
spurred novel approaches to dealing with challenges and crises of all kinds.
Despite being kept out in the cold, Taiwan has strived to adhere to international
protocols, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, amending its
domestic laws and seeking its own formulas for meeting increasingly complex
challenges. Taiwan is also working proactively with its partners on the development
of its region. In 2016, we launched the New Southbound Policy, which facilitates
regional prosperity through trade and investment partnerships, educational and
people-to-people exchanges, and technological and medical cooperation with
countries in South and Southeast Asia, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
Taiwan is also making investments in these partners through its business
community, simultaneously fostering secure supply chains and regional
development.
If Taiwan were to fall, the consequences would be catastrophic for regional

peace and the democratic alliance system.
Indeed, with its high-tech leadership and educated and globalized workforce,
Taiwan is well positioned to help create secure global supply chains in sectors such
as semiconductors, biotechnology, and renewable energy—all areas where
international cooperation is needed now more than ever. Our semiconductor
industry is especially significant: a “silicon shield” that allows Taiwan to protect
itself and others from aggressive attempts by authoritarian regimes to disrupt global
supply chains. We are working to further strengthen our role in securing global
supply chains with a new regional high-end production hub initiative, which will
solidify our position in the global supply chain. Besides making computer chips,
Taiwan is active in high-precision manufacturing, artificial intelligence, 5G
applications, renewable energy, biotechnology, and more, helping create more
diverse and global supply chains that can withstand disruption, human or
otherwise.
Taiwan derives additional soft power from expertise and capabilities in a variety of
other fields, including education, public health, medicine, and natural-disaster
prevention. And these are fields in which our experts and institutions are taking on
a growing regional role. Our universities, for example, are prepared to work with
other universities in the region to develop Chinese-language training. Our medical
facilities are sharing expertise in medical technology and management with partners
around Asia. And we are ready to work with major countries to provide
infrastructure investment in developing countries, leveraging efficiency while
promoting good governance, transparency, and environmental protection. Similar
efforts are being made through an agreement with the United States to enhance
cooperation on infrastructure financing, investment, and market development in
Latin America and Southeast Asia. In short, Taiwan can be a crucial force in the
peaceful development and prosperity of our region and the world.
DEMOCRATIC VALUES
Sitting on the frontlines of the global contest between the liberal democratic order
and the authoritarian alternative, Taiwan also has an important part to play in
strengthening global democracy. In 2003, we established the region’s first
nongovernmental organization devoted to democracy assistance and advocacy, the
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Following the models set by the United States’
National Endowment for Democracy and the United Kingdom’s Westminster
Foundation for Democracy, the TFD provides funding for other nongovernmental
organizations, international and domestic, that advocate democratic development
and human rights. It also works to promote public participation in governance
through mechanisms such as participatory budgeting and to encourage youth
engagement through initiatives such as the annual Asia Young Leaders for
Democracy program. In 2019, the TFD organized its inaugural regional forum on
religious freedom, and my government appointed its first ambassador-at-large for
religious freedom.
Taiwan’s strong record on democracy, gender equality, and press and religious
freedom has also made it a home for a growing number of global nongovernmental
organizations, which have faced an increasingly difficult environment in Asia.
Organizations including Reporters Without Borders, the National Democratic
Institute, the International Republican Institute, the European Values Center for
Security Policy, and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom have set up
regional offices in Taiwan. From Taiwan, they are able to continue their important
work in the region without the constant threats of surveillance, harassment, and
interruptions by authorities. We have also made ourselves hospitable to
international institutions interested in establishing a presence in the Indo-Pacific,
helping turn Taiwan into a hub for advancing the interests of the democratic
community.
Long left out in the cold, Taiwan is ready to be a global force for good.
Meanwhile, the Global Cooperation and Training Framework—a platform jointly

administered by Taiwan, the United States, and other partners that allows us to
share our expertise with countries around the world—has fostered creative
cooperation on issues such as law enforcement, public health, and good governance.
One recent round of GCTF activity, for example, focused on media literacy and how
democracies can combat disinformation—an area in which Taiwan has an
abundance of experience.
Over the past five years, more than 2,300 experts and officials from more than 87
countries have attended GCTF workshops in Taiwan, and the forum will continue to
expand—offering a path to greater collaboration between Taiwan and countries
around the world, including the United States. Indeed, Taiwan works closely with
the United States on many issues, in the service of regional peace and stability. Our
hope is to shoulder more responsibility by being a close political and economic
partner of the United States and other like-minded countries.
A FORCE FOR GOOD

The threat posed by authoritarian regimes has served as an important wake-up call
for democracies, spurring them to emerge from their complacency. Although
extraordinary challenges remain, democracies around the world are now working to
safeguard their values and renew their ossified institutions. Alliances are being
rekindled to serve the interests of the international community.
Taiwan may be small in terms of territory, but it has proved that it can have a large
global presence—and that this presence matters to the world. It has persevered in
the face of existential threats and made itself an indispensable actor in the Indo-
Pacific. And through it all, the Taiwanese commitment to democracy has never been
stronger: the people of Taiwan know that democracy is the lasting path and the only
game in town.

Over the past two years, our handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and our
assistance to and collaboration with countries around the world, has offered one
more example of the crucial role that Taiwan can play and of why Taiwan matters.
Going forward, our high-tech industries, and especially our production of advanced
semiconductors, will continue to fuel the global economy. And Taiwan’s ability to
balance ties to various countries while defending its democratic way of life will
continue to inspire others in the region.
We have never shied away from challenges. Although the world faces an arduous
journey ahead, this presents Taiwan with opportunities not seen before. It should
increasingly be regarded as part of the solution, particularly as democratic countries
seek to find the right balance between the need to engage and trade with
authoritarian countries and the need to defend the values and democratic ideals that
define their societies. Long left out in the cold, Taiwan is ready to be a global force
for good, with a role on the international stage that is commensurate with its
abilities.

The Kremlin’s Strange Victory | Foreign
Affairs
FIONA HILL
FIONA HILL is Robert Bosch Senior Fellow at the Center on the United States and
Europe in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution and the author of
There Is Nothing for You Here: Finding Opportunity in the Twenty-first Century
Donald Trump wanted his July 2018 meeting in Helsinki with his Russian
counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to evoke memories of the momentous encounters that
took place in the 1980s between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev. Those arms control summits had yielded the kind of iconic
imagery that Trump loved: strong, serious men meeting in distant places to hash out
the great issues of the day. What better way, in Trump’s view, to showcase his
prowess at the art of the deal?
That was the kind of show Trump wanted to put on in Helsinki. What emerged
instead was an altogether different sort of spectacle.
By the time of the meeting, I had spent just over a year serving in the Trump
administration as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European
and Russian affairs on the National Security Council. Like everyone else who worked
in the White House, I had, by then, learned a great deal about Trump’s
idiosyncrasies. We all knew, for instance, that Trump rarely read the detailed
briefing materials his staff prepared for him and that in meetings or calls with other
leaders, he could never stick to an agreed-on script or his cabinet members’
recommendations. This had proved to be a major liability during those
conversations, since it often seemed to his foreign counterparts as though Trump
was hearing about the issues on the agenda for the first time.
When Trump was winging it, he could be persuaded of all kinds of things. If a
foreign visitor or caller was one of his favored strongmen, Trump would always give
the strongman’s views and version of events the benefit of the doubt over those of
his own advisers. During a cabinet meeting with a visiting Hungarian delegation in
May 2019, for example, Trump cut off acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick
Shanahan, who was trying to make a point about a critical European security issue.
In front of everyone, Trump told Shanahan that the autocratic Hungarian prime
minister, Viktor Orban, had already explained it all to him when they had met in the
Oval Office moments earlier—and that Orban knew the issue better than Shanahan
did, anyway. In Trump’s mind, the Hungarian strongman simply had more
authority than the American officials who worked for Trump himself. The other
leader was his equal, and his staff members were not. For Trump, all pertinent
information trickled down from him, not up to him. This tendency of Trump’s was
lamentable when it played out behind closed doors, but it was inexcusable (and
indeed impossible to explain or justify) when it spilled out into public view—which
is precisely what happened during the now legendarily disastrous press conference
after Trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki.
Before the press conference, Trump was pleased with how things had gone in his
one-on-one meeting with Putin. The optics in Finland’s presidential palace were to
Trump’s liking. The two men had agreed to get U.S.-Russian arms control
negotiations going again and to convene meetings between their countries’
respective national security councils. Trump was keen to show that he and Putin
could have a productive, normal relationship, partly to dispel the prevailing notion
that there was something perverse about his ties to the Russian president. Trump
was eager to brush away allegations that he had conspired with the Kremlin in its
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or that the Russians had
somehow compromised him—matters that at the time of the meeting, Special
Counsel Robert Mueller was actively investigating.
Things went wrong as soon as the press conference began. Trump expected public
praise for meeting with Putin and tackling the nuclear threat. But the U.S.
journalists in attendance were not interested in arms control. They wanted to know
about the one-on-one meeting and what Putin might have said or not said regarding
2016 and election interference. Jonathan Lemire of the Associated Press asked
Trump whether he believed Putin, who had repeatedly denied that his country had
done anything to meddle in the election, or the U.S. intelligence agencies, which had
concluded the opposite. Lemire pressed Trump: “Would you now, with the whole
world watching, tell President Putin—would you denounce what happened in 2016
and would you warn him to never do it again?”
Trump balked. He really didn’t want to answer. The only way that Trump could view
Russia’s broad-based attack on the U.S. democratic system was through the lens of
his own ego and image. In my interactions with Trump and his closest staff in the
White House, it had become clear to me that endorsing the conclusions of the U.S.
intelligence agencies would be tantamount to admitting that Trump had not won the
2016 election. The questions got right to the heart of his insecurities. If Trump said,
“Yes, the Russians interfered on my behalf,” then he might as well have said
outright, “I am illegitimate.”
So as he often did in such situations, Trump tried to divert attention elsewhere. He

went off on a tangent about a convoluted conspiracy theory involving Ukraine and
the emails of his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, and then produced a muddled,
rambling answer to Lemire’s question, the crux of which was this:
My people came to me. . . . They said they think it’s Russia. I have President
Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why
it would be. . . . But I have confidence in both parties. . . . I have great
confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin
was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.
The outcome of the Helsinki press conference was entirely predictable, which was
why I and others had counseled against holding it at all. But it was still agonizing to
watch. I was sitting in front of the podium as Trump spoke, immediately behind the
U.S. national security adviser and the secretary of state. I saw them stiffen slightly,
and I contemplated throwing a fit or faking a seizure and hurling myself backward
into the row of journalists behind me. I just wanted to end the whole thing. Perhaps
contrary to the expectations of many American observers, even Putin was somewhat
dismayed. He reveled in the national and personal humiliation that Trump was
courting, but he also knew that Trump’s careless remarks would provoke a backlash
in the United States and thus further constrain the U.S. president’s already limited
room to maneuver on Russia policy. The modest agreements for further high-level
meetings were already out the window. As he exited the room, Putin told his press
secretary, within earshot of our interpreter, that the press conference had been
“bullshit.”
Trump’s critics immediately pounced on his bizarre conduct in Helsinki. It was

more evidence that Trump was in league with Putin and that the Kremlin held sway
over the American president. The following year, Mueller’s final investigative report
determined that during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Trump campaign
had in fact been willing to exploit any derogatory information about Clinton that
came its way from whatever source, including Russia. In seeking to thwart Clinton’s
bid to become the first female American president, the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin had been acting in parallel; their goals had aligned. Mueller concluded that
although this did not amount to a criminal conspiracy, there was plenty of evidence
of an extensive and sophisticated Russian political influence operation against the
United States.
Russia and the United States were not so different—and Putin, for one,
knew it.
The Mueller report also sketched the contours of a different, arguably more
pernicious kind of “Russian connection.” In some crucial ways, Russia and the
United States were not so different—and Putin, for one, knew it. In the very early
years of the post–Cold War era, many analysts and observers had hoped that Russia
would slowly but surely converge in some ways with the United States. They
predicted that once the Soviet Union and communism had fallen away, Russia
would move toward a form of liberal democracy. By the late 1990s, it was clear that
such an outcome was not on the horizon. And in more recent years, quite the
opposite has happened: the United States has begun to move closer to Russia, as
populism, cronyism, and corruption have sapped the strength of American
democracy. This is a development that few would have foreseen 20 years ago, but
one that American leaders should be doing everything in their power to halt and
reverse.
Indeed, over time, the United States and Russia have become subject to the same
economic and social forces. Their populations have proved equally susceptible to
political manipulation. Prior to the 2016 U.S. election, Putin recognized that the
United States was on a path similar to the one that Russia took in the 1990s, when
economic dislocation and political upheaval after the collapse of the Soviet Union
had left the Russian state weak and insolvent. In the United States, decades of fast-
paced social and demographic changes and the Great Recession of 2008–9 had
weakened the country and increased its vulnerability to subversion. Putin realized
that despite the lofty rhetoric that flowed from Washington about democratic values
and liberal norms, beneath the surface, the United States was beginning to resemble
his own country: a place where self-dealing elites had hollowed out vital institutions
and where alienated, frustrated people were increasingly open to populist and
authoritarian appeals. The fire was already burning; all Putin had to do was pour on
some gasoline.
A special relationship
When Trump was elected, Putin and the Kremlin made no attempt to conceal their
glee. They had thought that Clinton would become president and that she would
focus on criticizing Putin’s style of governance and constraining Russia. They had
steeled themselves and prepared for the worst. Instead, they got the best possible
outcome from their perspective—a populist, nativistic president with no prior
experience in foreign policy and a huge, fragile ego. Putin recognized Trump as a
type and grasped his political predilections immediately: Trump, after all, fit a mold
that Putin himself had helped forge as the first populist leader to take power in a
major country in the twenty-first century. Putin had blazed the trail that Trump
would follow during his four years in office.
The essence of populism is creating a direct link with “the people” or with specific
groups within a population, then offering them quick fixes for complex problems
and bypassing or eliminating intermediaries such as political parties, parliamentary
representatives, and established institutions. Referendums, plebiscites, and
executive orders are the preferred tools of the populist leader, and Putin has used
them all over the past 20 years. When he came to power on December 31, 1999, at
the end of a decade of crisis and strife in Russia, Putin promised to fix everything.
Unlike his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, Putin did not belong to a formal political
party. He was the champion of a looser, personalized movement. After 2000, Putin
turned Russian presidential elections into national referendums on himself by
making sure his rivals were obscure (or wholly manufactured) opposition
candidates. And at every critical juncture during his time in power, Putin has
adjusted Russia’s political system to entrench himself in the Kremlin. Finally, in
2020, he formally amended the constitution so that in theory (and health
permitting), he can run for reelection and stay in power until 2036.
Putin blazed the trail that Trump would follow during his four years in
office.
All of Putin’s machinations greatly impressed Trump. He wanted to “get along” with
Russia and with Putin personally. Practically the only thing Trump ever said to me
during my time in his administration was to ask, in reference to Putin, “Am I going
to like him?” Before I could answer, the other officials in the room got up to leave,
and the president’s attention shifted; such was life as a female adviser in the Trump
White House.
Trump took at face value rumors that Putin was the richest man in the world and
told close associates that he admired Putin for his presumed wealth and for the way
he ran Russia as if it were his own private company. As Trump freely admitted, he
wanted to do the same thing. He saw the United States as an extension of his other
private enterprises: the Trump Organization, but with the world’s largest military at
its disposal. This was a troubling perspective for a U.S. president, and indeed, over
the course of his time in office, Trump came to more closely resemble Putin in
political practice than he resembled any of his American predecessors.
At times, the similarities between Trump and Putin were glaringly obvious: their
shared manipulation and exploitation of the domestic media, their appeals to their
own versions of their countries’ “golden age,” their compilation of personal lists of
“national heroes” to appeal to their voters’ nostalgia and conservatism—and their
attendant compilation of personal lists of enemies to do the same for their voters’
darker sides. Putin put statues of Soviet-era figures back on their pedestals and
restored Soviet memorials that had been toppled under Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
Trump tried to prevent the removal of statues of Confederate leaders and the
renaming of American military bases honoring Confederate generals. The two men
also shared many of the same enemies: cosmopolitan, liberal elites; the American
financier, philanthropist, and open society promoter George Soros; and anyone
trying to expand voting rights, improve electoral systems, or cast a harsh light on
corruption in their countries’ respective executive branches.
Trump also aped Putin’s willingness to abuse his executive power by going after his
political adversaries; Trump’s first impeachment was provoked in part by his
attempt to coerce the government of Ukraine into smearing one of his most
formidable opponents, Joe Biden, ahead of the 2020 presidential election. And
Trump imported Putin’s style of personalist rule, bypassing the professional civil
servants in the federal government—a nefarious “deep state,” in Trump’s eyes—to
rely instead on the counsel and interventions of cronies. Foreign politicians called in
chits with celebrities who had personal connections to the president and his family,
avoiding their own embassies in the process. Lobbyists complained to whomever
they could reach in the West Wing or the Trump family circle. They were quick to set
attack dogs on anyone perceived as an obstacle and to rile up pro-Trump trolls on
the Internet, because this always seemed to work. Influence peddlers both domestic
and foreign courted the president to pursue their own priorities; the policymaking
process became, in essence, privatized.
The event that most clearly revealed the convergence of politics in the United States
and Russia during Trump’s term was his disorganized but deadly serious attempt to
stage a self-coup and halt the peaceful transfer of executive power after he lost the
2020 election to Biden. Russia, after all, has a long history of coups and succession
crises, dating back to the tsarist era, including three during the past 30 years. In
August 1991, hard-liners opposed to Gorbachev’s reforms staged a brief putsch,
declaring a state of emergency and placing Gorbachev under house arrest at his
vacation home. The effort fizzled, and the coup was a debacle, but it helped bring
down the Soviet Union. Two years later, violence erupted from a bitter dispute
between the Russian parliament and Yeltsin over the respective powers of the
legislature and the president in competing drafts of a new constitution. Yeltsin
moved to dissolve parliament after it refused to confirm his choice for prime
minister. His vice president and the Speaker of the parliament, in response, sought
to impeach him. In the end, Yeltsin invoked “extraordinary powers” and called out
the Russian army to shell the parliament building, thus settling the argument with
brute force.
The next coup was a legal one and came in 2020, when Putin wanted to amend
Yeltsin’s version of the constitution to beef up his presidential powers—and, more
important, to remove the existing term limits so that he could potentially stay on as
president until 2036. As a proxy to propose the necessary constitutional
amendments, Putin tapped Valentina Tereshkova, a loyal supporter in parliament
and, as a cosmonaut and the first woman to travel to outer space, an iconic figure in
Russian society. Putin’s means were subtler than Yeltsin’s in 1993, but his methods
were no less effective.
It would have been impossible for any close observer of recent Russian history to
not recall those episodes on January 6, when a mob whipped up by Trump and his
allies—who had spent weeks claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen from
him—stormed the U.S. Capitol and tried to stop the formal certification of the
election results. The attack on the Capitol was the culmination of four years of
conspiracies and lies that Trump and his allies had fed to his supporters on social
media platforms, in speeches, and on television. The “Big Lie” that Trump had won
the election was built on the backs of the thousands of little lies that Trump uttered
nearly every time he spoke and that were then nurtured within the dense ecosystem
of Trumpist media outlets. This was yet one more way in which, under Trump, the
United States came to resemble Russia, where Putin has long solidified his grip on
power by manipulating the Russian media, fueling nationalist grievances, and
peddling conspiracy theories.
i alone
Trump put the United States on a path to autocracy, all the while promising to
“make America great again.” Likewise, Putin took Russia back toward the
authoritarianism of the Soviet Union under the guise of strengthening the state and
restoring the country’s global position. This striking convergence casts U.S.-Russian
relations and the exigencies of Washington’s approach to Moscow in a new light.
Historically, U.S. policies toward Russia have been premised on the idea that the
two countries’ paths and expectations diverged at the end of the Cold War. In the
immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western analysts had
initially thought that Russia might embrace some of the international institutional
arrangements that Washington and its allies had long championed. That, of course,
did not happen. And under Putin, U.S.-Russian relations have become more frazzled
and fraught than at any point in the 1990s.
There is something confounding about the ongoing confrontation between the two
countries, which seems like an artifact from another era. During the Cold War, the
stakes of the conflict were undeniable. The Soviet Union posed an existential threat
to the United States and its allies, and vice versa. The two superpowers faced off in
an ideological clash between capitalism and communism and a geopolitical tussle
over spheres of influence in Europe. Today, Russia maintains the capacity to
obliterate the United States, but the Soviet Union and the communist system are
gone. And even though foreign policy circles in Washington and Moscow still view
U.S.-Russian relations through the lens of great-power competition, the struggle for
Europe is over. For the United States, China, not Russia, poses the greatest foreign
policy challenge of the twenty-first century, along with the urgent existential threats
of climate change and global pandemics.
The ongoing confrontation between the two countries seems like an artifact
from another era.
Yet a sense of confrontation and competition persists. Americans point to a pattern

of Russian aggression and provocation: Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, its
annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent assaults on Ukraine’s territory and
sovereignty, its intervention in Syria in 2015, the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, and the frequent ransomware attacks and email hacks
attributed to Russian actors. Russians, for their part, point to the expansion of
NATO into eastern Europe and the Baltic states, the U.S. bombing of Belgrade
during the Kosovo war in 1999, Washington’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, U.S.
support for the “color revolutions” that took place in post-Soviet states such as
Georgia and Ukraine in the first decade of this century, and the uprisings in the
Middle East during the Arab Spring. In Moscow, all of these serve as proof that
Washington is hell-bent on invasion and regime change and also has Russia and
Putin in its cross hairs.
In truth, most American policymakers simply wish that Russia would just go away
so they can refocus their attention on what really matters. For their Russian
counterparts, however, the United States still represents the main opponent. That is
because, as a populist leader, Putin sees the United States not just as a geopolitical
threat to Russia but also as a personal threat to himself. For Putin, foreign policy
and domestic policy have fused. His attempt to retain Russia’s grip on the
independent countries that were once part of the Soviet Union and to reassert
Moscow’s influence in other global arenas is inseparable from his effort to
consolidate and expand his authority at home.
Putin sits at the apex of a personalized and semi-privatized kleptocratic system that
straddles the Russian state and its institutions and population. He has embedded
loyalists in every important Russian institution, enterprise, and industry. If Putin
wants to retain the presidency until 2036—by which time he will be 84 years old and
will have become the longest-serving modern Russian ruler—he will have to
maintain this level of control or even increase it, since any slippage might be
perceived as weakness. To do so, Putin has to deter or defeat any opponents, foreign
or domestic, who have the capacity to undermine his regime. His hope is that
leaders in the United States will get so bogged down with problems at home that
they will cease criticizing his personalization of power and will eschew any efforts to
transform Russia similar to those the U.S. government carried out in the 1990s.
Putin also blurs the line between domestic and foreign policy to distract the Russian
population from the distortions and deficiencies of his rule. On the one hand, he
stresses how decadent and dissolute the United States has become and how ill suited
its leaders are to teach anyone a lesson on how to run a country. On the other hand,
he stresses that the United States still poses a military threat and that it aims to
bring Russia to its knees. Putin’s constant refrain is that the contest between Russia
and the United States is a perpetual Darwinian struggle and that without his
leadership, Russia will not survive. Without Putin, there is no Russia. He does not
want things to get completely out of hand and lead to war. But he also does not want
the standoff to fade away or get resolved. As the sole true champion of his country
and his people, he can never be seen to stand down or compromise when it comes to
the Americans.
Similarly, Putin must intimidate, marginalize, defuse, or defeat any opposition to his
rule. Anyone who might stand in his way must be crushed. In this sense, the jailed
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and Clinton fall into the same category. In
Putin’s view, if Clinton had become U.S. president, she would have continued to
hound him and hold him to task, just as she did when she served as secretary of
state in the Obama administration, by promoting democracy and civil society to root
out corruption in Russia.
Of course, Navalny is far more dangerous to Putin than Clinton would have been.
Navalny is a Russian, not a foreigner. He is a next-generation alternative to Putin:
young, handsome, charismatic, patriotic, and defiant. He poses a threat to Putin not
only owing to their differences but also because of a few key similarities: like Putin,
Navalny is a populist who heads a movement rather than a party, and he has not
been averse to playing on nationalist sentiments to appeal to the same Russian
voters who form Putin’s base. Navalny has survived an audacious assassination
attempt and has humiliated Putin on numerous occasions. By skillfully using digital
media and slick video skills to highlight the excesses of the Russian leader’s
kleptocratic system, Navalny has gotten under Putin’s skin. He has forced the
Kremlin to pay attention to him. This is why Navalny is in jail and why Putin has
moved swiftly to roll up his movement, forestalling any chance that Navalny might
compete for the presidency in 2024.
the task at hand

The current U.S.-Russian relationship no longer mirrors the Cold War challenge,
even if some geopolitical contours and antagonisms persist. The old U.S. foreign
policy approach of balancing deterrence with limited engagement is ill suited to the
present task of dealing with Putin’s insecurities. And after Trump’s disastrous
performance at Helsinki, it is also clear that the arms control summitry that took the
edge off the acute phase of the Cold War and nuclear confrontation can provide little
guidance for how to anchor the future relationship. The primary problem for the
Biden administration in dealing with Russia is rooted in the domestic politics of the
United States and Russia rather than their foreign policies. The two countries have
been heading in the same political direction for some of the same reasons over the
last several years. They have similar political susceptibilities. The United States will
never change Putin and his threat perceptions, because they are deeply personal.
Americans will have to change themselves to blunt the effects of Russian political
interference campaigns for the foreseeable future. Achieving that goal will require
Biden and his team to integrate their approach to Russia with their efforts to shore
up American democracy, tackle inequality and racism, and lead the country out of a
period of intense division.
The polarization of American society has become a national security threat, acting as
a barrier to the collective action necessary for combating catastrophes and thwarting
external dangers. Partisan spectacles during the global covid-19 pandemic have
undermined the country’s international standing as a model of liberal democracy
and eroded its authority on public health. The United States’ inability to get its act
together has hindered the projection of American soft power, or what Biden has
called “the power of our example.” During my time in the Trump administration, I
watched as every peril was politicized and turned into fodder for personal gain and
partisan games. Successive national security advisers, cabinet members, and their
professional staffs were unable to mount coherent responses or defenses to security
issues in the face of personalized, chaotic, and opportunistic conduct at the top.
In this regard, Putin actually offers an instructive contrast. Trump railed against a
mythological American deep state, whereas Putin—who spent decades as an
intelligence operative before ascending to office—is a product of Russia’s very real
deep state. Unlike Trump, who saw the U.S. state apparatus as his enemy and
wanted to rule the country as an outsider, Putin rules Russia as a state insider. Also
unlike Trump, Putin rarely dives into Russia’s social, class, racial, or religious
divisions to gain political traction. Instead, although he targets individuals and
social groups that enjoy little popular support, Putin tends to promote a single,
synthetic Russian culture and identity to overcome the domestic conflicts of the past
that destabilized and helped bring down both the Russian empire and the Soviet
Union. That Putin seeks one Russia while Trump wanted many Americas during his
time in office is more than just a difference in political styles: it is a critical data
point. It highlights the fact that a successful U.S. policy approach to Russia will rest
in part on denying Putin and Russian operatives the possibility to exploit divisions
in American society.
The Biden administration must integrate its approach to Russia with its
efforts to shore up American democracy.
The United States’ vulnerability to the Kremlin’s subversion has been amplified by
social media. American-made technology has magnified the impact of once fringe
ideas and subversive actors around the world and become a tool in the hands of
hostile states and criminal groups. Extremists can network and reach audiences as
never before on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, which are designed to
attract people’s attention and divide them into affinity groups. Putin has
weaponized this technology against the United States, taking advantage of the ways
that social media undermines social cohesion and erodes Americans’ sense of a
shared purpose. Policymakers should step up their cooperation with the private
sector in order to cast light on and deter Russian intelligence operations and other
efforts to exploit social media platforms. They also need to figure out ways to
educate the American public about the perils of posting personal and political
information online.
Making the United States and its society more resilient and less vulnerable to
manipulation by tackling inequality, corruption, and polarization will require
innovative policies across a huge range of issues. Perhaps the highest priority should
be given to investing in people where they reside, particularly through education.
Education can lower the barriers to opportunity and accurate information in a way
that nothing else can. It can help people recognize the difference between fact and
fiction. And it offers all people the chance not only to develop knowledge and learn
skills but also to continue to transform themselves and their communities.
One thing U.S. leaders should avoid in seeking to foster domestic unity is attempting
to mobilize Americans around the idea of a common enemy, such as China. Doing so
risks backfiring by stirring up xenophobic anger toward Americans and immigrants
of Asian heritage and thus fueling more divisions at home. Instead of trying to rally
Americans against China, Biden should rally them in support of the democratic U.S.
allies that Trump spurned and derided. Many of those countries, especially in
Europe, find themselves in the same political predicament as the United States, as
authoritarian leaders and powers seek to exploit socioeconomic strife and populist
proclivities among their citizens. Biden should base a new transatlantic agenda on
the mutual fight against populism at home and authoritarianism abroad through
economic rebuilding and democratic renewal.
Most important, Biden must do everything in his power to restore trust in

government and to promote fairness, equity, and justice. As many Americans
learned during Trump’s presidency, no country, no matter how advanced, is
immune to flawed leadership, the erosion of political checks and balances, and the
degradation of its institutions. Democracy is not self-repairing. It requires constant
attention.

The Last Days of Intervention | Foreign
Affairs
RORY STEWART
RORY STEWART is a Senior Fellow at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at
Yale University and a co-author, with Gerald Knaus, of Can Intervention Work?
The extravagant lurches of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan—from a $1 trillion

surge to total withdrawal, culminating in the reestablishment of a Taliban
government 20 years after the 9/11 attacks—must rank among the most surreal and
disturbing episodes in modern foreign policy. At the heart of the tragedy was an
obsession with universal plans and extensive resources, which stymied the modest
but meaningful progress that could have been achieved with far fewer troops and at
a lower cost. Yet this failure to chart a middle path between ruinous overinvestment
and complete neglect says less about what was possible in Afghanistan than it does
about the fantasies of those who intervened there.
The age of intervention began in Bosnia in 1995 and accelerated with the missions in
Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Over this period, the United States and its allies
developed a vision of themselves as turnaround CEOs: they had the strategy and
resources to fix things, collect their bonuses, and get out as soon as possible. The
symbol of the age was the American general up at 4 am to run eight miles before
mending the failed state.
Had the same U.S. and European officials been seeking to improve the lives of
people in a poor ex-coal town in eastern Kentucky or to work with Native American
tribes in South Dakota, they might have been more skeptical of universal blueprints
for societal transformation, paid more attention to the history and trauma of local
communities, and been more modest about their own status as outsiders. They
might have understood that messiness was inevitable, failure possible, and patience
essential. They might even have grasped why humility was better than a heavy
footprint and why listening was better than lecturing.
Yet in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq—places far more traumatized,

impoverished, and damaged than anywhere at home—U.S. and European officials
insisted that there could be a formula for success, a “clearly defined mission,” and
an “exit strategy.” Any setback, they reasoned, could be blamed only on a lack of
international planning or resources.
These ideas were damaging in Bosnia and Kosovo. But in the interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq—unstable hybrids of humanitarianism and counterterrorism
that soon became even more unstable hybrids of state building and
counterinsurgency—they proved fatal. From the very beginning, the international

plans were surreally detached from the local reality. The first draft of the
development strategy for Afghanistan, written by international consultants in 2002,
described the Afghans as committed to “an accountable, broad-based, multi-ethnic,
representative government” based on “respect for human rights.” That same year,
then U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that terrorism from
Afghanistan posed “an existential threat to our security.”
Such hyperbolic untruths, which multiplied with each new strategy or plan, were
designed to win resources and defend the intervention at home. By exaggerating
both the potential for success and the risks of failure in Afghanistan, they made it
difficult to resist calls for more troops. And when troops were killed (and more of
them were killed than at any time since the Vietnam War), domestic politics dictated
ever more strident mission statements, increasingly inflated plans, and additional
troop deployments.
Eventually, the rhetorical Ponzi scheme collapsed. But having failed to fulfill their
fantasies and realize their power as saviors, the United States and its allies now
seemed unable to recognize or value the progress that was actually occurring on the
ground—in part, because it was slow, unfamiliar, and often not in line with their
plans. Political leaders had so overstated their case that once they were revealed to
be wrong, they could not return to the moderate position of a light footprint and
instead lurched from extreme overreach to denial, isolationism, and withdrawal. In
the end, they walked out, blaming the chaos that followed on the corruption,
ingratitude, and the supposed cowardice of their former partners.
THE AGE OF INTERVENTION

The obsession with universal plans backed by heavy resources that led to the failures
in Afghanistan and Iraq stemmed in part from a misunderstanding of an earlier
success. The first act in the 20-year age of intervention, the nato operation in
Bosnia, was largely effective. Not only did it end the war and preserve the peace for
decades at almost no cost to the United States and its nato allies, but it achieved
things that not long before had seemed impossible: the protection of civilians, the
demobilization of vicious militias, the safe return of refugees to ethnically cleansed
areas, and the imprisonment of war criminals. Today, the Bosnian state remains
fragile, ethnically divided, and corrupt—but also peaceful.
This success, which emerged from a large but very restrained international
presence, was misinterpreted as an argument for bold international interventions
grounded in universal state-building templates and backed by overwhelming
resources. Paddy Ashdown, the British politician who was the senior international
representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, asserted that Bosnia demonstrated seven
“pillars of peace-making” that “apply more or less universally” and provided a plan
to create everything from security to water supplies, prisons, and an efficient
market-based economy. In his view, an international administration with absolute
executive power was needed to achieve these things. Local elections or consultations
should be avoided. The intervening powers should, he said, “go in hard from the
start,” establishing the rule of law as quickly and decisively as possible, “even if you
have to do that quite brutally.”
Many embraced Ashdown’s vision and developed similar blueprints. James

Dobbins, a former U.S. special envoy to Bosnia and a future special representative
for Afghanistan and Pakistan, co-authored The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-
Building, published by the RAND Corporation, which asserted that “heavy” peace-
enforcement operations required 13 soldiers for every 1,000 inhabitants and “light”
peacekeeping operations required two. The future president of Afghanistan, Ashraf
Ghani, matched this with a co-authored textbook titled Fixing Failed States that
defined ten functions of a state and laid out a universal state construction scheme
that could be applied from the Horn of Africa to the Urals.
At the heart of the tragedy in Afghanistan was an obsession with universal

plans and extensive resources.
In Kosovo and Iraq, ever-greater power was deployed to advance such plans. In
Kosovo, the un administration assumed the authority to jail anyone, change the
constitution, appoint officials, and approve the government’s budget (although it
used these powers relatively cautiously). In Iraq, Paul Bremer, the American
administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, assumed full executive power
and sent American and British officials—I was one of them—to govern the Iraqi
provinces. They rewrote university curricula, remade the army, and fired hundreds
of thousands of members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and detained tens of
thousands more.
Afghanistan—the third of the four great interventions of the age—was the exception.
There, the senior un official, Lakhdar Brahimi, and U.S. Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld proposed a light footprint. Although they came from very different
political traditions (Brahimi was an anticolonial independence leader in Algeria),
they both mocked Kosovo as a neocolonial farce. Both feared that a heavy footprint
in Afghanistan would make the government too dependent on foreign money and
troops and provoke an insurgency. Rumsfeld initially authorized only 2,000 U.S.
troops and forbade any nation building. No attempt was made to create anything
comparable to the mission in Kosovo or, later, that in Iraq. And in order to ensure
that his idealistic un staff was not tempted into running Afghanistan, Brahimi
blocked the opening of un field offices in many of the provinces. Instead, the lead
was given to the Afghan transitional government under President Hamid Karzai.
By 2004, three years into the intervention, most of Afghanistan was safer, freer, and
more prosperous, with better services and opportunities than it had had in 30 years.
But there was a dark side to this story: the corruption was far worse than during the
Soviet occupation or Taliban rule, the police were brutal, and the judicial system
worked only for those who could afford the bribes. The production of opium
poppies—which had been nearly eliminated by the Taliban by 2000—soared, with
profits flowing to the most senior government officials.
Helmand Province was perhaps the most extreme failure. It was controlled by local
strongmen—confirmed in government positions by Karzai—whose families had run
the province in the 1980s and early 1990s and who used their newfound power to
reignite a decades-long civil war over land and drugs. (Helmand was then producing
90 percent of Afghanistan’s opium and much of the heroin that found its way to
Europe.) Regularly robbed and tortured by these commanders, Afghans in some
parts of the province became nostalgic for the Taliban.
Many commentators blamed these setbacks on the light footprint, arguing that the
United States had been distracted by Iraq, had failed to plan properly, and had not
deployed enough resources or troops. Un officials, counternarcotics agents,
journalists, and human rights and anticorruption campaigners all called for the
toppling of the warlords. Academics warned that the lack of good governance would
alienate the local population and undermine the credibility of the Afghan
government. Practically everyone assumed that there was a realistic plan to fix
governance in Afghanistan—and that the missing ingredients were more resources
and international troops. As one 2003 rand report on nation building argued: “The
United States and its allies have put 25 times more money and 50 times more
troops, on a per capita basis, into post-conflict Kosovo than into post-conflict
Afghanistan. This higher level of input accounts in significant measure for the
higher level of output measured in terms of democratic institutions and economic
growth.”
These ideas led nato to launch what was in effect a second, heavier intervention: a
regime-change operation aimed this time not at the Taliban but at the power
structures that had been established by the coalition’s ally Karzai. By 2005, nato
“provincial reconstruction teams” had sprouted up across the country, the un had
begun to disarm and demobilize the warlords and their militias, and the number of
nato troops had begun to climb. General John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central
Command, predicted that 2005 would be “the decisive year.”
As the troop counts rose, the problem of good governance became a

problem of insurgency.
By 2006, the most powerful warlords had been stripped of their posts in Helmand,
and the United Kingdom had deployed thousands of troops to the province. Their
aim was not to fight the Taliban, perceived at the time as a weak force. Rather, the
troops focused on improving governance and justice and on stamping out
corruption and drugs. This plan, dubbed “the comprehensive approach,” demanded
an ever-heavier international footprint. Few seemed to doubt its feasibility. The
commander of the nato-led operation, British General David Richards, insisted that
the mission was “doable if we get the formula right, and it is properly resourced.” He
increased the number of troops under his command from 9,000 to 33,000 and
claimed that 2006 would be “the crunch year.”
But as the troop counts rose, the problem of good governance became a problem of
insurgency. In 2006, the number of Taliban bomb attacks increased fivefold, and
the number of British casualties increased tenfold. This, too, was blamed on an
imperfect plan and insufficient resources. In 2007, a new general announced
another strategy, requiring still more resources. The same thing happened in 2008.
Nato troop increases were followed by U.S. troop increases. In 2009, U.S. General
Stanley McChrystal announced a new plan for 130,000 U.S. and nato soldiers,
claiming he was “knee-deep in the decisive year.”
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION

By this point, tens of thousands of Afghans and thousands of international troops
had been killed, and Afghanistan was considerably less safe than it had been in
2005. But the interveners still insisted that somewhere out there was a formula for
state building and counterinsurgency that could succeed. Counterinsurgency experts
began to suggest that perhaps 700,000 troops would do it.
As the U.S. presence in Afghanistan increased, so did the temperature of the

political rhetoric in Washington. In 2003, when 30 U.S. service members were
killed in Afghanistan, it was possible to justify the mission as one of a number of
small U.S. operations stretching from Asia to the Horn of Africa. But by 2008, with
five times as many U.S. soldiers dying per year and tens of billions of dollars being
spent, more extreme justifications were demanded. Officials now argued that if
Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, Pakistan would, too, and extremists would get their
hands on nuclear weapons. Catching Osama bin Laden, President Barack Obama
insisted, required “winning” in Afghanistan. Failure was not an option.
None of this was true, of course. Pakistan and much of the Middle East were more
important threats in terms of terrorism and regional instability. Catching bin Laden
required only catching bin Laden. But the savage and changeable winds of public
opinion demanded ever more paranoid and grandiose statements. U.S. plans for
state building and counterinsurgency became tissues of evasion and euphemism,
justified with contorted logic, dressed in partial statistics, and decorated with false
analogies. They were inflexible, simplistic, overly optimistic, and shrilly confident.
And because these plans remained obsessed with fixing the Taliban-dominated
areas of southern Afghanistan, they diverted investment from the stable, welcoming
areas of central and northern Afghanistan, where significant development progress
was still possible.
Many of these optimistic plans contained barely concealed prophecies of failure.

McChrystal, for example, maintained that no amount of U.S. military power could
stabilize Afghanistan “as long as pervasive corruption and preying upon the people
continue to characterize governance.” Obama himself acknowledged that such
misconduct was unlikely to change—but he nonetheless authorized a slightly pared-
down version of McChrystal’s request for almost 40,000 additional troops.
While the United States continued to refine its plans, the Taliban implemented their
own vision for how to establish security, governance, and the rule of law. They called
it sharia, and they sold it not from a military fort but from within tribal structures,
appealing to rural habits and using Islamic references, in Pashto. And the more
military power the interveners deployed against them, the more they could present
themselves as leading a jihad for Afghanistan and Islam against a foreign military
occupation.
To the Americans and their allies, it seemed impossible that the U.S. military, with
its fleets of gunships and cyberwarfare capabilities, its cutting-edge plans for
counterinsurgency and state building, and its billions of dollars in aid and
investment, could be held off by a medieval group that lived in mud huts, carried
guns designed in the 1940s, and rode ponies. The interveners continued to believe
that the international community could succeed in nation building anywhere in the
world, provided that it had the right plan and enough resources.
THE FALSE LESSONS OF BOSNIA

This view reflected a tragic misreading of the experience in Bosnia, which was a
much more cautious and constrained intervention than many recall. The number of
international troops was higher there than in the early days of the war in
Afghanistan, but both foreign soldiers and foreign civilians in Bosnia were severely
limited in what they could do. (Ashdown’s vision of an omnipotent international
state builder, overruling local voices and implementing the perfect plan, was what
he wished for, not what he found.)
Scarred by memories of Vietnam and the more recent failed intervention in Somalia,
senior U.S. and European officials did not wish to be drawn into the long history of
ethnic strife in the Balkans and so approached the conflict with immense caution.
When the United States belatedly mounted a military intervention, it was focused on
air operations to bomb the Bosnian Serb artillery around Sarajevo. The ground
fighting was conducted by the Sarajevo-based Bosnia authority and by Croatian
soldiers, who received their training from U.S. contractors. When international
troops were deployed after the Dayton peace accords, they spent most of their time
on their bases. More U.S. soldiers were injured playing sports than in action.

The Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina had much less
power than its equivalent would be given in Kosovo and could not order military or
police officers to enforce its decrees. The Dayton agreement handed 49 percent of
the country’s territory to the Bosnian Serb aggressors and enshrined their power in
areas that they had ethnically cleansed. The cautious international presence also
initially left the Croatian and Serbian paramilitaries, special police forces, and
intelligence services in place and did not disarm them. Instead of doing the
equivalent of “de-Baathifying,” as Bremer did in Iraq, or toppling the warlords, as
U.S. and coalition forces did later in southern Afghanistan, the high representative
for Bosnia and Herzegovina was required to work with the war criminals. The party
of the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, who was responsible for the massacre
in Srebrenica, was allowed to participate in elections (and won the first postwar one,
in 1996).
Success in Bosnia was due not to the strength of the international presence
but to its comparative weakness.
Bosnia was ultimately transformed not by foreign hands but by messy and often
unexpected local solutions that were supported by international diplomacy. The first
breakthrough came when Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic split from her
mentor, the war criminal Karadzic, and then requested international support.
Plavsic was herself a war criminal who had described Bosnian Muslims as
“genetically deformed material.” But the international forces worked with her to
disarm the special police forces, Bosnian Serb units that acted as de facto militias.
Later, the death of Croatian President Franjo Tudjman and the toppling of Serbian
President Slobodan Milosevic fatally weakened their proxies in Bosnia. Neither of
these events was part of a planned strategy by the international community, but
both helped what had initially been a tiny and apparently toothless war crimes
tribunal in The Hague expand its operations, leading eventually to the capture and
prosecution not only of Karadzic but also of Plavsic herself. Cautious compromises
ultimately led not to appeasement but to justice.
The reversal of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia also owed very little to international
plans. Despite the Dayton agreement’s commitment to refugee return, many
international experts considered it reckless to allow refugees to go back to villages
that had been burned to the ground and occupied by hostile militias. Nonetheless,
small groups of Bosnians tried to move back to their homes. Some were ejected
immediately by armed groups, but others held on and persuaded international
troops to follow and protect them. These small Bosnian-led initiatives—improvised,
incremental, and following no international plan—opened the door for the return of
over a million refugees.
Within a decade of the intervention, more than 200,000 homes had been given back
to their owners, over 400,000 soldiers from three armies had been disarmed, and
Bosnia had built a unified army of 15,000 soldiers. All the major war criminals were
caught and tried, and Bosnia’s homicide rate fell below that of Sweden. All of this
was achieved at a cost of almost zero American and nato lives. And as Gerald Knaus,
the chair of the European Stability Initiative, a European think tank specializing in
the Balkans, has argued, such successes were due not to the strength of the
international presence but to its comparative weakness: a relatively restrained
intervention forced local politicians to take the lead, necessitated often
uncomfortable compromises, and made foreign civilians and troops act cautiously to
reinforce unexpected and improvised local initiatives.

THE VANISHING MIDDLE GROUND
Could a light footprint in Afghanistan have eventually led to similar successes?
Perhaps, but with greater difficulty. Afghanistan was much poorer when the United
States invaded than Bosnia was at the time of the nato intervention: adult life
expectancy was about 48, one in seven children died before the age of five, and most
men (and almost all women) were unable to read or write. Afghan communities
were far more conservative, religious, and suspicious of foreigners than Bosnian
communities had been (thanks in part to CIA efforts to develop their identity as
heroic resisters of foreign occupation during the Soviet period). But the initially
limited and restrained international presence in Afghanistan still enabled far more
progress than most critics of the war have acknowledged.
The violence and poor governance—particularly in Helmand, elsewhere in southern

Afghanistan, and in eastern Afghanistan—that were used to discredit the light-
footprint approach were not representative of all of rural Afghanistan. In Bamiyan,
for example, a province of three million people in the center of the country, military
strongmen retained power, but there was peace. Between 2001 and 2004, locals
established excellent schools, even in outlying settlements, providing most girls with
their first experience of formal education and laying the foundation for some of
them to attend college. The people of Bamiyan—long a marginalized community—
began to take senior positions in universities, the media, ministries, and other
government agencies. The government extended paved roads and electricity to
villages that had never seen them before. Life was much better than it had been
under the Taliban, which had led genocidal attacks against Bamiyan communities.
(In the winter of 2001–2, I walked through village after village that had been burned
to the ground by the Taliban.) All this progress occurred with only a few dozen
foreign soldiers in the province and no international civilian administrators.
There also was progress in other central regions and in areas to the north, including
in Herat, much of Mazar-e Sharif, the Panjshir Valley, the Shomali Plain, and Kabul.
In all these places, a light international footprint meant fewer international
casualties, which in turn reduced the pressure on American and European
politicians and generals to make exaggerated claims. It also compelled the
international community to engage in a more modest discussion with the Afghan
people about what kind of society they themselves desired and to accept ideas and
values that Americans and Europeans did not always share. In short, it forced a
partnership.
By 2005, the Afghan economy was almost twice as big as it had been in 2001. The
population of Kabul had quadrupled in size, and new buildings were shooting up.
On television, young female and male presenters had the confidence to satirize their
rulers. And the progress was not confined to the capital: across the country, 1.5
million girls went to school for the first time. Mobile phones spread like wildfire.
Health and life expectancy improved. There was less violence than at any point in
the previous 40 years, and no insurgency remotely comparable to what had
exploded in Iraq. Perhaps most encouraging of all was that although millions of
people had fled in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, millions of Afghan
refugees were choosing to return home during this period.
A light and sustained footprint modeled on the Bosnian intervention should

have been the approach for Afghanistan.
What would have happened if the United States and nato had tried to retain a light
footprint and a restrained approach beyond 2005? What if they had deployed fewer
troops, invested in generous development aid, and resisted fighting the drug trade,
toppling warlords, and pursuing a counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban?
The answer would have depended to a great extent on the initiatives of local actors
and the competition among them, the developments in neighboring countries, and
luck—just as the outcome in Bosnia did. In many parts of Afghanistan, there would
have been poverty, a lack of democratic representation, and strongman rule. In
regions controlled by drug lords and racked by Pashtun infighting and Pakistani
meddling, there probably would have been continued horror, especially if U.S.
special operations forces and their proxies had continued to hunt for terrorists. But
across much of the country, from Bamiyan to Panjshir, there could have been
continued improvements in health, education, and employment—particularly if an
overambitious surge had not diverted development funds away from these regions
and to the insurgency areas. And for millions of people in Herat and Kabul, this
progress could have been combined with an increasingly open and democratic civil
society.
Most important, however, many of the problems caused by the heavier international
presence and the surge would have been avoided. Well meaning though they were,
the attempts to depose local warlords in the name of good governance created power
vacuums in some of the most ungovernable regions of the country, alienated and
undermined the elected government, and drove the warlords and their militias to
ally with the Taliban. The counternarcotics campaigns alienated many others who
lost their livelihoods.
The United States did attempt to return to a lighter footprint in 2014, but by then,
immense damage had been done. The surge had formed an Afghan army that was
entirely reliant on expensive U.S. aircraft and technology, created a new group of
gangster capitalists fed from foreign military contracts, and supercharged
corruption. Military operations had killed thousands of people, including many
civilians, deepening hatred. And the presence of more than 100,000 international
troops in rural villages had allowed the Taliban—which had been a weak and fragile
group—to present themselves as fighting for Afghanistan and Islam against a foreign
occupation. In 2005, under the light footprint, a British intelligence analyst told me
there were between 2,000 and 3,000 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Six years later,
after tens of thousands of Afghans had been killed and half a trillion dollars had
been spent, General Richard Barrons of the British army estimated that there were
36,000 Taliban fighters in the country.
But just as the initial light footprint was better than the surge, so the later light
footprint was better than a total withdrawal. A few thousand international troops,
supporting air operations, were still capable of preventing the Taliban from holding
any district capital—much less marching on Kabul. And by preventing a Taliban
takeover, the troops were able to buy valuable time for health and educational
outcomes to improve, development assistance to continue, income and opportunity
to grow, and rights to be more firmly established for millions of Afghans.
Although the cost of the surge had been immense, the cost of remaining beyond
2021 would have been minimal. The United States could have supported 2,500
soldiers in Afghanistan almost indefinitely—and with little risk. So long as U.S.
airpower and support for the Afghan air force remained in place, the Taliban would
have posed a minimal threat to U.S. troops in their heavily defended air bases.
(Eighteen U.S. service members were killed in 2019, perhaps the fiercest year of the
fighting, before the cease-fire agreement.) The Taliban were not on the verge of
victory; they won because the United States withdrew, crippled the Afghan air force
on its way out, and left Afghan troops without air support or resupply lines. In other
words, the decision to withdraw was driven not by military necessity, the interests of
the Afghans, or even larger U.S. foreign policy objectives but by U.S. domestic
politics.
Yet many Americans welcomed the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan because their
leaders had not properly explained to them how light the U.S. presence had become
or what it was protecting. Politics in the West seems to abhor the middle ground,
swinging inexorably from overreach and overstatement to isolationism and
withdrawal. A light and sustained footprint modeled on the Bosnian intervention
should have been the approach for Afghanistan—and, indeed, for interventions
elsewhere in the world. Yet instead of arguing that failure in Afghanistan was not an
option, former U.S. President Donald Trump behaved as though failure had no
consequences. He showed no concern for how a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan
would affect the United States’ reputation and alliances, regional stability,
terrorism, or the lives of ordinary Afghans. And he responded to exaggerated claims
about Afghanistan’s importance not with moderate claims but with a refusal to
maintain even the smallest presence there or to bear the slightest cost.
President Joe Biden has followed Trump’s Afghan policy in every detail, despite
having famously advocated a light footprint—and argued against the surge—when
he was Obama’s vice president. Somehow, over the years, he seems to have
convinced himself that such an approach had failed. But the light footprint did not
fail. What failed was the political culture of the West and the imagination of Western
bureaucrats. The United States and its allies lacked the patience, realism, and
moderation needed to find the middle path.

Africa Is Changing—and U.S. Strategy Is
Not Keeping Up | Foreign Affairs
JON TEMIN
JON TEMIN is Director of the Africa Program at Freedom House.
Africa has never been a top priority for the United States. Presidents Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all launched impactful initiatives there—
helping advance trade, health, and energy, among other things—but their
administrations devoted only limited, episodic attention to the continent. President
Donald Trump gave it even less thought: he was the first U.S. president since Ronald
Reagan not to travel to Africa, and his Africa policy, to the extent it could be
discerned, focused on the narrow goals of competing with China, reducing the U.S.
military footprint, and expanding private-sector engagement.
President Joe Biden’s administration has been similarly slow out of the blocks on
Africa. Aside from its focused diplomatic response to the horrific civil war in
Ethiopia and a few hints about other areas of emphasis, such as trade and
investment, Biden has not articulated a strategy for the continent. Yet powerful
demographic, economic, and political changes are sweeping across Africa,
expanding the opportunities for positive U.S. engagement there and underscoring
the need to elevate Africa on the list of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
In the coming months, the Biden administration should set out a bold strategy that
reframes American thinking about Africa from a focus on the sub-Saharan region to
a wider look at the continent as a whole and from an overemphasis on U.S.-Chinese
competition to a broader engagement with Africans themselves. Doing so will
require lengthening the time frame for U.S. objectives, especially those concerning
democracy and human rights, and focusing more on bolstering institutions than on
preserving relationships with individual African leaders.
AFRICAN CENTURY
In a speech on the eve of the new millennium, former South African President
Thabo Mbeki called this the “African century”—and for good reason. Between 2020
and 2050, Africa’s population is expected to roughly double, growing far faster than
the population of any other region. Nigeria alone is expected to exceed 400 million
people by 2050, overtaking the United States as the third most populous country.
Africa’s population is also overwhelmingly young compared with other regions,
meaning that it will have a substantial workforce well into the future. The COVID-19
pandemic has dampened short-term economic growth, but the long-term outlook is
strong: population growth—especially in cities, where most innovation happens—
combined with the continent’s enormous capacity for creativity and innovation
translates into tremendous economic potential. Furthermore, Africa’s 54 countries
can form a powerful political block on the global stage and are showing an
increasing ability to act in unison—through the newly formed African Continental
Free Trade Area, for instance. If African countries, especially the most influential
ones, can find a truly united voice, they will be a political force.
Demographic, economic, and political trends all make Africa increasingly

important to the United States.
These demographic, economic, and political trends all make Africa increasingly
important to the United States. In addition to powering growth and innovation, the
continent can be an engine of democratic expansion—including in unexpected
places, such as Sudan and Zambia—that can advance U.S. and global efforts to
reverse democratic backsliding. Prominent African countries also are potential allies
with the United States on many of the most pressing global issues, such as climate
change.
At the same time, however, security concerns are growing in the Sahel and in
eastern and southern Africa along the Indian Ocean: by some estimates close to 70
percent of the UN Security Council’s agenda is devoted to peace and security in
Africa. China, Russia, Turkey, and Middle Eastern countries are expanding their
spheres of influence on the continent, often strengthening authoritarian
governments and factions that are hostile to American interests.
AFRICA REFRAMED
Moving Africa up the list of priorities on the U.S. foreign policy agenda will require
rethinking how the continent is framed—both geographically and geopolitically.
Most of the U.S. government draws an imaginary bureaucratic line between sub-
Saharan Africa and North Africa, with the latter being treated as part of the broader
Middle East. But this delineation is increasingly illogical. People, goods, and arms
all flow freely across the Sahara desert, and the power vacuum in Libya has
contributed to instability in Sahelian countries such as Chad, Mali, and Niger. The
African continent, in other words, is a single interconnected entity.
The African Union, in which North African countries wield substantial influence,
makes no distinction between North Africa and the rest of the continent. North
African countries could make greater economic and diplomatic contributions across
the continent if they turned more attention south—a shift that the United States
should encourage. To its credit, U.S. Africa Command has already done away with
this anachronistic division, but the rest of the U.S. government should do the same.
Treating the continent as a whole will help officials respond to challenges, such as
migration and terrorism, that cross the Sahel and the Sahara—an unstable region
poised to grow substantially in population and geopolitical importance in the
coming decades—unencumbered by bureaucratic seams. Doing so would also drive
more attention to a continent that borders the Mediterranean and Europe, helping
secure more resources for understaffed teams focused on Africa within the U.S.
government.
The United States should abandon the narrative that it is battling China for
primacy in Africa.
Washington should also reframe its geopolitical understanding of Africa, especially

its understanding of how many African countries relate to the Gulf states across the
Red Sea. Over the past decade, political and economic ties between the Horn of
Africa and the Middle East have greatly expanded. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Arab Emirates have increased much-needed investment in the region as well

as in the Sahel, but rivalries among those countries have been exported to the Horn,
especially to Somalia, further destabilizing already fractured political systems. The
trajectories of Ethiopia and Sudan—arguably the two highest priorities in Africa for
Biden so far—have been strongly influenced by Middle Eastern interests. Many
Sudanese fear that their revolution, which overthrew the dictator Omar al-Bashir in
2019, could be hijacked by outside forces opposed to a democratic Sudan. Biden was
right to create the new position of U.S. special envoy for the Horn of Africa and to
fill it with the seasoned diplomat Jeffrey Feltman. The Biden administration should
reinforce that move by enhancing collaboration across bureaucratic departments
and agencies in order to elevate both shores of the Red Sea to core national security
priorities.
Finally, the United States should abandon the narrative that it is battling China for
primacy in Africa. To be sure, there is an element of strategic competition animating
both countries’ activities there, and Chinese actions clearly bolster authoritarian
regimes. But framing U.S. Africa policy this way, as the Trump administration did,
treats the continent’s more than 1.3 billion people as bystanders to a larger
geopolitical collision in which they have little stake. It also ignores the fact that
China engages in Africa in ways that the United States does not, offering loans and
other forms of support that are not matched by others. The terms of those deals may
be stacked against the recipients—although there is debate on this point—but in
many instances the United States simply does not offer an alternative, making its
criticism of Chinese behavior ring hollow. The United States needs to demonstrate
to Africans that it cares about them because of their inherent value and potential,
not because of their role in great-power competition. That will mean abandoning
tired talking points and offering competitive alternatives to Chinese economic
support.
VALUES IN FOREIGN POLICY

On the campaign trail, Biden pledged to put values at the center of U.S. foreign
policy. To remain true to that commitment in Africa, his administration will have to
do more than reframe its understanding of the continent; it will have to elongate its
policy timetable and focus more on strengthening institutions than on maintaining
relationships with individual leaders. Advancing values such as democracy and
respect for human rights is a long-term endeavor. Too often, however, these
objectives have taken a back seat to short-term interests, especially those tied to
security. When the leaders of Guinea, Ivory Coast, the Republic of the Congo, and
Rwanda all manipulated term limits in recent years to extend their rule, for
instance, the U.S. response was muted. Washington issued some carefully crafted
statements, and U.S. diplomats surely conveyed their feelings behind closed doors,
but none of these leaders faced any meaningful consequences for evading their term
limits. Opinion surveys show that Africans overwhelmingly support two-term limits
for their leaders. Yet U.S. policymakers weren’t willing to risk a short-term
disruption in U.S. relations with these leaders (and the supposed stability they
guarantee) to defend the integrity of African democratic institutions.
Survey data also shows that a majority of Africans share many of the values that the
Biden administration seeks to emphasize, such as support for democracy, free and
fair elections, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. In many cases, it is
their leaders who don’t believe in these values. Too often, the United States has
sided with the authoritarians because of short-term uncertainty about who will
succeed them, fear of chaotic transitions, or the desire to preserve security
partnerships. Such was the case when Mahamat Déby, the son of Chad’s longtime
strongman Idriss Déby, seized power upon his father’s death earlier this year
contrary to the succession plan laid out in the country’s constitution. The United
States chose not to call this what it was—a coup—presumably in order to preserve its
long-standing counterterrorism partnership with Chad.
But the longer unpopular leaders (or their offspring) remain in office, the more
chaotic the eventual transitions are likely to be. (After evading term limits in 2020,
for instance, Guinea’s President Alpha Condé was overthrown in a coup earlier this
year.) The Biden administration should therefore pursue a multiyear strategy for the
continent that is grounded in the values that Americans and Africans share and have
the patience to see that strategy through. That will mean resisting the temptation to
let short-term interests drive adherence to the status quo when it is clearly
inconsistent with African popular sentiment, keeping in mind that a commitment to
democratic principles sets the United States apart from countries such as China and
Russia in the eyes of many Africans.
Advancing values such as democracy and respect for human rights is a

long-term endeavor.
The United States must also elevate institutions over individuals. Washington has
learned hard lessons by doing the opposite. For instance, when South Sudan gained
independence in 2011, U.S. policymakers wrongly believed that their long-standing
relationships with the country’s most influential politicians would enable them to
persuade those politicians to compromise and lead the country toward stability and
democracy. But at every turn, South Sudan’s leaders put their own self-interest
ahead of the nation’s, defying American appeals.
U.S. officials made the same mistake in Ethiopia, embracing Ahmed Abiy when he
became prime minister in 2018 without asking many questions. To be sure, Abiy
made a number of early moves that were genuinely encouraging and suggested that
Ethiopia was making a turn toward respect for human rights. But the United
States—along with many other countries, the Nobel Committee, and some
commentators (including this author)—were too quick to elevate Abiy and portray
him as a new type of leader. (The United States made the same mistake with his
predecessor Meles Zenawi.) Far from leading Ethiopia toward a democratic future,
Abiy has fanned the flames of ethnic hatred and led the country into a horrific civil
war.
The safer and better bet is on the institutions that check executive overreach, uphold
the rule of law, and expose kleptocracy—the courts; legislatures; the media; and
commissions that focus on elections, combating corruption, and defending human
rights. Many South Africans credit the courts and the media—along with civil society
organizations—with helping the country survive the disastrous presidency of Jacob
Zuma. Since Zuma’s departure from office in 2018, South African authorities have
continued to investigate his administration’s corrupt activities, leading to the former
president’s recent imprisonment for defying the courts—a remarkable example of
accountability. In Kenya and Malawi, the courts have made bold decisions to
invalidate flawed elections, angering sitting presidents. Substantial U.S. aid already
goes to supporting these types of institutions, but U.S. policy and diplomacy needs
to keep up. Senior officials should invest as much in relationships with these
institutions as they do in relationships with heads of state. They should also defend
these institutions when they come under attack, including by imposing sanctions.
Biden’s upcoming Summit for Democracy should emphasize—and include
representatives from—these kinds of pivotal democratic institutions.

AFRICAN VOICES, GLOBAL DEBATES
In August, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland traveled to
South Africa to co-chair the Working Group on African and Global Issues, which
seeks to elevate South African engagement on pressing global debates. Initiatives
such as this one should be expanded. Conversations about the forces shaping the
world—from climate change to technology to migration—are dominated by
developed nations, but the impact of these forces is universal.
In the case of climate change, Africa bears the least responsibility of any region but
could end up paying the highest price: extreme heat and variable rainfall already
threaten human survival in the Sahel, and rising sea levels will soon put whole cities
at risk. Each of Africa’s 54 heads of state is a potential voice in the climate debate, as
are the continent’s dynamic civil society organizations, which are too often ignored.
The United States should push for more African leadership in the global institutions
where these issues are debated—and then genuinely listen to what Africans have to
say. This is not a matter of the United States and other powerful countries being
magnanimous: it serves their interests to have African countries that are directly
affected by climate change take part in the push for solutions, including by putting
pressure on major polluters, just as it serves their interests to include African
countries in discussions about the factors that drive migration, such as the lack of
economic opportunity.
Reforming the UN Security Council to give Africa a more prominent role would be a
good first step. It is difficult to imagine the Security Council being more
dysfunctional than it already is; reform could offer the jolt that is sorely needed
while also addressing an important African demand. The G-20, which currently has
just one African member (South Africa), should also consider adding Nigeria, which
has become an economic force. And in ad hoc gatherings such as Biden’s Summit for
Democracy, Africa’s democratic leaders (and not only heads of state) should be
featured prominently. The Biden administration should push for these changes
proactively, acknowledging that reform of long-standing institutions is overdue.
Doing so would go a long way toward demonstrating to Africans that the United
States sees their continent’s potential and is invested in their future.

America and Europe Seek to Revive
Trade Ties | Foreign Affairs
CECILIA MALMSTRÖM
CECILIA MALMSTRÖM is former European Commissioner for Trade and a
Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
On their face, transatlantic relations over trade, investment, and technology seem
sturdy. The United States and the European Union are among each other’s largest
trading partners, as well as the largest source and destination for their companies’
foreign investments. Decades of policy cooperation have resulted in remarkable
economic interdependence, job growth, and expanding investment.
Take, for example, the successful rollout of COVID-19 vaccines on either side of the
Atlantic. Hundreds of millions of Americans have received doses of the Pfizer-
BioNTech jab, a vaccine based on European innovation and made at Pfizer’s plants
in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Missouri; a similar number of Europeans have
received the same vaccine made at Pfizer’s facility in Belgium. Moderna’s messenger
RNA (mRNA) vaccine was invented in the United States; it is also being bottled for
distribution in plants in France and Spain and has become increasingly essential for
the EU’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine
was co-developed at the Janssen R & D lab in the Netherlands and a hospital in
Boston and is also produced on both sides of the ocean.
Unfortunately, the success stories of interdependence don’t get the same attention
as the friction. The imperatives of domestic politics encourage leaders to assail
foreign targets and dwell on asymmetries. European officials bristle at the actions of
U.S. technology giants Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google (there are no
comparable European companies), while their U.S. counterparts worry that
Americans are buying too many German cars and that Europe refuses to accept
genetically modified farm products from the Midwest.
The inordinate focus on such bilateral irritants has had damaging consequences.
The United States and the EU have ignored the decline in their combined influence
over global trade. The two made up over 50 percent of global exports in 1990; by
2020, that had fallen to roughly 40 percent. Such a decline need not be a bad thing,
except that it largely reflects the growing economic power of China, which does not
share their transparent, rules-based, nondiscriminatory, and market-oriented
approach to international commerce. Beijing’s increasingly opaque, nonmarket, and
economically coercive style is mounting a challenge to the trading system and
multilateral order that the United States and Europe developed together over the
last 75 years.

This concern should motivate Americans and Europeans to get out of their own way.
In late September, U.S. and European Union officials met in Pittsburgh to try to
patch up their differences on trade. Four years of Trump administration policy had
left ties strained and in need of restoration. Both the administration of U.S.
President Joe Biden and the European Commission under its current president,
Ursula von der Leyen, hope to rebuild transatlantic cooperation in areas as varied
as climate change, digital transformation, workers, technology, supply chain
resilience, and human rights, all under the rubric of trade. But as the uncertain
outcome of the Pittsburgh summit suggests, strengthening transatlantic ties in the
age of an assertive China could be the most difficult trade task these two longtime
collaborators have ever taken on.
TROUBLED WATERS
The recent struggles in U.S.-EU trade go back at least as far as the second term of
the Obama administration. At the time, the United States and the EU attempted to
circumvent an insurmountable impasse in global talks under the auspices of the
World Trade Organization. In early 2013, they launched the ambitious bilateral
initiative known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
The TTIP aimed not just to strengthen transatlantic trade ties but also to encourage
greater foreign direct investment and regulatory cooperation. But it foundered in
the rocky shoals of politics. The revelations in 2013 that the United States had
allegedly been spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel had devastating
consequences for U.S. relations with Germany, a necessary trade advocate.
Separately, European civil society quickly mobilized against the TTIP itself.
Hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Berlin and other
European capitals, stoking fears that giant U.S. corporations would use the
agreement to gut Europe’s hard-fought consumer and environmental protections.
Negotiations never reached the finish line, and the deal died quietly under its own
weight.
The United States and the EU have ignored the decline in their combined
influence over global trade.
Transatlantic trade relations deteriorated further under the administration of

President Donald Trump. Its “America first” policies prioritized attacking partners
with whom the United States “suffered” bilateral trade deficits. Less than 100 days
into his administration, Trump kicked off an investigation into steel imports under a
Korean War–era law that allowed the government to impose import tariffs in the
name of defending national security. NATO allies warned Washington of the
consequences of such a move, but Trump nevertheless imposed duties on European
steel and aluminum in June 2018. (Brussels immediately retaliated, as promised.)
The tariffs in and of themselves were not new—European companies had dealt with
U.S. steel protections for decades—but their imposition under a national security
law rankled the Europeans. How could Washington treat its NATO allies as security
threats?
Trump quickly used the same law to threaten even more duties on billions of dollars
of BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, and Volkswagens. In July, tensions reached such a
pitch that European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker rushed to
Washington, and both parties agreed to launch negotiations over what could have
turned into another one of Trump’s minor trade deals. The EU also promised to buy
more American soybeans and liquefied natural gas, allowing Trump to claim a
political victory. But by the time his administration got around to asking Congress
for formal permission to negotiate with Brussels, it was clear these talks would go
nowhere. Congress wanted the negotiations to include European restrictions on U.S.
farm exports, but the commission had no mandate from member states to negotiate
over agriculture, let alone the political appetite to engage with Trump. There were
talks for almost a year, but nothing was agreed apart from a very modest deal to
abolish tariffs on lobsters and ceramics.
The Trump administration also hurt EU and U.S. interests by dismantling the World
Trade Organization’s system for resolving disputes by refusing to appoint
arbitrators to a key appeals body. Since the mid-1990s, Brussels and Washington
had leaned heavily on the WTO to manage their bilateral trade tensions. Brussels
decided it had had enough when the Trump administration went around the WTO
process for the first time in decades to threaten tariffs in response to France’s
imposition of a digital services tax on U.S. technology firms in December 2019. The
Europeans suddenly felt the need for protection not just from the likes of China
and Russia—but also from the United States.
A FRESH START?
Trump’s defeat in the November 2020 U.S. election offered a fresh start. Brussels
quickly sought to capitalize on Joe Biden’s campaign pledge to “work with allies.” In
early December, the EU offered up a new and detailed blueprint for transatlantic
trade and technology cooperation that also signaled it was coming around on some
of Washington’s key concerns, including those regarding China.
But then Brussels miscalculated. Later that month, the European Commission
surprised the world by announcing a bilateral investment agreement with Beijing.
The Biden team—now in transition mode and unable to speak directly to their
European counterparts until it assumed power on January 20—was left furious. All
that Jake Sullivan, Biden’s choice for national security adviser, could do was tweet,
and the Americans were left wondering: Was Europe a willing partner after all?
Americans were left wondering: Was Europe a willing partner after all?
To be sure, there have been some positive signs since Biden assumed office. In
March, the United States and the EU implemented coordinated sanctions over
China’s alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang. Janet Yellen, Biden’s choice for
Treasury secretary, has shepherded discussions surrounding global corporate tax
reform to wide applause in many European capitals. (The progress on this front has
allowed the United States to back off from imposing retaliatory tariffs on European
digital services taxes.) The two sides also decided to settle the decades-long rancor
over their respective subsidies to aeronautics firms Boeing and Airbus. Finally,
Brussels delayed imposing a scheduled round of retaliatory tariffs against Trump’s
steel tariffs until December, with recent reports suggesting a more durable
negotiated settlement to the problem may be in the offing.
But the biggest boost was the announcement made during Biden’s June visit to
Europe of a summit that would establish the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology
Council, or TTC. This council would serve as the means to launch a new era of
transatlantic policy cooperation.
THE PITTSBURGH SUMMIT

The TTC remains inchoate even after the recent summit in Pittsburgh, but both
sides agree that it will not be a rehash of the failed Obama-era TTIP. Officials
steered clear of controversial topics, such as investor-state dispute settlement—the
controversial special court proposed in the TTIP that sparked protests across
Europe—the United States’ genetically modified foods, or even tariff reductions.
Instead, they were intent on prioritizing new and immediate areas for collaboration.
Ten working groups covered a range of important topics, including artificial
intelligence, 5G, and pharmaceutical supply chains.
One area of particular concern to both sides is the current global shortage of
semiconductors, which has badly affected automobile industries. The United States
and the EU are both now attempting to direct tens of billions of dollars to boost
domestic production of these chips to better compete with the likes of South Korea
and Taiwan, as well as with China, which is also ramping up funding of this sector.
The United States and the EU agreed to coordinate their semiconductor subsidies so
that they don’t simply drive up the bill for American and European taxpayers by
chasing the same firms and segments of the market.
The United States would do well to heed the European view that obsession
with China will lead to policy mistakes.
On artificial intelligence, the United States and the EU committed to work together
to develop guardrails that promote innovation but also make sure the technology is
used responsibly, with respect for shared values and human rights. But this
agreement went only so far. Both sides may be concerned that authoritarian regimes
might abuse artificial intelligence by using it for unlawful surveillance and “social
scoring” of individuals, but they are yet to agree to any sort of joint framework or
common standards to regulate the technology. The risk is that these discussions
about artificial intelligence turn into exchanges of ideas bereft of any concrete
commitments, even as both the United States and the EU fall behind a China that
has made significant investments in the field.
Trade ties will also need to accommodate climate policy now that the Biden
administration has rejoined the Paris agreement. Brussels rolled out a carbon
border adjustment mechanism in July that would tax foreign exports of carbon-
intensive products from countries that themselves do not implement a domestic
carbon tax. This current proposal could hurt U.S. exports to Europe, simply because
the United States may choose to reach its climate objectives through a mix of
regulations and subsidies and not through carbon taxation. U.S. and EU officials can
use the new trade council to better understand and support each other’s approaches
to meeting their overall carbon-reduction targets and not let minor differences in
strategy mushroom into trade conflicts.
A FLEXIBLE RELATIONSHIP
The Pittsburgh summit did not produce many immediate results, but that was to be
expected. The two sides did commit to set up routine meetings for ministers and a
framework for staff to tackle issues before they escalate into larger political
problems. Policy mistakes happen in the absence of communication. During the
Trump administration, senior U.S. officials were so fixated on the trade war with
China that they often stood up visiting EU trade delegations. As a refreshing
contrast, Katherine Tai, Biden’s U.S. trade representative, has famously emphasized
the need for U.S. policymakers “to walk, chew gum, and play chess at the same
time.”
China did come up in Pittsburgh, of course, albeit obliquely. The 6,000-word joint
statement released after the summit was largely about China but did not mention
the country once. Brussels had been worried the council would turn into an
unproductive, China-bashing exercise, simply another plank of the U.S. trade war.
For its part, Washington had been concerned that the EU may still be refusing to
treat seriously the threat posed by China. The United States would do well to heed
the European view that obsession with China will lead to policy mistakes. Many
European countries have navigated the pitfalls of state-centered capitalism;
European policymakers may have a finer sense of which Chinese policies will be
better off left to fail on their own rather than provoke overreaction in Washington
and Brussels to the detriment of the transatlantic alliance.
The United States and Europe will not always see eye to eye. Tensions in other areas
flared after the June announcement of the TTC, with transatlantic disagreements
over the handling of the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan, travel restrictions due to the
pandemic, and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which brings Russian gas to Germany. A
September spat between Washington and Paris over the United States’ submarine
deal with Australia nearly scuttled the Pittsburgh meeting altogether. The council
needs to become a flexible institution that can manage these sorts of transatlantic
strains. In so doing, it can provide the United States and the EU with the impetus to
collaborate on shared global challenges that neither can tackle alone.

Why China Is Alienating the World |
Foreign Affairs
PETER MARTIN
PETER MARTIN covers defense and intelligence for Bloomberg and is the author of
China’s Civilian Army: The Making of Wolf Warrior Diplomacy, from which this
article is adapted.
In early 2017, China appeared to be on a roll. Its economy was beating estimates.
President Xi Jinping was implementing the country’s Belt and Road infrastructure
initiative and was on the cusp of opening China’s first overseas military base in
Djibouti. Most important, Xi seemed poised to take advantage of President Donald
Trump’s determination to pick fights with U.S. allies and international institutions.
In a speech in Davos in January of that year, Xi even compared protectionism with
“locking oneself in a dark room.”
Nearly five years on, Beijing is facing its biggest international backlash in decades.
Negative views of China are near record highs across the developed world, according
to a Pew Research Center survey from June, which showed that at least three-
quarters of respondents in Australia, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and the United
States now hold broadly negative views of the country. The European Union, which
Beijing worked to court during the Trump era, has officially branded China a
“systemic rival,” and NATO leaders have begun to coordinate a common response to
Beijing. On China’s doorstep, the leaders of Australia, India, Japan, and the United
States have revitalized the “Quad” grouping of nations in response to concerns over
Beijing’s intentions. And most recently, the United States and the United Kingdom
agreed to share sensitive nuclear secrets with Australia to help it counter China’s
naval ambitions in the Pacific.
Yet Beijing shows no sign of shifting course. Unlike previous eras of backlash
against China, such as the one that followed the Tiananmen Square massacre in
1989, this one has not prompted a recalibration in Beijing. For now, China’s leaders
appear to have decided that their newfound national strength, combined with the
general malaise of the West, means that the rest of the world will have to adapt to
Beijing’s preferences.
WOLF WARRIORS
In recent years, China has faced mounting international criticism of everything from
its apparent detention of more than one million Muslim Uyghurs in “reeducation”
camps to its sweeping crackdown in Hong Kong, its controversial industrial policies,
and its role in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. But increasingly, it is
China’s diplomats who are doing the most damage to the country’s reputation.
Popularly known as “Wolf Warriors,” after a series of blockbuster movies that
depicted Chinese heroes vanquishing foreign foes, they have picked fights
everywhere from Fiji to Venezuela. In March 2020, the Foreign Ministry
spokesperson Zhao Lijian outraged U.S. officials when he claimed that the COVID-
19 pandemic began only after American athletes had brought the virus to Wuhan.
Last November, Zhao tweeted an illustration of an Australian soldier holding a knife
to the throat of an Afghan child, prompting Australian Prime Minister Scott
Morrison to demand an apology. And in September, China’s new ambassador to the
United Kingdom, Zheng Zeguang, was banned from the British Parliament over
Chinese sanctions against British lawmakers.
China’s foreign policy elites have noticed the problem. As early as 2018, Deng
Pufang, the son of former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, warned that China
should “know its place” and “keep a sober mind” in its foreign policy. In May
2020, Reuters reported that the China Institutes of Contemporary International
Relations—a think tank affiliated with China’s primary intelligence agency—had
warned the country’s leadership that anti-China sentiment was at its highest since
the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. And in September 2020, Yuan Nansheng,
China’s former consul general in San Francisco, warned against “extreme
nationalism” in Chinese foreign policy. Xi himself has at least tacitly acknowledged
the problem, warning in a Politburo study session in June that China needed to
present a “lovable” image to the world.
Increasingly, it is China’s diplomats who are doing the most damage to the
country’s reputation.
But even more striking than the backlash against China has been the country’s
inability to recalibrate. Beijing’s response to the rapid deterioration in ties with
Canberra was to confront Australia with a list of demands that it said were
prerequisites for improving relations. China’s leaders have also repeatedly stressed
that any improvement in relations with the United States must begin with
concessions from Washington and issued Deputy Secretary of State Wendy
Sherman a similar list of demands when she visited Tianjin in July.
Officials in Washington have begun to see Beijing’s inability to shift course as an

advantage in the emerging competition between the two countries. During bilateral
talks in March, China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, lectured his U.S. counterparts on
the United States’ moral failings, including police killings of Black citizens. In
response, U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan reminded Yang of what he
called the United States’ “secret sauce”: the ability to acknowledge and fix mistakes.
“A confident country,” Sullivan said, “is able to look hard at its own shortcomings
and constantly seek to improve.” The implication, of course, was that China seemed
unable to do the same, at least in its foreign policy.
FEAR AND AMBITION IN BEIJING

It is tempting to see Beijing’s inability to adapt as an intrinsic feature of the Chinese
system. Certainly, individual Chinese officials often fear the consequences of
admitting mistakes. But in the past, Beijing has actually been quite skilled at course
correction. In the 1950s, China undertook a charm offensive that won it friends in
the developing world and helped build support for the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) as the internationally recognized government of China. In the period after the
1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Chinese diplomats helped rehabilitate their
country in the eyes of the world, kick-starting a nearly two-decade run of successes
that culminated in China’s hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Rather than an inherent flaw in China’s model of governance, the failure to
recalibrate this time is a product of the current political atmosphere in Beijing.
Overconfidence is a major part of the problem. In the aftermath of the 2008–9
global financial crisis, Beijing began a shift toward a more assertive style of
diplomacy, buoyed by the belief that its system had been validated by its swift
response to the financial meltdown. That shift accelerated dramatically after Xi
became head of the CCP in 2012: by 2017, top Chinese leaders were pointing to
“changes unseen in a century” and Xi had publicly declared that China was
“approaching the center of the world stage” and “[stood] tall in the East.”
Paired with Beijing’s newfound self-confidence was a belief in Western—and

especially American—weakness and decadence. Washington’s foreign policy
mistakes in the Middle East, its indecisive response to the global financial crisis, and
its fumbling response to the current pandemic have all reinforced this view. In
February 2020, Xi told party cadres that the COVID-19 crisis had demonstrated the
“remarkable advantages of the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the
socialist system with Chinese characteristics.”
For Chinese foreign policy officials, the safest course is to follow Xi’s lead
and to add a little extra zeal for good measure.
Xi has long favored a more assertive posture for China on the world stage. Even
before he became president, Xi complained about “foreigners with full bellies who
have nothing better to do than point the finger” at China’s human rights record. One
of his first acts as leader of the CCP in 2012 was to lay out an agenda for “the great
rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” signaling his ambitions for the country to
retake its rightful place in the world. Since then, he has repeatedly instructed
diplomats to defend China more aggressively, even crafting handwritten notes
directing them to show more “fighting spirit.” The message for any ambitious
Chinese diplomat or propagandist is clear: to get ahead, it is important to match Xi’s
assertive tone.
But Chinese officials have followed Xi’s lead out of fear as well as ambition. Since
2012, more than 1.5 million officials have been punished in a sweeping
anticorruption campaign that treats political disloyalty as a kind of graft. Diplomats
have had to sit through “self-criticism” sessions in the Foreign Ministry and
“inspection tours” that test their loyalty to the party and willingness to follow
orders. Old rules relating to secrecy and discipline have also been implemented with
a new zeal: one dating back to 1949, which forbids Chinese diplomats from meeting
alone with foreigners, has been imposed on everyone from ambassadors to junior
diplomats in study abroad programs.
Chinese diplomats know how to interpret these signals. Over the decades, China’s
foreign policy apparatus has endured multiple rounds of purges in which colleagues
informed on one another and were sanctioned for being insufficiently loyal to the
regime’s agenda. During the Cultural Revolution, ambassadors were locked in
cellars, forced to clean toilets, and beaten until they coughed up blood. Large
numbers of Chinese diplomats were sent off to reeducation camps in rural China.
For Chinese foreign policy officials, the safest course is to follow Xi’s lead and to add
a little extra zeal for good measure.
IN XI’S HANDS
The rise of Wolf Warrior diplomacy in China has rendered regular diplomatic
channels with the United States ineffective. Formal meetings have become little
more than opportunities for Chinese officials to publicly dress down their U.S.
counterparts, while backchannels through former officials or on the sidelines of
official meetings have also become less effective, since Chinese officials recite well-
worn talking points out of a fear of being labeled weak or even landing in political
trouble. Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador in Washington until earlier this
year, stopped meeting alone with foreign counterparts in the final years of his
posting, always meeting with another diplomat on hand to keep tabs. Today, most
in-person contacts have been suspended because of the pandemic, and online Track
II dialogues between former officials feature little more than the stilted repetition of
talking points.
Not that China’s diplomats have the ability to restore China’s global reputation by
themselves. Previous recalibrations of Chinese foreign policy have been backed up
by domestic policy changes that made the country more appealing to the outside
world. Its charm offensive in the 1990s, for example, was accompanied by a
commitment to economic liberalization ahead of its accession to the World Trade
Organization, a willingness to set aside border disputes, and even tentative steps
toward domestic political reform.
But Xi’s government has shown no sign that it is willing to alter the state-led
industrial policies that have alienated multinational companies, to soften the
crackdowns in Xinjiang or Hong Kong, or to compromise on territorial disputes
from the Himalayas to the South China Sea. That leaves Chinese diplomats and
propagandists with a difficult if not impossible message to sell. But as long as they
use Wolf Warrior tactics, they don’t even need to try.

How Washington Can Help Turn Things
Around | Foreign Affairs
RYAN C. BERG
RYAN C. BERG is Senior Fellow in the Americas Program and head of the Future of
Venezuela Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
American democracy was dealt a severe blow on September 11, 2001, but it also
achieved a resounding victory throughout the Western Hemisphere that same day.
While the rubble at ground zero was still ablaze, all 34 members of the Organization
of American States (OAS)—which includes every country in the Americas except
Cuba—came together to sign the Inter-American Democratic Charter, a shared and
unprecedented commitment to strengthening democracy and human rights
protections throughout the region. “The peoples of the Americas have a right to
democracy,” the charter begins, “and their governments have an obligation to
promote and defend it.”
Democratic progress in the Americas had been hard fought and slow won. But at the
time the charter was signed, the region seemed headed in the right direction. With
the waning of the Cold War, it had ridden the so-called third wave of
democratization—and it was now taking its commitment to democracy one step
further by pledging to consolidate representative governance and by establishing a
blueprint for collective action and mutual assistance in its defense. The Americas
were full of nascent democracies brimming with confidence in the inevitable
triumph of democracy—and in their capacity to sustain it throughout the region.
Twenty years on, the state of democracy in the Americas does not reflect the
optimism of 2001 or the high-minded principles enshrined in the charter. To the
contrary, democratic fatigue has set in: support for democracy is at a historic low in
many parts of the region. The past few years have seen the resurgence of both
antidemocratic leftists and right-wing populists in Latin America and the Caribbean,
and what relatively healthy democracies remain are limping rather than sprinting.
What went so utterly wrong?
The Inter-American Democratic Charter is the child of post–Cold War thinking that
saw critical threats to democracy as coming from without: its authors designed it
with dangers such as guerrilla groups, criminal nonstate actors, and authoritarian
foreign governments in mind. In some cases, the charter has been successful. For
instance, electoral observation teams deployed by the OAS have detected voting
irregularities in time to thwart rigged elections and confirmed when they did not
find any, including during the 2020 U.S. general elections. But for the most part, the
charter failed to anticipate that the region’s democratic woes would stem from the
rise of elected autocrats who undermined democracy from within.

An alarming number of countries throughout the Americas are now classified as
“hybrid regimes,” retaining democracy’s form without its substance. Many remain
only “partly free,” according to the think tank Freedom House. Most concerning, the
region is home to the only two countries (Nicaragua and Venezuela) that have
regressed from functioning representative democracies to fully consolidated
dictatorships in recent history. Given that a cornerstone of the charter was a mutual
commitment to preserve democracy, this failure does not belong exclusively to
Nicaragua or Venezuela, both of which signed the document, but falls equally on
democracies throughout the Americas, as well as on the OAS itself.
CREEPING AUTHORITARIANISM
The United States bears some of the blame for this democratic backsliding, having
underestimated the allure and historic roots of populism throughout Latin
American and the Caribbean—and having made critical mistakes in its effort to
buttress democracy in the region. Washington overemphasized the importance of
regular elections and underemphasized the creation and consolidation of key
democratic institutions that could undergird those elections and execute the policy
choices that they reflected. In other words, Washington thought that building a
culture of competitive elections would be sufficient to consolidate democracies. As
long as the polls ran on time, U.S. officials often turned a blind eye to other
concerning political dynamics, including the circumvention of term limits by leaders
such as Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and Honduras’s Juan Orlando Hernández,
blatant corruption, and waning trust in institutions. But democratic consolidation is
a nonlinear and difficult process—punctuated by episodic regressions and
vulnerable low points—that requires regular maneuvering to keep it on track.
Elections alone are not a quick fix.
The lack of regional institutional cohesion has also hobbled Latin America’s ability
to establish a lasting democratic order. Rather than devoting resources to
strengthening existing institutions such as the OAS, leaders throughout the
Americas have cooked up an alphabet soup of regional organizations. This
proliferation of organizations has served to divide rather than unite the hemisphere.
The 2010 Community of Latin American and Caribbean States excluded Canada and
the United States, and the 2004 Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America
originally had only two member states: Cuba and Venezuela, which then proceeded
to hand select other like-minded members. The 2008 Union of South American
Nations fell apart when many countries defected from it to found the Forum for the
Progress and Development of South America, this time without Venezuela’s
participation. As the international relations scholar Christopher Sabatini has shown,
this overabundance of regional organizations has encouraged national sovereignty
at the expense of the collective values articulated in the charter. It has also impaired
the ability of genuinely important regional institutions, such as the OAS, to lead
with authority and credibility—and to respond effectively when democracy is most
at risk.
The region’s democratic woes mainly stem from the rise of elected
autocrats who undermine democracy from within.
The results have been disastrous. It was under the OAS’s watch, for instance, that
Nicaragua and Venezuela both decayed through various forms of semi-
authoritarianism before eventually arriving at brutal dictatorships. The fallout from
these political cataclysms has spread throughout the region: nearly six million
Venezuelans have fled the country as the economy has imploded in the worst

nonwartime economic collapse in modern history. Both countries have effectively
descended into lawlessness and have become sanctuaries for transnational criminal
organizations and designated terrorist groups. And both countries have spun webs
of corruption and illegal activity to buttress their authoritarian regimes.
Elsewhere in the hemisphere, democratic countries have regressed to a more

familiar undemocratic norm in the caudillo, or the strongman leader with autocratic
tendencies, as other relatively healthy democracies have twiddled their thumbs.
Throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century—a period known as the
“pink tide” due to the perceived turn toward left-wing populism throughout Latin
America—countries including Bolivia and Ecuador fed China’s insatiable appetite
for commodities and used the resulting cash influx to spend lavishly on popular
social programs while simultaneously eroding political institutions, manipulating
elections, and stifling civil society. Much of the region remained silent in the face of
these antidemocratic maneuvers under the specious idea that solidarity
with pueblos hermanos, or sibling republics, means not only barring interference
but also moderating criticism. Argentina and Mexico, for instance, recently
abstained from an OAS resolution condemning Ortega’s crackdown on the political
opposition in Nicaragua out of this misguided sense of solidarity.
And it is not just leftists who are eroding democratic norms and practices: the
emergence of several leaders on the populist right poses a grave threat to democratic
governance in the region. El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele has semi-jokingly
cast himself as “the coolest dictator in the world” and has marched members of the
armed forces into the legislative assembly to coerce lawmakers into following his
agenda. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has likewise openly challenged the
authority of the country’s judicial branch over his administration and has
threatened to reject the result of next year’s general election if he loses. Both Bukele
and Bolsonaro, among others, have welcomed deeper engagement with illiberal
foreign governments such as China, particularly in exchange for COVID-19 vaccines.
While democracies in the Western Hemisphere face their biggest threats from
within, they are confronting mounting external antidemocratic pressure as
authoritarian states such as China and Russia step up their political and economic
presence in Latin America and the Caribbean. Authoritarians and would-be
authoritarians can count on China and Russia to shore up their beleaguered
regimes, giving them the resources and political capital to withstand pressure from
the democratic world. Deepened engagement with China and Russia is also helping
spread antidemocratic norms throughout the hemisphere.
Not even the United States is immune to the democratic corrosion that has swept
the region of late. Although the United States is sometimes seen as an outsider by
Latin American and Caribbean countries, it is very much a part of the hemisphere.
This is even more true now than it was before the events of January 6, when an
antidemocratic riot at the U.S. Capitol thrust the United States’ own democratic
woes into the spotlight. This illiberal spectacle may have made the United States less
of a “shining city upon a hill,” but what Washington has lost in credibility it may
well make up for in relatability—a sense among other countries in the Americas that
the United States is not just in the business of policing democracy but is also
constantly working to build its own. The project of democracy is a shared one, and
the United States should not count itself out of the process of democratic
improvement—at home or abroad.

BACK IN TOWN
As the United States rolls back some of its global commitments, which it has already
done in Afghanistan, it should prepare for a homecoming of sorts, a political
reengagement with its hemispheric neighborhood that is deeper and less episodic.
Although not everyone throughout the Americas may welcome deeper U.S.
involvement, a U.S. return to Latin America and the Caribbean could accelerate the
region’s economic, social, and political recovery from the ravages of COVID-19 and
prevent its other capitals from striking Faustian bargains with Beijing. In the days
before the Mexican-American War, it was common for the Spanish republics to
think of the United States as a “sister republic,” a notion that has since unraveled.
Now, as the United States is reassessing its core interests, there is an opportunity to
breathe new life into a twenty-first-century order of sister republics dotting the
Western Hemisphere that could collaborate to effectively smother authoritarian
challenges to the regional democratic order. This would require a realignment of
U.S. grand strategy in which the Americas feature prominently, consonant with the
region’s outsize contribution to American prosperity and security, encouraging
regional alignment through trade, diplomacy, exchange, and values.
To that end, the United States should devise a pro-democracy strategy that is
specific to the region and its particular challenges—and that urges the other
signatories to the Inter-American Democratic Charter to take their commitment to
democracy seriously. Washington should organize a regional democratic roundtable
with the aim of committing its partners to a shared set of measures in support of
democracy. These measures could include carrots, such as preferential trade and
migration policies, as well as sticks, such as diplomatic isolation and carefully
crafted economic sanctions aimed at states and leaders that subvert democratic
norms and processes.
The United States should devise a pro-democracy strategy that is specific to

the region and its particular challenges.
The United States will also have to supplant the dictator’s playbook with strategies
and support for democratic leaders. To that end, it should fund efforts to reduce the
polarization, conflict, and violence that have tilted the playing field toward
authoritarians. It should also help the region install alarm bells within the inter-
American system that can sound powerful warnings before it is too late to rebuild
unraveling democratic norms and institutions—for instance, by monitoring the
rapidly evolving social media landscape for political red flags; tomorrow’s
antidemocratic agenda is circulating as disinformation on Facebook and WhatsApp
today.
Another priority must be to deepen inter-American cooperation on all fronts and to

collaborate to address dysfunction within the OAS. The United States will have an
opportunity to spearhead such an effort when it hosts the next Summit of the
Americas in 2022. It should openly acknowledge that the region is slipping toward
the rule of the few and, at the same time, drive collective efforts to buttress the rule
of the many. These are the building blocks of a new hemispheric strategy that
repurposes the rubble of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to erect a fortress of democracy—
not just in the United States but throughout the Americas.

Huquq-ul-Ibaad in Islam | Pak Observer
Abdul Rasool Syed
The writer is contributing columnist, based in Quetta Balochistan.
HUQUQ-ul Ibaad (The rights of men over men) is the ines capable sine qua non of
Islamic dispensation.
Without practicing this essential aspect of Islam, a Muslim cannot attain the status
of a true believer.
Unfortunately, from the pulpits of our mosques, this aspect of our religion is hardly
propagated and underscored as equally important part of faith as that of Huquq-ul –
Allah (The rights of ALLAH). The entire focus of our clerics is on the rights of
ALLAH; rarely do they touch upon the subject of Huquq-ul-Ibaad.
However, ninety percent of Islamic teachings revolve around the rights of men over
other men. Owing to our indifference to this most important connotation of faith,
our society has degenerated morally, socially, politically and economically.
We, as a nation as well as adherents of true faith, have miserably failed to forge an
equilibrium between Huququllah( the rights of Allah) and Huqooq-ul ibaad which is
why we have been suffering from myriad socio-politico-economic maladies.
The only remedy that we have for these mushrooming ills of our society is nothing
but to act upon Huquq-ul Ibbad in letter and spirit.
There are scores of verses in holy Quran in which we find commands of Allah, the
sublime, with respect to adoption of Huquq-ul Ibbad.
Allah, the compassionate says in glorious Quran: “And those who believe and do
righteous deeds – We will surely remove from them their misdeeds and will surely
reward them according to the best of what they used to do. (29:7) Surah Al-
`Ankabût (The Spider)”.
At another place in holy book, it is mentioned” Indeed, the most noble of you in the
sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and
Acquainted. (49:13) Surah Al-?ujurât (The Rooms).
We also find in Surah Al-Nisa verse 36. “Serve Allah, don’t associate anyone with
Him, do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are of kin,
neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer, and what
your right hand posses: for Allah loves not the vainglorious; nor those who are
niggardly, enjoin niggardliness on others, hide bounties which Allah has bestowed
on them”.In addition, the prophetic traditions also highlight the significance and
status of Huquq-ul Ibaad in our religion. We find umpteen traditions of Holy
Prophet (SAW) on this very subject.
In one of hadiths, while sensitizing his holy companions about this subjet of
paramount importance, the prophet of Allah (SAW) said: a woman was punished
due to keeping a cat tied until it expired, and (as a punishment of this sin) she was
thrown into Hellfire.
She had not provided it with drink or food and had not set her free so that she could
eat the insects of the earth (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, and Number 5570).
In another Hadith, Our Prophet (SAW) has stated , “If a Muslim brother has done
anything wrong with another Muslim brother, then he should ask for forgiveness
from his brother in this world, otherwise, in the hereafter, he will have neither Dinar
nor Dirham which he could pay as compensation. He will have only his deeds with
him.
The person who did wrong, his good deeds will be given over to the one who became
the victim of his wrongs, and if that person did not have any good deeds to his
credit, in that case, the one who became the victim of his wrongs, his sins will be
recorded in the Amalnama (book of deeds) of the one who was responsible for ill-
treatment or injustice.” (Sahih Bukhari, Page 967).
At another occasion, it is related by Abu Hurayrah (R.A) in sahi Muslim that the
Holy Prophet (SAW) asked us, do you know who is bankrupt? We replied the one
who has neither gold, nor silver nor any other provision.
The Prophet (SAW) then said, among my people, the one who is bankrupt is one
who-after praying; fasting and paying charity- arrives on the Day of Judgment,
having cursed one person, slandered another, assaulted another and
misappropriated the wealth of someone else.
The those people will be given of his good deeds, and if he is good deeds run out
before redress is made, then some of their sins will be taken from them and put in
him.”Yet in another Hadis, the beloved Prophet (SAW) said:” The best of you is the
one who exhibits the best ethical conduct (Bukhari- Muslim).
Islam teaches us to determine the rights of others by considering our own rights.
This is why the Prophet (SAW) said: None of you truly believes until he loves for his
Muslim brother what he loves for himself (Bukhari, Muslim). Inter alia, our faith
requires us to be mild, gentle and speak in measured tones, without anger or rancor.
Strangely, our habits have become so entrenched in harshness that even our
religious sermons in mosques are shouted out. Think of the time when God asked
Moses to go to Pharaoh — that most arrogant and cruelest of men — to invite him to
believe. “But speak to him mildly; perchance he may take warning or fear (Allah)”
(20:44).
Gentleness of manner is beautiful and harshness is unacceptable to God. According

to Hazrat Ayesha, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: “Verily, kindness is not found in
anything except that it beautifies it, and it is not removed from anything except that
it disgraces it” (Sahih Muslim 2594).
To conclude, we as a Muslim make travesty of our true faith when we stick to

Huquq-ul- Allah strictly but shun from practicing Huquq-ul-Ibad, with no fear of
being penalized. For such worshippers, Allah says in book of guidance (Quran):” so
woe to the worshippers; who are neglectful of their prayers.
Those who (want but) to be seen of men)” (1o7: 4-6).

Pakistan’s Unenviable Democracy | Daily
Times
Khizar Niazi
The writer is a freelance columnist.
Pakistan is alleged to be a democracy. This is the only allegation the country’s

politicians don’t deny. Nor do their colonial godfathers, who taught them that the
worst of democracies was better than the best of autocracies; and hence, the worst of
politicians were entitled to the best of treatments. They must, therefore, be bailed
and hailed when they “rob and run!”
Democracy means equality – in every sense of the word. Equality is decreed through
the law and guaranteed by the Rule of Law. Law is applied in letter and spirit. In
case of ambiguity, it is the spirit that prevails.
The Rule of Law breeds national unity. It transcends regional, ethnic, sectarian, and
professional barriers. It provides equal opportunities, based on merit. The genesis of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland illustrates this point. The British
kingdom preceded the British nation. The kingdom was created by clubbing
England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland together, through a series of annexations
and unions (1706-1801). And the British nationhood was subsequently instilled in
these diverse entities through the Rule of Law.
Pakistan defies this very essence of democracy. The Rule of Law was, first, trampled
by military dictators and, then, entombed by politicians. Consequently, the state
that preceded the nation is without nationhood even after seven decades of
experimentation.
Pakistan is probably the only nation in the world, which is bereft of nationalism. It
can, at best, be described as a mob, divided into several pressure groups, pursuing
parochial agendas. Even their leaders are divided on its very raison d’être – Jinnah’s
two-nation theory. They do not have a single national political party, with a notable
presence in every province. And, none of the parties, including from the largest
province, thinks twice before flaunting the provincial card to blackmail the
federation.
Politicians plunder the people mercilessly and, at

the same time, seek their support against the
“Establishment” in the name of civilian
paramountcy.
A nation without nationalism has no qualms about its leaders. It is like a rudderless
ship at the mercy of the current. Everyone at the helm is looked up to as a messiah.
Hence, hero-worship of every Pakistani leader: from the father of the nation to the
founding father of khaki dynasty; to his successor, who turned the Presidency into a
night club; to the populist genius, who rejected the majority’s mandate; to the
“invincible” Amir-ul-Momineen, who committed “judicial murder”; to the ardent
disciple of Ataturk, who belied himself through NRO; to the accomplished
“Penthouse Pirates”, who visit Pakistan to fleece and flee; and, to the legendary
player-turned-politician, who has promised Riayasat-e-Madina.
Hero-worship has transformed political parties into political dynasties. They are
considered to be above law; even the judiciary. They ridicule, malign and attack the
judiciary with impunity. They get “justice” at their doorstep, and without any legal
provision or precedent. The relief, granted to them, does not always form a
precedent. Precedents, vitiating their claims, are held inadmissible.
Convicts are treated according to their social status, not the nature of the offence.
The prosecution is asked to prognosticate their lifespan, which it can’t, obviously.
And, this is considered to be a valid ground for granting them bail. They are allowed
to preside over political parties, address election rallies, demonize state institutions,
and even go abroad for medical treatment.
Retired judges are inducted in Legislature and Executive.
In utter disregard for democratic practices, politicians do not step down when
accused of malpractices. They hang on to power till proven guilty. Their parties
defend them even on charges of personal nature, like forgery, perjury and graft, even
on the floor of the parliament. Preposterously, they defend moral lapses on legal
grounds; legal offences with political arguments; and political indiscretions on legal
grounds.
The emergence of political dynasties has ruined Pakistan’s political culture. Politics
has become business. Corruption is an unwritten item in the manifesto of political
parties. Political workers have been reduced to serfs. Unscrupulous entrepreneurs
have joined the workforce. Corrupt leaders, known as the Sicilian mafia, Penthouse
Pirates, Mr. ten per cent, and Diesel, are leading by example. And, political serfs are
hailing them as Robin Hood. Corruption is no more a taboo; it is the new normal.
This brings us to the Establishment. Establishment means civil and military

bureaucracy. It is the backbone of the government; custodian of national agenda,
embodying bipartisan consensus; the reservoir of institutional memory; and
guarantor of continuity. But in Pakistan, it connotes the Army, and its role is scoffed
at as interference in governance.
This is because corruption requires teamwork; an alliance between politicians and

the Establishment. Political dynasties have, therefore, tamed and divided
bureaucracy into their respective civil brigades. Servitude has replaced merit as the
criterion of selection, promotion and assignment. In the name of civilian supremacy,
they also tried to control personnel management of the Armed Forces but were met
with resolute institutional resistance.
The Armed Forces are still the only institution in the country, where induction,
promotion and appointment are made on merit. One hardly finds the son of a
General or a politician making it to the top, unlike in civil services. Hence
politicians’ vexation with the “Establishment”!
Politicians are political animals in every sense of the word. They flirt with the
“Establishment” and the public, simultaneously. They eulogize and demonize the
“Establishment” in the same breath. One day, they declare that they are on the same
wave-length; and had finalized the cabinet in consultation with it, even before the
election.
The next day, they come up with clichés like “the invisible hand”, “the elephant in
the room”, “power flows from the barrel of the gun”, and, vote ko izzat do. They
reject corruption charges as blackmailing tactics by the “Establishment”. Playing
victim and appealing to public sentiment, they wail that civilian authority would be
possible only when “the Army on its own decides, one fine morning, to go back to
the barracks for good, never to return.”
Politicians plunder the people mercilessly and, at the same time, seek their support
against the “Establishment” in the name of civilian paramountcy. Gullible people
oblige. But, then, politicians strike deals with the “Establishment”; and flee with the
loot, leaving everyone aghast. They have the knack for championing the cause of
democracy in public; negotiating deals with the “Establishment” in private; and,
duping the entire nation routinely.
There is unity amongst politicians on corruption; consensus within the

“Establishment” about politicians; and a transactional understanding between the
two. But the naive people are fragmented, fighting amongst themselves for those
they should be fighting against.
Politicians are bad losers. They have never accepted electoral defeat honourably.
They invariably hold the “Establishment” responsible for it, without evidence. The
winners and the Establishment always deny the charge. However, when winners of
yesterday lose today, they repeat the same mantra. The saga continues.
Accepted, for a moment, that politicians are black-mailed, the question arises for
what? The obvious answer is corruption. Therefore, their salvation lies in their own
hands. All that they need to do is soul-searching; learning to be Sadiq and Amin;
and, enforcing the Rule of Law. Everything else is secondary and will fall in place
automatically.
The writer is a freelance columnist.

Afghanistan Conflict: Role of Pakistan |
daily times
Dr Saira
The writer is a researcher and columnist from Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
Since 9/11, Pakistan urged the US as their counterparts not to invade Afghanistan as
military action would not be a solution for this conflict, stated strategist and
diplomat, Dr Maleeha Lodhi in a renowned magazine “The Economist” on
September 9, 2021. She was on the point that Pakistan always considered action to
be taken by the targeted group Al-Qaeda. Therefore, from the present scenario in
Afghanistan, the US must have learned from their miscalculation in Asia, she added.
After one of the longest military interventions of 20 years, Afghanistan was again
conquered by the Taliban from the US military and appeared with a new and lenient
approach of governance with the provision of fundamental human rights. Hence, it
is seen by the strategic developments that criticism on the US invasion in
Afghanistan was rooted in military seizing by force of international territory was
wrong to fight extremist ideologies.
The role of Pakistan in Afghanistan’s conflict is always considered crucial based on

political reconciliation talks at Doha in 2018, including respecting relations with
Afghans and convincing them to sit at the discussion table. Based on the Doha
agreement 2019 in the era of US President Donald Trump, the US military was
decided to vacate Afghan soil till May 2021, and eventually, in the era of president
Joe Biden, the cutoff date was announced to be September 2021. Taliban smoothly
took over most of Afghanistan without any bloodshed as per the departure of the US
military on August 31, 2021, from Afghanistan, which was never expected by the US.
The US spent almost 80 billion dollars on Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)
on their training and equipment, but as soon as the US left, the Taliban started to
move forward to capital Kabul and found no resistance from ANSF. It was seen that
ANSF was lacking in discipline, moral fibre, motivation and determination as their
internal force was not trained to overcome the hearts of Afghans. Instead, they were
trained from the point of forceful attitude. In 2018, to kickstart intra-Afghan peace
talks, a seven-member delegation visited Islamabad, which was led by deputy chief
Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Starting the peace talks is an initiative whose credit
goes to Pakistan. Additionally, it was observed that the US special envoy for
Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad paid many visits to Islamabad in less than two years,
which also strengthened the role of Pakistan in starting peace talks between the
Taliban and the US. Secondly, it was seen previously in 2015, when Pakistan made
its efforts for the first round of talks between Taliban and the Afghanistan
government in Islamabad but they were not successful after the death of Taliban’s
leader Mullah Omar. It led to a bitter struggle for power among the Taliban and the
Afghan government.

A new approach of Taliban’s governance is seen in 2021 with the
determination of providing fundamental rights.
Afghanistan is a neighbouring country of Pakistan, which is being watched out

closely by Prime Minister Imran Khan. It is vital to prevent the brewing of
humanitarian crisis, to stabilise the security and economy. He is determined to keep
playing a role in uplifting humanitarian and economic assistance. During the recent
visit of Qatar’s Deputy Prime Minister to Pakistan, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul
Rahman Al Thani and Mr Khan exchanged developments on bilateral relations in
Afghanistan. Qatar is an important platform where Taliban and US negotiations
took place is being considered vital support for Afghanistan’s stability. PM Khan
raised his voice to call upon the international community to stand in solidarity with
the people of Afghanistan, create incentives for ensuring economic stability, peace,
and development. Foreign Minister of Pakistan Shah Mahmood Qureshi is also seen
coming forward with the stance of government with protecting and ensuring the
rights of Afghans people and to avoid the humanitarian crisis. He further enforces
the international community to de-freeze the assets and funds to Afghanistan in
making their country stable economically and independently. He is opposed to
international isolation for Afghanistan and enforcing them to accept the new reality
with engagement for the way forward.
The recent visit of former ISI chief, Lt General Faiz Hameed to Kabul is also of great
importance that is announced for stability and peace in the region. Pakistan shows
its stance for embracing the new Afghan government with new developments and
showing a willingness to work with the new government. In a nutshell, a real
government can only be made by Afghans. As history speaks by itself, when Russia
had invaded Afghanistan back in 1979, the US had led the idea of the creation of
mujahideen with the provision of weapons, ammunition, and funding along with
Saudi Arabia by involving Pakistan. This had led to a security threat to many
countries in Asia particularly, and in the end, Russians retreated and lost billions of
dollars, stated the then US Senator Hilary Clinton at the subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee in 2009. In 2021, it is seen that again, the US had to
leave Afghan soil and had to negotiate with the Taliban for safe passage as they were
unable to beat the ideology and teachings in real terms. Recently in Kandahar, the
Taliban were seen in a military parade with an inherited US top-grade military
weapons and equipment to solidify their presence.
According to US government accountability report 2021, the Taliban has inherited a

vast number of US arsenal including A-29 Super Tucano ($30million), UH-60 Black
Hawk ($5.9 million), Scan Eagle mini drove ($3.2 million), MD-530F ($2.4 million),
Mine-resistant vehicles (MRAPs-$5000,000-$1million), MII51 Humvee
($250,000), M24 Sniper (weapon system), M18 (assault weapons in thousands), M4
Carbine, High explosive grenade, 358,530 rifles, 64,000 machine guns, 25,327
grenade launchers, and 22,174 Humvees. After such training and provision of
military equipment, it was expected to overcome the Taliban by the US military and
NATO forces but the Taliban proved themselves to be determined on their ideology
even after 20 years of military war. When the US and Taliban showed leniency from
both ends in their attitude, a new ray of light came into. Taliban were seen showing
their force after capturing Helmand in 2009 where the US had great losses of lives.
Generally, the conflict was transmuted due to the economic, cultural, and tribal
links and the US military also not being able to save its firepower. Therefore, 40% to
50% belong from Pashtuns, Tajiks are about 25%, while Hazaras and Uzbeks are
about nine per cent each. There is a need for Afghans to take along all ethnic groups
together in Afghanistan to avoid any ethnic differences among themselves that lead
to civil war. Pakistan always tries to play its role of mediator to settle their inner
differences among different ethnic groups. A new approach of Taliban’s governance
is seen in 2021 with the determination of providing fundamental rights and still to
see how much Taliban will be able to change after such a great victory where he has
come up as a best strategic thinker, with a sense of strategy, sense of determination,
planning, strength, power, in fact with his unbeatable ideology and Islamic
teachings. No doubt, Afghans’ land belongs to Afghans and they are the right people
to govern and the international community should help with their political and
economic stability.

A new Cold War | Daily Times
Saleem Qamar Butt
The writer is a regular columnist.
The US and allies’ exit from Afghanistan and the Middle East followed by
marshalling of new alliances in the Asia-Pacific region like Quad (USA, Australia,
Japan, India) professed to become a mini NATO before the latest military alliance
named AUKUS (Australia, UK and USA).
Some leading Chinese experts opine that China will determinedly and unswervingly
stick to its chosen path to success. It will continue to expand its cordial international
relations with a view to creating a harmonious global community with a shared
future, and resolutely opposing and working hard to avoid a cold war.
While in the United States, China’s rise is a source of nervousness; however, in

China the country’s growing status is a source of self-assurance and delight. Many
Chinese analysts highlight the political dysfunction, socioeconomic inequality,
ethnic and racial divisions, and economic stagnation that plague the United States
and other Western democracies. They also point out that many developing countries
and former socialist countries that emulated Western models after the Cold War are
not in good shape, and they note how Afghanistan and Iraq, the two places where
the United States has intervened most forcefully, continue to suffer from poverty,
instability, and political violence. For all these reasons, many Chinese, especially the
younger generation, feel fully justified in meeting U.S. pressure with confidence and
even a sense of bold triumphalism.
While President Joe Biden may take solace in Obama’s slogan “cooperate with China
where we can and compete where we must”, yet most experts opine that to avoid
open conflict, leaders in Washington and Beijing need to accept two fundamental
realities. The first is that the CCP enjoys immense popularity among the Chinese
people; its grip on power is unshakable. External pressures on China to change its
political system are likely to be futile and might even backfire by promoting unity
and inflaming anti-Western sentiment. The second reality is that the United States
will remain the most powerful actor in shaping the global order. The country’s
problems are obvious: racial tensions, political polarisation, socioeconomic
inequality, and weakened alliances. Its strength, however, lies in its diversity, its
culture of innovation, and the resilience of its civil society; and those attributes
remain unchanged.
It needs no emphasis that if the United States and China fail to manage their rivalry,
the world will face splitting up and commotion. Therefore, to prevent a contest from
becoming a calamity, Taiwan and the US-Chinese economic competition will need to
be meticulously managed by both the big powers. American veteran independent
senator and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders opines that the
unprecedented global challenges that the United States faces today i.e. climate
change, pandemics, nuclear proliferation, massive economic inequality, terrorism,
corruption, authoritarianism—are all shared global challenges. They cannot be
solved by any one country acting alone. They require increased international
cooperation including with China. Americans must resist the temptation to try to
forge national unity through hostility and fear. Developing a mutually beneficial
relationship with China will not be easy. But we can do better than a new Cold War.
It is hoped that the saner voice from a very senior and sincere American will be
heeded by the hawks in the American establishment to avoid a new Cold War that
may as a consequence result in a direct military conflict with China or in a number
of military clashes among allies of both the great powers in the Asia Pacific region.
The European countries, with the wisdom of hindsight of two world wars and
endless American wars thereafter, already seem more determined to stay focused on
the North Atlantic region and on mainland Europe by contesting Russian influence
and selective cooperation with China as highlighted in my piece “Impact of NATO’s
Strategy 2030”.
Pakistan has been under a lot of pressure by the USA and allies after joining the
Chinese BRI and its flagship project China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The
American-Indian bear hug as strategic allies in the Asia-Pacific region to contest
China and most duplicitous coercion of Pakistan through FATF on behalf of India
has actually proved counterproductive and forced Pakistan to further slide toward
the Chinese camp. While USA may realise the folly of pushing Pakistan away too late
as has been the case in the past; yet Pakistan must also comprehend that these
tectonic shifts and realignments are taking place as a result of the fresh global
strategic contest giving birth to a new Cold War primarily between USA and China
with the old American rival Russia standing with China now. Besides, in order to
maintain balance in our foreign, economic, defence and other domestic policies, it is
an inescapable imperative to develop a clear understanding of the new Cold War
shaping up at a fast pace primarily with obvious pitfalls for the allies of both the
global powers. Pakistan therefore needs to tread carefully on the newly chosen
strategic path and avoid becoming a cat’s paw once again. Instead, it must result in
better military deterrence and sure footed economic prosperity for the country as
suggested in”Pak-US Relations: How to Bridge the Widening Gap”.

Urban policing in Pakistan | Masood Ahmed
FIONA HILL
The writer is an officer in Federal Investigation Agency.
EFFICIENT and effective law enforcement is the fundamental sign of good

governance. Thus, policing in the 21st century is expected to be more responsive and
dynamic to the changing nature of the community.
The advent of globalization and the resultant urbanization has also laid obligations
on policing to be more proactive in Pakistan.
Urban policing is deemed so challenging because of the varied dynamics on the

ground. The urban areas are significantly the political, economic and cultural
centres in a country which are crucial hubs for regional or international commerce
and connectivity.
The securitization of key political infrastructure viz. Provincial Assemblies,

Secretariats, High Courts, etc, and the existence of tourists and embassies in the
metropolis signifies the importance of policing in the urban areas.
Moreover, due to growing industrialization, these urban centres are the major
sources of national and foreign investment. Thus, these are the sensitive areas that
can make or break the nation.
A single event can shake the entire nation and can cause a substantial loss not only
to the national but also to the global economy.
Admittedly, the varied nature of urban areas creates avenues for different types of
financial crimes like tax evasion, banking fraud and money laundering which
disturb the financial system and harm the overall banking regime.
Due to women’s integration in the urban economy, cases pertaining to workplace

harassment are also widely reported.
The urban structure also creates space for the organized crime in urban areas like
drug trafficking, human trafficking, extortion rackets, tanker mafia, price
manipulators, etc.
The increasing pace of modernization also results in enhancement of the digital

traffic which invariably increases cyber crime in these areas.
The key challenge in urban policing is the growing urbanization.
The population explosion including the floating population in cities across Pakistan
has made policing more complex. Pakistan has the highest urbanized population in
South Asia which is projected to be 335 million by 2050.
Quite sadly, the growing statistics of urbanization do not commensurate with the
strength of Law Enforcing Agencies at place. The burgeoning population paves the
way for encroachments and shortage of parking spaces which eventually end up with
chaotic traffic situations.
The absence of reasonable mass transport creates a gap that is filled by ride-hailing
companies like Uber, Careem and Bykea.
Resultantly, the frequent clogging of roads compromises road safety which also
comes under the domain of urban policing.Contrary to the popular belief, policing is
much more challenging in Pakistan.
The crime committed is not an event, but a process for an investigation officer.
There is a due procedure of law that has to be followed. Investigation Wing is
supposed to handle the entire case from First Responder’s call to submission of
Final Report under section 173 of CrPC.
However, it is a stark reality that police in Pakistan is largely under-resourced and

under-equipped. The fuel allowance for police mobiles is very low for the extent of
patrolling duties, and the prolonged work hours do not commensurate with pay
packages. Thus, to fill this vacuum, steps are underway to make policing more
equipped and resourceful.
It goes without saying that technology surrounds every aspect of our life. Keeping in
view the significance of digitalization, successive governments have undertaken
ambitious initiatives to digitalize policing and streamline police-public relations.
Currently, the Punjab police is championing the implementation of policing based

on computerization.
As against the conventional way of colonial policing, digitalization has minimized

the probability of human error to a great extent. The practices of geo-fencing, data
analysis, polygraph tests have made the tracing of criminals much easier.
Resultantly, the investigation and conviction rate have been bettered. Criminals
today are being photographed and fingerprinted, and the crime scenes are being
processed through devices and criminal database is being maintained using
computer desks.
This shows an extraordinary picture of policing of which the majority of the public is
unaware.Moreover, the positive role of the police has captured attention globally.
According to Numebo, Islamabad is the second safest city in South Asia with a safety
index of 70.85. The recent Rabta Campaign led by Islamabad Police and the
establishment of Gender Protection Units are the steps taken to narrow down the
citizen-police trust deficit.
The formation of the Dolphin Force in Punjab and Rollerblade Force in Sindh to
curb street crimes speaks volumes of developments. Unlike the restive Karachi back
in the 2010s, today’s Karachi is more peaceful.
It is an established fact that the world is getting too advanced.
For instance, by just scanning the car number plate parked anywhere by using the
advanced handheld devices, the police officer is now able to know the owner of the
car, his identification, his air travel history, and any criminal record, etc. All the
immigration records can now easily be integrated and linked to the CNIC number.
The Ministry of Interior can embark upon a computerization program for all
provinces by creating a ‘Dash Board’ for each citizen which each citizen should also
access for information such as his driving license, car registration, tax due date, etc.
However, these purported suggestions may largely sound aspirational at present,

but the establishment of the Safe City projects in Islamabad and Lahore establishes
the fact that such ambitious initiatives have already been carried out in Pakistan.
However, in the end, the locus of the struggle cannot just be the law enforcing
agencies; instead, this struggle may be led in unison by creating a close partnership
between police and community, then and then we make Pakistan a crime-free
society.

Indian growing adventurism in South
China Sea | Pak Observer
Dost Muhammad Barrech
The writer is a Research Associate at India Study Centre, the ISSI
INDIA and Vietnam in August 2021 conducted a naval exercise in the South China
Sea (SCS).
New Delhi tends to step up influence in the SCS and has engaged with the
Vietnamese Navy, deployed guided-missile corvette Kora and guided-missile
destroyer Ranvijay in the exercise, showcasing the growing convergence with Hanoi
in the maritime security domain in the SCS.
Vivek Madhwal, Indian Navy spokesperson opines that “In continuation with
ongoing deployment of Indian Navy ships in the South China Sea, INS Kora and INS
Ranvijay undertook bilateral maritime exercise with Vietnam People’s Navy frigate
Ly Thai to on Wednesday.”
Madhwal further reiterates that conducting an exercise by the two navies

demonstrates the strong bond of cooperation between New Delhi and Hanoi.
India, arguably, has huge stakes in the SCS; the sea is a crucial trade route, and
having oil exploration projects with Vietnam the former, thus, tries to embroil the
latter in the SCS issue.
The sea is blessed with geostrategic location and natural resources, having nearly 11
billion barrels of untapped oil and approximately 190 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas. Geostrategic location and natural resources of the SCS make the sea a bone of
contention among China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam and
Brunei as all of them are claimants of the Sea.
India has been engaged in naval deployment in the SCS since 1995. These
deployments range from unilateral to bilateral exercises including friendly port
calls.
Singapore-India Bilateral Maritime Exercises (SIMBEX) started naval deployments

in 1994 in the sea. However, through friendly port calls the Indian navy is eager to
bring littoral states such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and
Brunei to the SCS.
India in July 2012, in Campbell Bay forged deep-water maritime facilities, the most
southerly point of the Andaman Islands, meant to bolster Indian surveillance
operations in the SCS.
New Delhi is likely to accelerate its foothold in the SCS, it’s around 55% of trade
with the Indo-Pacific region passes via these crucial waters.
To buttress their position in the SCS, India and Singapore completed a three-day
joint exercise on September 04, 2021, conducted a major naval war-game at the
southern edge of the SCS.
The exercise was a part of the 28th edition of SIMBEX while SIMBEX appears to be
the Indian Navy’s longest uninterrupted bilateral maritime exercise with any foreign
navy.
Madhwal asserts, “Sustaining the continuity of this significant engagement despite

the challenges of the ongoing pandemic further underscores the strength of bilateral
defence ties”.
The SCS remains one of the busiest routes for trade, one-third of the world’s
shipping passes through these Sea lines of communication (SLOC), carrying over
US$3 trillion worth of trade annually.
Meanwhile, India in October 2011 signed six agreements with Vietnam in a bid to
increase and promote oil exploration in the SCS. Beijing unequivocally objected to
New Delhi’s oil exploration. Suffice it would be to say that India is unwilling to
compromise on its national interest in the SCS.
In this regard, David Scott, a lecturer in International Relations at Brunel University

articulates that “The South China Sea is becoming a factor in India’s strategic
calculations and strategic debates, and India is becoming a factor in the strategic
calculations of South China Sea states.”
India’s engagement with Hanoi is also an expansion of its Act East Policy (AEP).AEP
enhances the geostrategic significance of the SCS in Indian strategic calculation.
Though India is not a littoral state of the SCS nor does it have territorial claims in
the region, it is obsessed with securing SLOC including trade and energy supplies.
Ostensibly, the SCS has emerged as an economic security lifeline for India and the
latter, subsequently, relies greatly on the United States and Association of Southeast
Asian Nations ASEAN for cooperation to preserve national interests in the region.
ASEAN and the far-eastern Pacific region are the prime components of Indian AEP,
while the Southeast Asian commons are a “vital facilitator of India’s future
development.”
Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, Associate Professor at Nalanda University in India

argues that “The South China Sea is a critical corridor between the Pacific and
Indian oceans for commercial and naval shipping,” A secure sea is crucial for Indian
economic development and commercial growth.
Modi’s government after the last year of the Galwan Valley conflict between Indian
and Chinese troops calculatedly increases Indian presence in the SCS in order to put
China in hot water.
Long Xingchun, a senior research fellow at Beijing Foreign Studies University

asserts, “Obviously, India’s anti-China sentiment has been very high since last year’s
conflict, and India is taking measures to show its dissatisfaction with China,” “India
is making a gesture to put pressure on China [with the deployment of the warship],
but I believe it will not have any practical effect – China will not change its position
in the South China Sea,” Long added.

New Delhi is exceedingly wary of China’s presence in the Indian Ocean (IO), the
former considers IO its main theatre of national interest, has resultantly been
creating obstacles for China in its backyard. India has also been capitalizing on the
Quad known as Quadrilateral Security Dialogue aimed at containing China.
Relying heavily on the US in the containment of China and provoking ASEAN

members, by and large, will antagonize a rising and benign power China that would
prove counterproductive for New Delhi.
India needs to introspect; it has already been abandoned in Afghanistan’s

conundrum created by the US. Reassessment certainly is more important than
punctually. The sooner India reassesses its foreign policy by forging better ties with
Beijing, the better.
—The writer is a Research Associate at India Study Centre, the ISSI. —The writer is
a Research Associate at India Study Centre, Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad.

China and regional spoilers | Pak Observer
Dr Mehmood-ul-Hassan Khan
The writer is Director, Geopolitics/Economics, Regional geopolitical expert of
China, CPEC & BRI.
LIE diplomacy of the US, West and its regional allies are creating corporate, social,
economic and diplomatic tension in Asia Pacific, South East, Afghanistan and
Central Asia too.
Release of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou is a good omen and diplomatic victory of
China but things are not yet completely settled and the US & West “defeated egos”
are still on “volcanoes”.
Ongoing visit of Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Ruth Sherman to various regional
countries has already created doubts among the different capitals around the globe.
Seemingly, Grand Diplomatic Strategy (GDS) is a follow-up of the US to provoke

China after the most recently-held conference of QUAD, formation of AUKUS,
increasing provocations of Taiwan, and last but not the least US constant
interference in the domestic affairs of China. But the end goal remains the same i.e.
containment of China.
Despite China’s calm & cool diplomacy in the region, Taiwan is on the
“rollercoaster” to join forces of disintegration. As per One Mainland Policy (OMP)
China has legitimate rights over Taiwan and Pakistan also supports its claims.
But the US and the West have been on the path of ancient war strategy that
“enemy’s enemy is our friend” and constantly “instigated” Taiwan to defiance the
legitimate “ring of rights” of China.
In this connection, China has again blamed the United States for increased tension
over Taiwan, as the island fingered Beijing as the “chief culprit”.
China responded strongly and immediately showed its military muscles to all the
regional countries and global players, not to play with fire. Chinese aerial superiority
was demonstrated in the vicinity of Pratas Islands.
On the ill advice of the US, Taiwan has installed missile systems to monitor Chinese
war fighter jets. The US urged China to stop its so-called “provocative” military
activities near Taiwan, while the island’s government has also condemned Beijing.
But Beijing’s stance contradicts them. Thus through various fiery schemes of
arrangements among axis of evil, the US and the West are desperately in search of
new soil for proxies.
In this regard, US-extended military cooperation with Taiwan is actually the

extension of its permanent policy of destabilizing the South China Sea.
China’s Foreign Ministry strongly responded to the US statement terming it

provocative and harmful to regional peace, with its arms sales to Taiwan and
warships sailing regularly through the Taiwan Strait. In this context, China
resolutely opposes this and takes necessary countermeasures,” it added.
China strongly stressed that “engaging in Taiwan independence is a dead end. China
will take all steps needed and firmly smash any Taiwan independence plots.
Moreover, “China’s determination and will to defend national sovereignty and

territorial integrity is unwavering.”
The US should stop supporting and “inflating” Taiwan separatist forces, it added.
On its part, Taiwanese government has been reaching out to its regional supporters
and global friends to jointly contain Beijing’s provocations”.
Taiwan has termed China’s activities as “grey zone” warfare, designed to wear down
Taiwanese forces and test their abilities.
The US Department of Defence, manipulating the emerging situation, has again

followed the path of lie diplomacy and said China’s increasing military activities
near Taiwan were “destabilising and increasing the risk of miscalculation”.
Ironically, US once again extended its support to Taiwan and termed it rock-solid
and contribution to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait
and within the region.
Asia Pacific Region (APR) has now become a “flashpoint” in the regional as well as
international media. Heavy naval/military presence of the US, Britain and many
other EU member countries has created some kind of political tsunami in the APR.
To further strengthen its naval presence in the region, the carrier the USS Ronald
Reagan entered the South China Sea last month.
Japan’s Defence Ministry welcomed its arrival and said that ship, along with
another carrier the USS Carl Vinson, had carried out multinational joint exercises in
waters southwest of Okinawa, though it gave no exact location.
Along with US and Japanese ships, vessels from Britain, the Netherlands, Canada
and New Zealand took part in those exercises which created diplomatic fuss in the
region.
Being the US strategic partner, India has once again started a blame game in
Barahoti, Uttarakhand. Most recently Indian forces have tried to start another
“friction point” and reportedly crossed the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
It seems to be phase-II of the Indian bloody face-off at Galwan Valley. Thus Indian
“hegemonic spirals” are again purposefully reactivated to appease the US and tease
China. But China showed complete restraint.
On the other hand, formation of Australia, UK and US military alliance (AUKUS) is

another offshore deliberate attempt to contain China.
The US and its regional allies are trying to besiege China from its backyard and
further strengthen their naval presence in the South China Sea Region. Indonesia,
Malaysia and many other countries termed AUKUS a destabilizing move which
would start a new arms race in the region during which unfortunately people’s
prosperity would be at stake.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry strongly condemned it and warned all of them not to
indulge in any kind of military misadventure. According to many prominent
regional economists and strategists, AUKUS would even start nuclear weapon race
in the region during which regional economies would be compromised.

Vultures are flying high in Afghanistan to replicate the vicious circle of “divide and
rule”. With the passage of time without having an inclusive government cracks have
already appeared among different factions of Taliban.
Even most of the regional countries including Tajikistan, Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia and the UAE are not happy with the repeated sillies of the Taliban interim
government. On its part, Pakistan is striving hard to convince the Taliban for the
formation of an inclusive government but has not yet succeeded.
Ongoing talks with TTP should be started after close liaison with China and should
not be revealed until its logical conclusion.
China is now tackling many regional spoilers to move forward in the South China
Sea, burning issue of Taiwan, face-off with India and track-II diplomacy with
Taliban. Being a prominent regional expert of China, this scribe suggests that close
security cooperation between Pakistan and China is the need of the hour.
Both share similar views on terrorism, radicalization, CPEC, BRI, Afghanistan,

Central Asia, South East Asia and last but not the least, regional peace and stability
which should not be sacrificed on personal whims and wishes to again gain so-called
strategic depth in Afghanistan.

The third stage of modern China | Pak
Observer
By: Usman W Chohan
THE historical materialists describe the evolution of society across various stages:
(1) feudalism; (2) capitalism; (3) socialism; and (4) Communism, for example, and
the fourth stage is the North Star to which the Communist Party of China (CPC)
aspires.
Even as the path towards it has not been a straightforward one since 1949, it has
nevertheless been the subject of a rich body of literature and countless intellectual
debates both inside and outside China.
Looking back, it was after liberating China from imperialist forces and then vying
for power against the Kuomintang that the CPC under Chairman Mao Zedong
launched socioeconomic initiatives that would foster a Cultural Revolution and
which would push society to a Great Leap Forward.
In the historical materialist schema, this would have equated to a leap from a stage 1
(feudal) society all way to a stage 4 society.
Such an attempted leap was extremely tumultuous and not so easily attainable, and
so in the post-Mao era, the Premier Deng Xiaoping took a more graduated
approach, aspiring towards “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” (Stage 2-3) via
stepping stone of capitalism.
This bargain for a stage 2 society meant that the CPC would defer its aspirations for
a worker’s paradise by experimenting with (partially) capitalist modes of
production, using tools such as Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and a balance
between private and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).
“To get rich is glorious” pronounced Deng, and the vast economic energies of the
Chinese people were mediated through the highly successful development trajectory
that the country undertook.
This required sacrifice on the part of the Chinese people: two generations spent their
working lives in the squalid conditions of factories that manufactured both the
luxuries and necessities of the world.
China became the main artery of global production, and amassed record foreign
reserves in the process, but only through forbearance of a tirelessly hard-working
people.
The stage 2 compromise also created a simmering fundamental contradiction: a

Marxist state which was the most unequal in the world in terms of wealth
distribution among the classes.
China arrived at a GINI coefficient of inequality that was comparable to Africa’s

(continental mean).
A bustling metropolis such as Beijing or Shanghai would have the flashiest Ferraris
parked in front of hawkers peddling cheap wares, and ultramodern skyscrapers
would tower over the austere barracks of teeming migrants.
Even the most casual observers, myself included, could see the seething resentment
in the eyes of the working classes, for whom the CPC spoke, looking at a new
bourgeoisie awash in materialism.
In the same way that the United States harps on about being a “beacon of freedom,”
and yet mass-incarcerates the largest prison population on earth (20% of the world’s
prisoners); the gap between the aspirations and the reality of Stage 2 China has
come to be increasingly untenable.
With this in mind, the CPC is leading a forceful but graduated transformation of
China towards a truly stage 3 society, one where the capitalist forces that were
unleashed by Deng Xiaoping are reined in somewhat and a society with greater class
harmony is realized.
Paramount in this regard is the mitigation of inequalities, the promotion of

sustainability, and the curtailing of private interests.
Mitigating inequalities requires the deployment of the country’s large economic

reserves towards constructing a stronger and more inclusive safety net, along with
reducing both the hidden and open transfer of wealth by the bourgeoisie to overseas
destinations.
The promotion of sustainability involves rejecting “growth at any price” GDP

targets, managing social work-life balance, focusing on quality of life measures, and
fostering ecological sustainability.
Finally, the curtailing of private interests means tackling the niches of power that
have emerged in areas such as private education, technology, culture, and Veblen
(status-symbol) consumption.
On all of these fronts, China has already taken significant steps. In terms of building
a wider social safety net, the central and provincial governments are targeting
spending towards general welfare for lower-income households in a more
concentrated manner.
The government has also banned crypto currencies to curb money-laundering, and
restricted the ability of bourgeois families to siphon their wealth abroad.
On ecological sustainability, China is already a world leader but has increased the
ambitions of its targets on renewables and other sustainable approaches.
It has pushed aside the “growth at any cost” mantra in its plans, and sought to
deliver economic growth through productive sectors (new technologies) rather than
unproductive ones (such as real estate speculation).
The government is also encouraging a shift away from the “996 mentality” (working
9am-9pm, 6 days a week) towards a better work-life equilibrium, and has extended
the range of amenities in the public sphere.
In terms of curbing private power, the government has exerted pressure on tech
giants (Alibaba), private education (the tuition industry), and many other sectors
where nodes of power have emerged.

At the present time, there is an ongoing crisis in the balance sheet of China
Evergrande, one of the largest real estate titans of the country.
This company may pose a systemic risk, which must be deftly managed so that
China does not suffer the fate that the US did after Lehman Brothers’ collapse in
2008.
However, Evergrande’s difficulties seem to be punctuating path dependency by

shifting public attitudes about the merits of the stage 2 capitalist society, in which
some have thrived, but not others.
Looking back, the Great Leap Forward proved to be too large a jump, going from
stage 1 to stage 4, for China to leap in a single bound. Therefore, a new social
contract was forged that chose a path contingent on stage 2 capitalism.
This created both inequalities as well as contradictions that, for all the forbearance
of the Chinese people, has become increasingly undesirable.
Now, the CPC sees the need for a stage 3 advancement, and is taking a swathe of
measures to facilitate that transition.
The proactive approach of the Chinese government, as well as recent events such as
the Evergrande Crisis, mean that stage 3 of modern China may arrive sooner than
one might think.
—The writer is the Director for Economics and National Affairs at the Centre for
Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS).

Why quality education is in doldrums? |
Pak Observer
By: Naseer Chandio
FOR any nation to grow economically, their education system needs to be in better
shape. All the advanced countries have best education system to offer to their kids in
continuity for securing the better world for them to live and thrive on.
The Cambridge system or the Oxford system, have gained the popularity worldwide
and is known for their effectiveness.
But for surely, what ever the system is to be followed, its implementation and
evaluation process is always on top priority for its success.
Worldwide for now, the self-evaluation of growth of school, culture change within
the school and output objective in education measures are the success story of the
school.
We may have the best system prevalent in the schools, but their success ratio is
directly proportional to its success in self review.
The schools need to self-evaluate themselves to explore the avenues to grow and to
fill in the deficiencies in the system.
For self-review, the leaders and teachers of the school need to play important role.
For the reasons that teachers and school leaders are the key change agents for
improvement in overall educational system.
The problem with the current system of education is not infrastructure or quality of
teachers. The problem is human resource management, and missing link of proper
internal and external evaluation of the school and college run by the Government.
All over the world, education management is science which is improvised each year
with certain modifications after the thorough research analysis.
Irony is throughout all these years, only focus has been to dole out budget and hire
qualified teachers which is though a good job in every way, yet the much needed
reforms to bring about quality education are yet far from desired goal.
Your school may be highly braced with modern furniture and equipment and the
qualified teachers and still we may fall very far behind in matching the quality of
education imparted through reputable private educational systems.
Unfortunately, in Sindh in particular, we don’t find any cohesive system prevalent

which gives feedback to policy makers or school leaders after yearly evaluation of
their teachers and educational output of the school at macro or micro level.

The focus currently lies on recruitment of teachers on merit basis and to ensure the
presence of teachers at school premises to rule out ghost teachers for which bio-
metric system is in vogue after hefty investment in gadgets.
The fact that how good and competent teacher, the government may hire but their
efficiency if remained unchecked through evaluation, the school is likely to fail to
produce the desired objectives. The link of self-evaluation system is missing across
the govt-run schools.
There is a need to introduce the School Effectiveness research (SER) which covers
the whole school level performance and School Improvement (SI) which focuses on
teacher’s work and school processes. Here we focus this write-up on methodology of
introduction of School Improvement (SI) research.
The practice is mainly targeted to make the school “better” place for kids and the
wider community at large. The approach capillarity includes the basics of
understanding the methodologies and reflection of the overall culture change for the
improvement.
The school has to create conducive environment in support to bring change in the
students results through focus on teaching and learning processes.
The teachers and students are the part and parcel of the change agent. Moreover,
seen in the context of large picture, every individual in the school has some
contribution to make for the improvement of school.
To gain the required result for improvement, the important component of successful
program is availability of resources to bring about desired change.
For the improvement in the school, things are required to be done in various phases.
First phase includes the programme for intervention at the micro level and highlight
the importance of change in culture in change process.
The school discipline, attitude of teachers and students, display of high moral
during the school and quality in imparting education require systematic change and
continuous process is a must.
In phase two, teachers action research, their command in teaching and follow up the
set guidelines for lesson plannings, teaching methodologies, self-evaluation whether
internal or external to gauge the output of students is required. This may be attained
through exhaustive training programme at district level on a yearly basis.
The training imparted through comprehensive programme which may cost less and
bring about more productivity among teachers should be essential component of
success story of any school.
Phase three builds up the emerging scenario of knowledge base in the school. It sees
the school as a unit of change. The approaches in both ways, at classroom
management and overall organization improvement will require to be continued
process.
Though, every Government has made an effort to implement the evaluation system
for school education, yet the result has either been limited in its scope or
implementing process has consistently failed.

Further, the major component which can bring quality education has seen utter
failure while implementing the process.
There are institutions working on project at Government level, but their presence is
not felt when it comes to output as a result of follow up of the process. The recent
IBA test for the recruitment of teachers has divulged open the lowest level of quality
education in the province.
For the last ten years we have witnessed merit based hiring of teachers in the school
but still we fail in bringing change to school culture in its entirety.
The task is huge and the change is a must, now it is left to big wigs at policy whether
they wish to see negative or positive curve in uplifting the quality of education in the
province. For certain, it is time to act without further delay!
—The writer is Civil Servant.

The western powers hypocrisy | Pak
Observer
By: Dr Farah Naz
THE western block supports the concept of human rights and equality but when it
comes to testing they never follow the rules.
The international order demands all states under agreed rules such as international
law, regional security, trade and cultural arrangements and immigration protocols.
But, the advocates of international order seem to only demand developing states to
abide by it.
In case the developing world tries to abide by the rules then the western bloc
arranges strategies to malign them and bring them to their terms.
Pakistan, being a victim of such strategies is a glaring example. The western powers
have used and abused Pakistan per their requirements.
They kept changing their tone towards Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan on a need
basis. When required, they appreciated Pakistan’s efforts but when not required
tried to put economic, cultural and trade sanctions on Pakistan.
The issue is if the western bloc believes in fair game and the international legal
system then how could they do this to Pakistan? This is mere hypocrisy and
selfishness of the western world.

It is the same western bloc that praised Pakistan’s role in the diplomatic evacuation
from Afghanistan. Despite that, they conducted a hybrid war to malign, disgrace and
shame Pakistan in the international community.
How do they malign Pakistan? I will quote three major events. (1) On 13 September
2021, the American Congress held Pakistan responsible for their failure in
Afghanistan. Based on this, the US State Department shared they will reassess its
relationship with Pakistan. Though, it’s the same Pakistan they requested to bring
the Taliban to the negotiation table in Doha.
Pakistan played a positive role but is now held responsible for the US failure in
Afghanistan. (2) On 15 September, the EU Parliament passed a resolution on
Afghanistan and in this resolution, Pakistan was held responsible for the debacle in
Afghanistan.
Based on this Pakistan GSP-Plus status should be suspended. However, Pakistan

fulfils all requirements of the 27 trade-related International Treaties. But later on,
an extension was provided.
(3) The New Zealand cricket team refused to play cricket at the final moment of the
match due to security threats. As a consequence, on 20 September 2021, the UK also
refused to play cricket in Pakistan. So is Australia expected to do so.
The above-stated facts suggest that the relationship of western powers with
developing states is never reliable but based on western interests, only.
They simply use and abuse states as required. To understand that let’s discuss the
timeline of their selfish and mean actions when it comes to the role of Pakistan in
Afghanistan.
Almost all western powers appreciated Pakistan for its efforts in the evacuation of
Afghan nationals, armed forces and diplomats. A constant exchange of calls between
the West and Islamabad took place.
Many foreign delegates paid visits to Pakistan and never feared security threats.
Such as on 15 August when the Taliban marched towards Kabul, the UK Foreign
Minister called Pakistan’s Foreign Minister.
On 16 August Pakistan held a briefing for the diplomatic community in Islamabad

and mentioned that they have created a 24/7 special cell, contact details of the
concerned cell was provided in case of any query or concern and provided an on-
arrival visa facility to the evictees.
On 16 August Foreign Minister for Pakistan received a call from the Danish Foreign
Minister and requested Pakistan to help support them in evacuation.
They appreciated the efforts placed by Pakistan in the evacuation process of 431
Afghan nationals on 16 August and also assisted them in onward travel to Denmark.
The Foreign Minister conveyed a profound appreciation of the Pakistan

Government’s assistance in critical hours. After this call, Pakistan received three
more calls in the following days from the Danish government.
On 16 August, the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinkin called the Foreign Minister
of Pakistan to help with the evacuation plan. On 20 August Pakistan received
another call of appreciation from the Danish Government.

On 21 August the Dutch Foreign Minister thanked Pakistan for their support and
facilitation. On 21 August the Belgian Foreign Minister called to thank Pakistan. On
22 August the EU High Representative called to thank Pakistan and asked for
further assistance.
On 23 August the Swedish Foreign Minister called to express their deep

appreciation. Denmark and Pakistan Foreign Minister had a joint statement stating
a heartfelt appreciation to Pakistan for the professional assistance and outstanding
support to airlift vulnerable persons to Islamabad international airport for their
continued journey.
On 31 August the German Foreign Minister visited Pakistan, thanked and asked for
further assistance. On 2 September Dutch, Slovenian and Austrian Foreign
Ministers called and thanked Pakistan.
On 3 September the British Foreign Minister and Italian Foreign Ministers visited
Islamabad while the Romanian Foreign Minister called. On 8 September Poland
called and on 10 September the Spanish Foreign Minister visited Islamabad.
But once all of their citizens were evacuated with the help and support of Pakistan
they showed their true face by playing a dirty hybrid war against Pakistan.
On the refugee issue, the US demanded Pakistan to open its border but what it did
to the Haitian refugees? How the EU responded to the refugees coming from
Afghanistan? It is an eye-opener that the West has double standards for the
developed and developing states.
When it comes to security threats in Pakistan when several delegates visited

Pakistan they never feared it. But the cricket team which stayed here for a while had
rehearsals but cannot play cricket on the final day due to a potential security breach
that raises eyebrows.
The way Jacinda Arden handled the Christ Church massacre she became popular in
the Muslim world.
But, the way New Zealand became a target of an Indian fake news propaganda
campaign sets alarming consequences for the western powers becoming a target of
the Indian defunct info lab. It sets a lesson for all developing states that western
powers are selfish, self-centred and mean.
Once their job is done you are no longer required. Pakistan is strategically put in an
embarrassing and demanding situation to keep it at its terms.
The question is why are they doing so? Maybe, they never want to see a stable
Pakistan but a struggling one.
The western powers wish to brush their garbage left in Afghanistan under Pakistan’s
carpet. But, since Pakistan says ‘Absolutely Not’, Pakistan has to pay the price.
—The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Government and Public Policy,

School of Social Sciences and Humanities, NUST.

The fuss over the US Senate Bill | Pak
Observer
By Riaz Missen
TWENTY members of the opposition in the US Congress have introduced a bill

‘Afghanistan Counterterrorism, Oversight and Accountability Act’ to sanction
Taliban and their supporters.
The question that it seeks to answer is how the Taliban, who were no match to the
300, 000 strong well-equipped Afghan Army, were able to take over more than 30
provincial capitals and Kabul in a blitz, two weeks before the US troop drawdown
deadline of August 31.
Kabul falling in the hands of Taliban had brought chaos at Kabul airport where the
panicked American and European citizens gathered seeking evacuation along with
remaining US troops.
The situation could be far different if the Afghan Army met the expectations of
President Biden and resisted the Taliban blitz for some weeks, if not months.
Since the bill’s proponents are from the opposition (Republican Party), the ruling
Democratic Party will try to shift the focus of the debate to an agreement reached
between the Trump Administration and the Taliban (Islamic Emirate) in Doha last
year to prove that the US troop drawdown decision was a continuation of the policy
of the previous regime.
As for awkward troop withdrawal from Kabul, many interpretations can be made,
including the failure of intelligence and the involvement of an outside hand.
President Biden has already said he has no regrets about withdrawing from
Afghanistan.
While making decision to this end the President had two points in mind. Either the
matter was left to the next President or he himself swallowed a bitter pill and moved
ahead on the agreement signed with Taliban last year. In this regard, he also
mentioned how costly the Afghan mission was.
Too, Biden’s new defence policy which sought containing China and Russia, also
required quitting and leaving Afghanistan in the hands of the Ghani government
protected by supposedly a strong Army.
On the other hand, American citizens need to be told what has been gained from the
financial and human losses of the last twenty years to stabilise Afghanistan.
If the goals and objectives have failed and the same Taliban have returned to power
whose government was overthrown on the ground that they sheltered militant
outfits like Al-Qaeda and were indulged in worst human rights violations, then who
should be held responsible? Temperature would be down in Senate if the foreigners
stranded in Kabul returned home safely.

It would certainly change the rhetoric of the political parties across the divide when
the debate on the bill opens.
Clearly, the bill introduced in the Senate, which the ruling party says was not taken
into confidence on, is for setting the record aright. If the bill passes, a joint narrative
of political parties and the Pentagon will emerge on the US longest war fought in
Afghanistan.
But, of course, it is not an easy task to review the 20-year performance of various US
governments vis-a-vis Afghanistan. It means collecting and classifying a lot of data
and drawing conclusions.
Quite understandably, the bill could be debated for months. Given the rivalry
between the ruling party and the opposition, it is uncertain whether the bill will pass
so quickly.
Last week, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told the Senate Armed Forces
Committee in a briefing that the United States had suffered a strategic defeat in
Afghanistan and that he had advised President Biden to station at least 2,500 US
troops to ensure peaceful withdrawal.
General Mark Milley’s statement refutes Biden’s insistence in a TV interview last

month that the military did not ask him to keep thousands of troops in Afghanistan.
Thus, on the one hand, the ruling party cannot use intelligence failure as an excuse
for its failure and, on the other hand, Biden’s lie can be taken akin to deceiving the
nation.
It is quite possible, if not certain, that both political parties pass the bill, taking
credit for the fact that US troops have returned home safely due to an agreement
with the Taliban
This can be troubling because in that case, the parties will save their skins and their
institutions, but they will throw the rubble of strategic failure in Afghanistan on
someone else.
The news of the Senate Bill on Afghanistan has caused a lot of uproar in Pakistan,
increasing the dollar rate and falling of stocks.
Because the reason is that the Republicans-sponsored bill mentions Pakistan and
seeks to know whether this country helped Taliban during the US invasion and the
withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and, also if it had helped the student militia
in the occupation of the Panjshir Valley. This is clearly an assumption that needs to
be substantiated by irrefutable evidence.
The reaction from the government, whereby America has been termed as a non-
grateful country, can be merely a complaint! That is, whenever the United States
needs it, Pakistan supports it, but as soon as its objectives are achieved, it turns
away from it.
Let America turn away, ignore its sacrifices, but it should not be seduced by
Islamabad’s ‘eternal’ enemy and side with it! Now, if one sees Islamabad’s narrative
on US Senate bill in the light of well-established diplomatic requirements or even in
the context of sovereignty, one would only suggest silence and not being vocal on the
matter of US behaviour towards Pakistan.

Needless to say, sovereign countries never ‘sacrifice’ the lives of their people for the
benefit of another country. It is also against diplomatic etiquette to say that one
country can mislead another.
By saying such things, it seems as if our rulers are preparing themselves to get the
arms of the nation ‘twisted’ once again by the US.
Remember: it’s a time when Americans need airbases for their ‘Over the Horizon’
strategy, the dollar is skyrocketing and the public is bewildered by ever-rising
inflation!
—The writer is politico-strategic analyst based in Islamabad.

Cognitive disorder in consanguineous
families | Pak Observer
By Dr M Yasir
COGNITIVE dysfunction (CD) is a more sophisticated term for intellectual disability

or mental retardation.
It is a neurodevelopment disability characterized by impaired cognitive functioning;

defining a significant sub-average intellectual ability and limitations in at least two
or more adaptive skills with the onset before age of 18 years.
Intellectual dysfunction is an overall intelligence quotient (IQ) lowers than 70 and

adaptive behaviour is associated with functional deficit in daily-living skills, social
and communication skills.
Assuming average IQ of 100 in normal population, the disease is grouped into, on

the basis of severity: mild (IQ level 50 to 69); moderate (IQ level 35 to 49); severe
(IQ level 20 to 34); and profound (IQ level below 20) (WHO, 1992).
It affects 1-3% of general population and has serious impact on the life of affected
individuals, their families and the society as a whole. The prevalence of mild
cognitive dysfunction is 85%, that of moderate cognitive dysfunction 10%, whereas
only 5% of the patients are classified as severe/profound cognitive dysfunction.
On the basis of associated anomalies, CD can be categorized into syndromic and

non-syndromic form.
Syndromic form of CD is accompanied by malformations and dysmorphic features

like muscular weakness, skeletal defects etc; whereas non-syndromic forms have no
co-morbid features.
It is very tough to differentiate between these two types of CD because the non-
syndromic form of the disorder is not so common because CD affects brain that
ultimately causes other abnormalities in the patient as well.
Neurodevelopment disorders are among major health concerns in low and middle-
income countries due to social and economic hindrance. These disorders account for
more than 10% of the Global Burden of Disease across the lifespan.
Pakistan is a country among higher reported rates of childhood intellectual

disabilities in the world. The prevalence estimates vary from 19.1/1000 for serious
intellectual disability to 65/1000 for mild intellectual disability.
Consanguinity is an important determinant of inherited disorders. Consanguinity is

one of the main causes of infant mortality and neurodevelopment disorders in
Pakistan. Consanguineous marriages are considered one of the main etiological
factors in the high prevalence of severe cognitive dysfunction in Pakistan.

In humans, the high levels of inbreeding are somehow linked to a generally reduced
cognitive ability. Consanguineous marriage is defined as the union of two
individuals having a common ancestor.
It is estimated that worldwide 10.4% of all marriages occur among relatives, but
higher rates of consanguineous marriages have been reported in north and sub-
Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and West, Central, and South Asia.
The rate of consanguinity is very high in Pakistan (>60%) with 17–38% first-cousin
marriages.
Cognitive dysfunction represents one of the most difficult challenges faced today by
clinicians and geneticists due to its extreme heterogeneity.
The extremely heterogeneous causes are contributed by environmental and genetic

factors and have been diagnosed in only one half of the cases.
Environmental factors include prenatal exposure of the fetus to toxic substances

(toxins, drugs, etc), illness of the mother (e.g. exposure to cytomegalovirus, rubella),
premature birth and management after birth.
Genetic factors include chromosomal abnormalities and monogenic defects.

Knowledge about monogenic causes has increased significantly in recent years.
Monogenic or single gene defects can be linked to X-chromosome or on autosomes.

More than 100 genes have been concerned in X-linked CD until now.
Autosomal linked CD, either due to dominant de novo mutations or recessive gene
abnormalities, are apparently most widespread than X-linked CD, and their genetic
description is a novel complex task for research purpose.
Recent studies have shown that autosomal recessive cognitive dysfunction (ar-CD)
is extremely heterogeneous which is not surprising because about one half of all
human genes are expressed in the brain and that is the reason to believe that the
number of underlying gene defects will go into thousands. Recessive variant have
increased likelihood to spread in consanguineous populations.
There is an urgent need to increase the general public awareness about the inherited
disorders. Pakistani communities should be informed about the benefits of genetic
analyses in affected families and clans for concerned disorders.
Along these lines, a decline in the frequency of consanguineous marriages has been
observed in some countries.
This will be achieved by elevating the levels of education attainments,

industrialization, social stratification and an improved economic status of families,
much alike the transitions seen in developed countries about health care along with
governing policies.
These approaches can provide a clear roadmap to develop strategies in order to

address the issues of increasing rates of cognitive dysfunction and other inherited
disorders in Pakistan and other countries that have a high consanguinity rate.
—Co-author, Iqra Ghulam Rasool, the University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences
Lahore (UVAS).

Resolution of Kashmir will guarantee
peace in South Asia | Pak Observer
By: By Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai
REASONS for the conflict over Kashmir are argued among contenders on several
points, more often than not to serve globalist interests rather than the fundamental
needs or desires of the Kashmiris themselves.
Why, after 74 years, the problem continues to fester is the challenge for those who
talk of peace, stability and democratic rights in the region of South Asia.
The most pertinent evidence of that conflict is that India has in recent years had as
many as 900,000 military and paramilitary forces stationed on a piece of land no
larger than the state of Tennessee (USA).
By comparison, during the height of the Iraq war, in October 2007, U.S. troop
strength was only a little over 166,000.
Iraq compares in size to the state of California. Obviously, the number of troops
stationed in Kashmir is highly significant. There is no war taking place there. There
is no imminent external threat of a foreign invader, with troops amassed at its
border. Why so many troops?
India frequently justifies its military presence, first, by asserting that Kashmir is an
‘integral part’ of India, and, second, that Pakistan, just across the border, is a threat.
Both are nuclear-armed, and cross-border skirmishes occur periodically among a

handful of troops stationed along the UN-established Cease-fire Line. However, to
whatever extent such a threat exists, such an enormous volume of troops is well
beyond whatever need there might be to resist such incursions.
The best way to make sure that there is no such infiltration is to let the United
Nations be allowed to monitor the Cease-fire Line.
The truth is that the people of Kashmir themselves have always been hostile to the
presence of India’s troops on their soil and have resisted to such oppression, and
over hundred thousand Kashmiris have died within the past 30 years alone.
Long standing agreements at the United Nations in place have in fact afforded the
Kashmiri people the right to determine their own destiny.
What we have, then, is a case of a large country bullying a small nation into
submission in violation of not only their right to sovereignty but international
agreements and two dozen UN resolutions giving them the right to determine their
own political fate.
The purpose of so many troops stationed in this small country is for no other
purpose but blatant oppression. Their presence makes Kashmir the largest army
concentration anywhere in the world.
You would think that the international community would be up in arms over such
abuse, particularly in view of the fact that the Kashmiris have shown an iron
determination to resist tens of thousands of killings, and thousands of rapes,
disappearances and torture inflicted upon the population at the hands of these
foreign occupiers.
In a more idealistic mood President Joe Biden said on February 4, 2021, “We must
start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values:
defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights,
respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”
And again on September 13, 2021, “I’ve been clear that human rights will be the
centre of our foreign policy.”
Given such platitudes, while American foreign policy is supposed to be grounded on

moral values, democratic ideals and universal principles, it would appear that
wherever the crowd of commercial interests get VIP status, such ideals and
principles are easily set aside, relegated to the back of the room, where it’s standing
room only. Money talks: ideals walk. Situation ethics is the name of the play.
It is quite conspicuous that the world powers feel awkward and unequipped to
intervene in any international conflict because the country concerned is too
powerful and does not listen to morals and ethics when everyone has his wallet on
the table.
In addition, India’s refusal to accept international mediation or facilitation seems to

shut the door on any kind of international dialogue regarding Kashmir. The
Kashmiris are shut in, and the outside world out.
Doesn’t the world community recognize such double standards? How is

international credibility and trust engendered by such behaviour? So, while the U.S.
imposes sanctions on Russia for interfering in stability and peace in a country more
than 5,000 miles away which is of no strategic pertinence to American safety or
freedoms, it engages in trade with India and says nothing about India’s failure to
enforce “international norms” where it is apparently inconvenient to do so.
India’s transgressions in Kashmir are clearly far more relevant to the issue of
international norms, given their history, than anything now occurring in Eastern
Europe.
—The writer is the Secretary General of World Kashmir Awareness Forum.

Article-5 empowers ECP | Pak Observer
By: Kanwar M Dilshad
AS per Article 5 the loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen. And as per
sub-section 2 of the same Article.
Obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen
whenever he may be and of every other person for the time being with in Pakistan.
This is dangerous brinkmanship which can rattle the foundation of the

constructional system that holds the national structure together. Such
brinkmanship is being fuelled by incendiary rhetoric as well as inflexible demands of
a unilateral nature.
The government attacks on the Election Commission of Pakistan are getting more
scathing by the day. The two federal ministers unleashed a verbal offensive against
the Chief Election Commissioner and crossed the line of decorum.
One Minister indicated that the ECP should be set on fire. It is fairly obvious that
these are choreographed, orchestrated and synchronised attack on the ECP and they
have a clear outcome in mind.
Most unfortunately, the government has attempted to make the Election

Commission of Pakistan controversial at a time when the input is critical for the
electoral reforms under consideration.
Some federal ministers launched blistering attacks on it in the wake of the ECP
listing 37 objections to the use of EVMs in the next elections.
The ECP rejected the allegations as baseless and issued notices to the ministers to
produce evidence to back their claims.
In a significant development, the government and the opposition agreed on the

formation of a parliamentary panel on electoral reforms.
The development came amid a raging controversy over the government plan to rush
through two contentious election related bills providing for introduction of EVMs
and right to vote for Overseas Pakistanis possible through Internet voting system.
It also came two days before expiry of deadline given by the election Commission of
Pakistan to the two Federal Ministers for giving response to notices issued to them
for their tirade against the ECP.
Pakistan democracy cannot afford such jolts. It has traversed a rough and bumpy
road to reach where it is and no person or party should be allowed to reverse this
progress. All the stakeholders need to come together to somehow save the system
from further collision.
Every thing must be done to make the next elections free; fair and transparent in the
true sense as per Article 218; 2019 and 226.
Now that both sides have opted to take a more considered course of action, they
must avoid name calling and questioning each other’s motives.
The government should realise that Election Commission of Pakistan have full
powers to disqualify the ministers for life time who have been served notices as per
Article 2. A; 5; 204 in addition Articles 62 one F A and 63 one G in this critical
atmosphere a working relationship among government; opposition and Election
Commission of Pakistan is essential to legislative work and the governance,, both of
which are adversely affected due to the ensuing rancour… as nation has seen most
recently after the 2018 elections…the government should realise new realities and
challenges which have to be faced in coming months.
—The writer is former Federal Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan and

currently Chairman National Democratic Foundation.

TTP’s truce, peace deals and challenges
for Pakistan | Pak Observer
By: Reema Shaukat
THE emergence of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in late 2007 brought about

major shift in militancy culture in Pakistan.
It has been by far the deadliest terrorist outfit in the country with some most
gruesome acts on its scorecard.
These acts, especially the APS incident on 16 December 2014, which cost 148
precious lives mostly of children, still persist as wounds in Pakistanis’ hearts.
TTP, despite having lost public support, has been thriving on the pedestal afforded
by the Hostile Intelligence Agencies (HIAs) mainly originating from Afghanistan.
It is actually a conglomeration of various fighters and groups put together. These

include not only Pashtuns but people from other nationalities, different tribes and
ethnic backgrounds.
In 2014, the government of Pakistan and TTP had entered into negotiations for
bringing peace to the country, however the talks stalled for a variety of reasons and
the violence continued which was subsequently abated successfully by the Pakistani
security forces and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs).
Hasty US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the recent fall of Kabul to the Taliban
have impacted politico-strategic situation in the region significantly.
It has evolved into an interesting scenario in the country and hence in the region.
Having learnt from their past follies, the Taliban, this time, are acting quite
different.
Their intention to remain in power has led them to mind international norms and
values. Their overtures are, by and large, peaceful both within and without.
They have assured that Afghan territory will not be used for inimical activities
against any of their neighbours. Historically aligned with Pakistan, this time their
reaching out to China has further widened space for us while showing door to India
who had to leave behind massive financial investment, also denting TTP of its
patronage.
Notably, in the year, 2021, Pakistan observed a surge in militant attacks in the
country. Statistics collected by PICSS show that, May 2021 saw the highest number
of militant attacks since October 2018, and June witnessed the second-highest
number of attacks since October 2018.
The surge coincided with the US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan and a surge in
violence in Afghanistan at that time.

Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies conducted a thorough analysis of
the trends of anti-state violence for the past 18 months to ascertain whether the
spike in the violence is related to US-NATO withdrawal or there are other factors
involved.
PICSS study found that surge in militant attacks in Pakistan is not directly related to
US-NATO withdrawal or surge in Taliban attacks in Afghanistan.
The study attributes the surge in Pakistan to the reunification of Tehreek-e-Taliban

Pakistan last year. Studies also suggest that TTP, apparently enhanced their
activities to gain position of strength and force Pakistani government to negotiate
peace deal with them.
In June 2021, the Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, in an interview with
The Independent opined that if TTP ended its terrorist activities and surrendered
then Pakistan could announce amnesty for them.
He told that government would be “open to giving” a pardon to members of the TTP
if they promised not to get involved in terrorist activities and submit to the Pakistani
Constitution.
He, however, didn’t confirm any negotiations were underway with them. PM Imran
Khan during his recent interview to TRT World revealed that negotiations with
some groups of the TTP were underway.
There are different groups which form the TTP and some of them want to talk to our
government for peace. So, we are in talks with them. It’s a reconciliation process. He
also reiterated amnesty to TTP provided they surrender and forego terrorist
activities.
It is important to highlight that TTP have been affirmed supporters of Afghan

Taliban in their fight against US and NATO which was also one of the core objectives
of TTP.
They, therefore, enjoyed affinity with Afghan Taliban which resulted in the release
of several TTP terrorists from different prisons in Afghanistan, days after Taliban
came into power.
Hafiz Gul Bahadur group from TTP North Waziristan announce a 3 weeks long,
ceasefire which can be considered indicative of their interest in peace talks ending
violence.
Ceasefire will be extended based on the negotiation developments ahead. Hafiz Gul
Bahadur group was considered as pro-state element within TTP circles. The same
group had a ceasefire with Pakistan’s military in 2014, when Zarb-e-Azb was
launched.
However, the efforts of merging all factions of TTP under Noor Wali Mehsud –
would experience – a huge dent due to this announcement of ceasefire and also
coincides with recent interview of Pakistan PM.
TTP’s increased activities inside Pakistan notwithstanding, the situation in

Afghanistan may not yield sustained operational dividends for them.
Their activities are, therefore, likely to be short-lived. The time is thus ripe for both
government of Pakistan and TTP to talk and reconcile. The idea of amnesty for the

TTP fighters, however, needs to be gauged cautiously as the wounds in hearts are
seldom forgotten precipitously.
Joint sessions of Parliament and discussions among relevant stakeholders can

derive some viable options and consensus on the issues.
However, Taliban’ takeover of Kabul offer a recognizable opportunity for Pakistan to

tackle the menace of terrorism on its side of border; in particular addressing the
issue of TTP.
Nevertheless, despite cautious treading by the Afghan Taliban, their pledges and
promises notwithstanding, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is faced with
numerous daunting challenges of its own.
Their questionable international recognition, feeble economy, formidable threat of

IS, security and stability in the country may not spare them to exercise much
leverage over TTP but they can however still be useful.
—The writer works for Pak-Afghan Youth Forum.

Humanitarian dimension of Kashmir
dispute | Pak Observer
By: Dr Muhammad Khan
THE primary nature of Kashmir dispute is political, hence calls for a political
solution based on the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
This is clearly mentioned in the two principal resolutions of UNCIP, passed

unanimously by United Nations on August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949.
These resolutions have laid-down the basic criteria and modus operandi for the
conduct of plebiscite in the State for the ultimate grant of right of self-determination
to people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The right of self-determination has the key position in the UN Charter; indeed it
paved the way for decolonization of Asian and African nations.
The essence of right of self-determination is that; every nation and a community has
the right to freely decide its future as per the wishes of its masses without any
discrimination, restriction and bondage.
If this right is applicable to entire international community, Kashmiris cannot and

should not be made as an exception and subjugated through foreign occupation
indefinitely.
India recognized and accepted the right of self-determination to Kashmiris as per

abovementioned UNCIP resolutions yet denied its implementation for over seven
decades.
The persistent denial of political solution of Kashmir dispute created frustration and
unrest among the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The frustration of Kashmiris was result of years of Indian occupation,

discrimination of Kashmiris in their own state, maltreatment of Kashmiris masses
and denial of internal autonomy to State, agreed through Article 370 and 35A of
Indian Constitution.
Resultantly the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK)
revolted against the unlawful Indian rule and its unremitting exploitative policies in
1990.
Through popular slogan of ‘Azadi’ right of self-determination was the only demand
of Kashmiri masses of IIOJK right from the beginning of this indigenous Kashmiri
movement.
Through a brutal response to this UN mandated legal demand of Kashmiris of

IIOJK, India made massive deployment of Army and paramilitary forces in entire
IIOJK and started persecution of Kashmiris through various inhuman strategies.

Mass arrests, torture in detention centres, custodial killings and indiscriminate
firings over the peaceful Kashmiri demonstrations became the order of the day in
IIOJK right from the start of 1990.
As per estimates collected through various neutral sources, Indian brutal security
forces have killed over 100,000 Kashmiris in IIOJK from 1990 to 2021.
Kashmiri leadership of APHC in IIOJK is frequently being targeted and killed either
through direct attack or else while being in custody and house arrest under Indian
security forces.
Syed Ali Shah Gillani, the founding father of Kashmiris resistant movement died a
few days ago while being under house arrest for over five years. His body was
forcefully taken away by Indian Army for burial against the wishes of his family.
Earlier another senior Kashmiri leader Mr Mohammad Ashraf Sehrai, who dared to
challenge Indian rule in IIOJK was killed by Indian security forces while being in
their custody; a custodial killing.
Besides, there have been frequent incidents of rapes, molestation and humiliation
including killings of Kashmiri women in IIOJK.
As per records maintained by names, dates and places of occurrences, over 12000
Kashmiri women have been subjected to rapes and molestation which also include
gang-rapes and killings of women after rapes.
Indian State provided a blanket coverage to all these inhuman Indian acts through
various inhuman laws like; Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA), Public Safety
Act (PSA), Geospatial Information Regulation Act and National Investigation
Agency (NIA).
These discriminatory laws provided Indian Army and its paramilitary special
provisions for arrest, illegal detention, torture and killings of Kashmiris with
impunity.
Such laws and maltreatment of Kashmiris through use of brutal force are
internationally challengeable violations of international law, humanitarian
declarations, covenants and dozens of international pacts.
While India continued massive human rights violations in IIOJK through the
deployment of its over 900,000 security forces, it ended the special status of Jammu
and Kashmir State illegally and unilaterally on August 5, 2019 by abrogating Article
370 and 35A of its constitution.
Besides, it also ended the statehood of the state by creating two union territories
(Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh) under Indian Union.
In order to further its agenda of consolidation of its hold over the state, New Delhi
introduced new Domicile Laws for Jammu and Kashmir in April 2020 (adaptation
of Statelaws order-2020).
Under these laws, India has issued millions of domicile certificates to non-Kashmiri
Hindus from various parts of India which is a grave violation of Fourth Geneva
Convention.

Article 49(6) of Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits occupying power(s) to transfer
its own population into the occupied territory. Indeed, this is yet another aspect,
covered under the blatant human rights violation.
The unremitting account of massive human rights violations of Indian security

forces in IIOJK over the last three decades has added humanitarian dimension to
the prevailing political nature of Kashmir dispute.
The humanitarian dimension of the dispute needs immediate attention of

international community and main organs of United Nations Organization.
As a way forward to address the humanitarian dimension of Kashmir United

Nations, major powers and international community must constrain India to end its
massive human rights violation in IIOJK forthwith which should also include
stoppage of the demographic changes.
Corollary to this, India must restore the statehood and special status of IIOJK as it
was prior to August 5, 2019.In third phase, India should demilitarise from the
population centres of IIOJK, leaving its military only along the ceasefire.
Addressing the humanitarian dimension of Kashmir dispute will be a major break-

through and great confidence building measure for the subsequent political
resolution of the dispute.
— The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University,

Islamabad.

American defeat and global
consequences | Pak Observer
By: Tariq Aqil
THE United States has tasted a historic defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the
poorly armed rag tag force of the Taliban.The American adventure that began in
2001 resulted in a humiliating defeat and total political disaster for the biggest super
power of the world.
History repeats itself and the bitter truth is that for America Kabul is Saigon in 1975
all over again the only difference being that the Americans withdrew from Vietnam
in 1972 and the American backed puppet Govt.
in South Vietnam Survived for another three years but the American puppet Govt. in
Kabul Fell only four months after the announcement that in April 2021 that the US
will withdraw from Afghanistan.
This disaster in Afghanistan is a certain proof of a great super power in rapid decline
and a mere shadow of what it once was. This defeat in Afghanistan will have major
consequences all over the world.
This defeat clearly shows the weakened state of the political and military leadership
of the country and their competence to engage in any military operations anywhere
in the world and their reliability and commitment to their political and military
allies.If America can suffer such a catastrophic defeat at the hands of non-state
actors and such poorly armed insurgents without any air support then who in future
will ever trust in the alliance of the USA in Asia or the Asian Pacific Region.
America was the world’s first nuclear power and since after the victory in WW11 its
military power has played a key role in containing communism headed by the USSR.
Brute military power has always been the major factor for America to have its way in
world politics and its defence budget has always dwarfed any other country of the
world.
The first great disaster to American policy was in Vietnam and now we have the
examples of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In both cases the USA had a massive military advantage but in both cases this
advantage proved totally inadequate. American policy clearly failed miserably to win
the hearts and minds of the people.
Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of civilizations and rightly so. Previously
Britain and the USSR have been taught a lesson by the Afghan freedom fighters.
Now a new debate has been ignited in the west that now it is the turn of China to try
their luck in Afghanistan.
This speculation about China is on the basis of Pakistan China relations and
Pakistan’s support for the Afghan Taliban and Imran Khan’s strong commitment
and show of friendship for the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.

Chances of Chinese military adventure in Afghanistan are absolutely abysmal. China
will assist in the economic development of the country as it has done in Africa and
South East Asia.
Development and economic assistance is the core of the Chinese national policy now
as envisaged at the heart of the Belt and Road Initiative.
China was a poor country for centuries and has been a developing country since the
birth of communist China in 1949.
It has a deep understanding of and a deep empathy for the problems of the
developing countries.
The USA as a super-rich nation has no idea of the problems in the third world and
very little comprehension of or interest in their problems.
Since after the Second World War the USA has developed over 800 military bases in
70 countries on the other hand China has no such history and has never used
military power to promote its political agenda.
The US has pursued global adventures China has concentrated on improving its
political stability and economy.
The shameful and chaotic withdrawal of the American forces from Afghanistan has
resulted in a humanitarian and geopolitical disaster on a monumental scale.
It has accelerated the political and social decline of the USA and it has brought into
serious question America’s competence its military muscle and its political
commitment with its allies and friends.
This is the death knell of the idea that America is a beacon of hope and friend of
those struggling for human rights and universal values.
The historical military and political alliances of the USA have been have been badly
damaged.
President Biden did not bother to consult his NATO allies who had large numbers of
forces on the ground in Afghanistan and this negligence definitely proved dangerous
and damaging for the allied nations supporting the USA.
After the debacle in Afghanistan conditions are now ripe for the creation of religious
Jihadi state in Asia.
Jihadi militants all over the world are jubilant because under a Taliban regime they
will have the resources including the vast arsenal left behind by the American forces,
and a safe haven to rebuild their operational capacity and to enforce their archaic
obscurantist religious agenda.
The American surrender to the Taliban will encourage and embolden religious
extremists globally and particularly in Pakistan and Central Asia.
This will also lead to a nexus of China, Russia and Iran to undermine the American
influence in the Middle East.
—The writer is Professor of History, based in Islamabad.

Is humankind a benign species ? | Pak
Observer
By: Khalid Saleem
NATURE has this nasty habit of turning around to show a mirror to humankind
every once in a while.
How else would one explain the way the corona-virus is holding mankind to
ransom. A look-back at the history of human ‘civilization’ would make this evident,
if only Man would pay heed. Examples abound! Many years ago, the BBC telecast a
most interesting report on a demonstration in London arranged by dog-lovers.
The raison d’etre was to denounce the Korean practice of eating dog meat. The
timing was determined by the fact that the football World Cup Championship that
year had South Korea as a co-host.
The contrary views of pro-Korea persons were also presented.
The latter were shown arguing that a clear distinction needed to be made between
‘pet dogs’ and ‘dog meat’ that happened to be an item of food for several nations in
the region. Just because certain canines were reared and loved as pets in the West
did not mean that ‘a source of food’ should be banned.
Over the centuries, man has so diversified his eating habits as to make it nothing
short of bizarre. Much like ‘haute couture’, ‘haute cuisine’ too has developed its
kinky facets. A lot of these relate to the way various species of animals are reared to
conform to various culinary practices.
Let us face it; humankind has never been known as a particularly benign species.
Even man’s treatment of his fellow beings is hardly anything to write home about.
Man’s inhumanity to man is the stuff of legends; the much-vaunted concern for
‘human rights’ notwithstanding. To expect humankind to be kind and ‘humane’ to
other species, therefore, is asking for a bit too much. The practice of mass
production and mass slaughter of various species of animals for food has nothing
‘humane’ about it.
To single out one particular animal as the victim of ‘cruel practice’ is hardly the fair
thing to do. Either one speaks out for all animal victims of cruelty by humans or one
looks the other way! There is no gray area in between.
The aforementioned line of reasoning does open up a classic argument related to the
killing of animals whether for food or sport. As the demonstration against the
serving of dog meat shows, attitudes on this issue are nothing but biased.
The argument would go something in the following manner: “I have every right to
kill (or consequently be cruel to) any animal I choose to eat or as sport. But if you
dare to kill an animal I hold dear, then you are crossing the line and have to be
censured for it”.

Since the West has virtual monopoly over the international media, their viewpoint is
all pervasive. Bull-fighting in Spain is acceptable, but a campaign has to be launched
against the practice of performing bears in Asian countries.
Performing animals in big international circuses are de rigueur, but the same in the
bazaars of the East draw critical notice of animal-lovers in the West. The intention is
not to be facetious but now and then one can hardly resist the temptation of
pointing to the facts of life.
Hundreds of thousands human beings have been mowed down in recent history in
the name of creating a New World Order to suit the aspirations of the Powers That
Be and their pampered think-tanks.
Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq based as they were on untenable premises and
justification led to the loss of countless innocent lives and wanton destruction of
ancient and peaceful human habitations all to no avail.
And yet, instead of feeling remorse and atoning for their wanton ways, the powers
that be continue to engage in more of the same. The once comparatively peaceful
region has been thrown into a state of permanent turmoil just to satisfy the whims
of a cabal whose ambitions know no bounds.
The twenty-first has oft been touted as the “Asian century”. And yet, vast areas of
Asia are kept in a state of constant turmoil.
It is easy to put the blame on ‘big powers’ and outside manipulators but the fact
remains that the people of Asia themselves have not risen to set their own house in
order and to claim the century that should rightfully be theirs.
They have instead fallen into the trap of outsiders whose principal interest lies in
furthering their own ‘way of life’ and, in the process, to continue to feather their own
nests.The countries of Asia owe it to their peoples and, indeed, to their history and
heritage to claim what is rightfully theirs and to tell the interfering do-gooders from
the outside to mind their own business.
It may be time for the common people of the countries that constitute the Powers
That Be to wake up to the realization that they too are being led up the garden path
by their policy makers and Think Tanks.
They too have a duty to realize that thrusting their cherished ‘way of life’ down the
throats of other peoples is essentially a self-defeating exercise that will lead them
nowhere.
From the ‘animal rights’ as advocated by the animal-lovers of the West to the quest
for ‘human rights’ in the rest of the world is but one small step.
The senseless killings of innocent human beings in various parts of the world, some
in ethnic cleansing, others in ruthless suppression of struggles for fundamental
rights and still others mowed down as collateral damage; all need the attention and
condemnation of the ‘bleeding hearts’ of the West and elsewhere. Need one say
more?
— The writer is a former Ambassador and former Assistant Secretary General of

OIC.

The rise of Islamophobia | Pak Observer
By: Adv Mujeeb-ur-Rehman
Today, Muslim World is surrounded by a vicious cycle of internal and external

challenges.
As far as internal challenges are concerned, it includes social, political and sectarian
war. Externally, the most vicious challenge Muslim world is facing right now is
pervasive Islamophobia. And it is rising at short speed and make bold the right wing
populist and white supremacist.
The rise of Islamophobia has taken its roots from the attack of 9/11 that the United
States and other Western countries termed it as an act of Islamic terrorism.
In the aftermath of those attacks, they termed Islam a threat to Western world and
dead fear caused right wing extremist hate to the Muslims across the world. The
word Islamophobia was developed to fear Islam and Muslims as a social group.
Thereafter, Muslims were generally taunted, ridiculed and were perceived as

terrorist in America and other countries of Western world.
In the past few years, hostility toward the Muslim immigrants has increased sharply,
which resulted in the persecution and killing of Muslims in their worship places.
The western media has never missed a chance to ridicule the Muslims and spread
hatred against Islam and hold them responsible for any attack happened in any part
of the world.
It is an alarming situation for the Muslims to see how Western media portraits
Muslims and show prejudice against Islam and spread Islamophobia at a lightning
speed.
When there is an attack which is carried out by Muslims, they call it as Islamic
terrorism, but on the other hand when any attack is carried out by non-Muslims
they call and label him as a mentally ill and distressed one.
This is the extreme level of biasness that is deeply entrenched in the western media.
Media must not be bias and must acknowledge that terrorism has no religion and it
must stop demonizing the Muslim and holding them responsible for anything bad
that happens to the world.
To put an end to the rise of Islamophobia, political leaders and those in government
or places of authority around the world must stop their anti-Muslim rhetoric.

They must stop dehumanizing Muslims and demonizing Islam, owing to the
problem that terrorism is a global problem and it must be tackled through collective
efforts.
To counter Islamophobia, the first and foremost role can be played by OIC countries
through united and collective diplomatic efforts.
Besides this, the West needs to understand the importance of multiculturalism, the
only pragmatic solution to this hate based ideology toward Muslim.
Furthermore, Muslims do need to understand that cultural difference doesn’t mean

a violent response on their part.
More ever radicalizing the youth exploited by some terrorist outfits teaching them
the true Islamic values could help countering rising Islamophobia.
Conclusively, the media should play an important role to quit prejudiced reporting
because it is the entity that controls the mind of the people and therefore should
broadcast positive posture to get rid of Islamophobia.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Karachi.

Iqbal’s vision and prosperous Pakistan |
Pak Observer
By: Sheikh Farkhar-e-Alam
A few weeks ago, I had sent an article to a renowned newspaper related to Iqbal’s
vision and contemporary world, the editor replied, “Your article is either so late as
April passed or too early for November”.
This reply of a popular newspaper editor stunned me and made me feel that apart
from these two months of Iqbal’s birth and death, the remembrance of Iqbal is
unnecessary? The visionary leadership of his Excellency Dr Allama Muhammad
Iqbal who is known as “Poet of the East”, cannot be confined to a few specific days
like 9 Nov or 21 Apr.
After studying only 25% of Iqbal’s literature, I am of the view that he was a universal
poet and philosopher, while his work cannot be confined to any specific portion of
the world nor be dedicated to any specific race or ethnicity.
Although I also admit that at the same time his complete focus remained on
uplifting the living standards of Muslims of the subcontinent. That’s why Quaid-i-
Azam once said about him that “He will live as long as Islam will live.
His noble poetry interprets the true aspirations of the Muslims of India. It will
remain an inspiration for us and for generations after us.”
Living nations always remember the sacrifices of their great leaders.
Our society is facing multiple challenges, the most irreparable is forgetting the
lessons given by our forefathers and national heroes.
This is a global fact that there is no specific time to pay tribute to your great national
heroes, you can always do that.
Now coming back to Iqbal’s visionary role, a few aspects of his life were very unique.
When Iqbal returned from Europe in 1908 after completing his higher education,
until he died in 1938, he guided the nation through his poetry, sermons, articles and
statements.
Especially from 1926 to 1934, Allama played a very important political role. If Iqbal
had not led the Muslims politically during this period, the future of the Muslims of
India could have been bleak. His thoughts and philosophy gained worldwide fame.
His biggest and most historic step was his presidential address at the annual
meeting of the Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930. For the first time, Allama
demanded an independent homeland on behalf of the Muslims of India.
He awakened Muslims of the Islamic world from negligence and encouraged them
to live with dignity in the world.

He constantly encouraged Muslims to establish and adhere to their identity as a
separate nation.
Iqbal’s poetry infused new life into Muslims, instilled a spirit of faith in them and
made them aware of their legal and social rights in the light of political insight. He
prepared Muslims to stand and fight for their rights.
The main trends in his poetry were Sufism, the revival of the Islamic nation and the
promotion of human greatness.
In the same way, his thoughts and philosophy were the spokesman of the Muslim
Ummah and the guardian of the Eastern civilization. He was an international
thinker and a very far-sighted leader.
Dr Allama Muhammad Iqbal spent his entire life meditating and contemplating on
the Holy Quran, as his study of the Qur’an increased, so did his thinking and
maturity in his faith.
If we look at Iqbal’s sayings in a contemporary context, we will see that the world
scenario that Iqbal mapped out almost a century ago still fits in present
circumstances. The need here is to make Iqbal’s lessons a beacon for our policies.
At a time when we, Pakistanis, are facing the challenge of identity in defining our
present and future path as a nation, we need to deeply explore Islamic modernism
according to the political wisdom of Iqbal.
A question that arises in our mind is how to place Pakistan on the path of prosperity,
which can be addressed by re-evaluating prosperity in terms of providing
opportunities to everyone instead of a few chosen ones.
This transformation needs some multi-dimensional efforts as suggested by Allama

Muhammad Iqbal like the presence of an honest and dedicated leadership that can
transform national goals into a reality with a clear aim and focus.
Then we have to reform our bureaucratic structure for efficient performance based
on thw that as of today we have to bring some 180 degrees change in our
institutional structures where the middle, lower-middle and poor classes should also
enjoy the same perks and privileges as the elite have.
Furthermore, basic facilities like health, shelter and education should be the top
agenda item irrespective of any government.The sense of ownness to the public by
its government creates positive vibes in society. Improvement in the judicial and
criminal justice system is also an important aspect that may also not be overlooked.
Just start advising the youth to read and understand the philosophy of Iqbal, he
deserves a lot more than a few chapters in textbooks, a few yearly seminars, typical
rallies on his birth and death anniversaries.
If, as a nation, we would focus on his teachings then I can guarantee that Pakistan
would shine like Iqbal had foreseen us.
— The writer is Islamabad-based veteran Journalist & PHD Media Studies fellow, an
Academic Researcher & Media Analyst.

FAILING PAKISTAN’S WORKERS | Dawn
Magazine
By: Justice Maqbool Baqar
Why Pakistan continues to fail its workers despite a gamut of laws meant to protect
them...
On September 10, Supreme Court Justice Maqbool Baqar delivered a

keynote address at the Rasheed Rizvi Centre for Constitutional and Human
Rights (RCCHR) about the state of labour laws and workers’ rights in
Pakistan. The speech was to mark the launch ceremony of a book focusing
on the role of legal activism in a globalised world of multinational
companies. The book is a joint venture of the European Centre for
Constitutional and Human Rights and RCCHR. While the book pays
particular attention to lessons learnt from the Ali Enterprises / Baldia
factory tragedy of September 11, 2012, Justice Baqar’s speech took on added
significance in the wake of the most recent workplace tragedy, in which 18
workers lost their lives in a fire at a luggage factory in Korangi, Karachi on
August 27. Eos is presenting here the jurist’s speech that provides a
comprehensive look at why Pakistan continues to fail its workers despite a
gamut of laws meant to protect them…

The Constitution of Pakistan guarantees rights to workers against exploitation and
discrimination, and safeguards their rights, dignity and honour in quite an adequate
and well-defined manner. And, thus, Article 11 of the Constitution prohibits all
forms of forced labour and traffic in human beings. The Article further provides that
no child below the age of 14 years shall be engaged in any factory or mine or any
other hazardous employment.
Article 17 ordains that every citizen shall have the right to form associations or
unions, subject only to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of
the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, public order or morality. Article 18
prescribes that every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession
or occupation and to conduct any lawful trade or business. Article 25 prescribes that
all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law
and that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.
Article 27 mandates that no citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the

service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such
appointment, on the grounds only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of
birth. Article 37(e) enshrines that the state shall make provision for securing just
and humane conditions of work, ensuring that children and women are not
employed in vocations unsuited to their age or sex. It also provides for maternity
benefits for women in employment.
And under Article 38, the state is obligated to secure the well-being of the people,
irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, by ensuring equitable adjustment of rights
between employers and employees, and to provide social security for all persons
employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise, through compulsory social
insurance or other means.
Pakistan has a good number of labour rights laws. Since 2010, provincial
legislatures have been tasked solely with developing legislation governing labour
laws within their provinces. The federal legislature can pass labour laws governing
factories and businesses that have branches spread across more than one province,
locally known as “trans-provincial” businesses.
At the federal level, the laws include the Factories Act, 1934; the Industrial Relations
Act, 2012; the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance 1968; the Workman Compensation Act, 1923; the Payment of Wages Act,
1936; and the Employees’ Social Security Ordinance, 1965. These federal laws apply,
unless they are superseded by provincial legislation.
For example, Sindh’s many provincial laws replace the federal laws, including the
Sindh Factories Act, 2015, the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
2015, and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013. Similarly, in Punjab, the Punjab
Industrial Relations Act, 2010, for example, replaces its respective federal
counterparts.
However, due to weak and slack enforcement, Pakistan’s various labour laws and
regulations have failed to adequately protect the workers’ constitutional safeguards.
The constitutional safeguards also have not been of avail. And the workers in
Pakistan, despite domestic laws and international labour rights standards, are often
exposed to exploitation, and are subject to a range of labour abuses.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
People gather around a factory in Korangi where a fire broke out on August 27, 2021
| Shakil Adil/White Star
As regards the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH), the following legislation
exists in Pakistan: Dock Labourers Act, 1934, Factories Act, 1934, Mines Act, 1923
and Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. These laws mainly cover the formal sector
manufacturing industry. The Factories Act, 1934, the main law containing OSH
provisions, is applicable to manufacturing enterprises employing 10 or more
workers. In addition, the Mines Act, 1923, covers the mining sectors. Other sectors
are either not covered under OSH or the coverage is very limited.
However, as regards the September 12, 2012, Ali Enterprises garment factory fire,
which occurred in the largest designated industrial area or special economic zone of
Karachi called SITE — killing at least 255 workers and injuring more than 100 —
three separate investigations by the police and the Federal Investigation Agency
(FIA) found a series of irregularities and almost a complete absence of fire and
safety mechanisms.
There were no escape routes, firefighting equipment or fire alarms, and the staff had
no basic fire and safety training. Investigations concluded that the exit doors were
locked from the outside by the factory management. And an illegal wooden
mezzanine floor contributed to the rapid spread of the fire.
Investigations found that the factory was not registered with the Labour
Department and, therefore, had never been inspected by the government. The Sindh
Building Control Authority, the government body responsible for enforcing the
building regulations, claimed to have no jurisdiction over the factories in the SITE
area.
This deadly fire highlighted serious defects in the auditing and certification process.
The Social Accountability 8000 programme (SA-8000) certificate was issued to the

factory by RINA Services S.p.A, an Italian inspection company. The SA-8000 is a
widely accepted certification standard that measures social performance in key
areas, to hold organisations accountable in fair treatment of workers across
industries and geographical regions.
The SA-8000 certificate to Ali Enterprise was issued on August 21, just 22 days
before the fire and certified that the factory complied with all the necessary fire and
safety mechanisms and labour laws. Subsequent investigation by Social
Accountability International found that no inspection had taken place and the
certificate was false.
LEARNING FROM PAST MISTAKES
Activists stage a performance in Lahore on International Women’s Day | Arif

Ali/White Star
However, we did not learn any lesson from the Ali Enterprises factory fire incident
and no serious steps to ensure safety of workplaces were taken, resulting in yet
another factory fire in Korangi [on August 27, 2021]. The relevant government
departments remained indifferent towards safety at workplaces. Resultantly,
accidents at workplaces have risen sharply.
In Bangladesh, after the incident of the Rana Plaza fire, their government, labour
organisations, factory owners and international brands struck a Bangladesh Accord
and, with its strict implementation, not only were factories and workplaces made
safer for workers, but the labourers found opportunities to get organised and get
their due rights. Moreover, the number of industrial accidents also decreased.
Similarly, in Germany, after consultation of many years, a law was passed that if a
German company were found involved in any illegal act anywhere in the world, legal
action would be taken against it in Germany. The European Parliament is also
considering enacting a similar law.

However, rather than improving industrial safety in Pakistan, the ban on factory
inspections imposed by Zia’s martial law is still persisting, though, as per the
Factory Act, annual health and safety inspections of every factory is mandatory. The
system of factory inspections was put on the back burner and, as a result, deadly
industrial accidents are on the rise.
It is sad that the Punjab government has announced to end this open violation of the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention. The Sindh Health and Safety
Act was passed in 2016, but it lacks implementation — it is said that even a single
meeting of the council constituted under this law is yet to be convened.
It is a common perception that local industrialists, their international buyers, the

government and its labour-related departments are not ready to give rights to the
workers as per the Constitution and labour laws of Pakistan. One of the main
consequences is that the ratio of labour unions in Pakistan is less than one percent,
whereas only four to five percent of the workers are getting social security benefits.
WORKERS’ RIGHTS
A
young boy carrying goods passes by a mural in Islamabad | Mohammad
Asim/White Star
Factories are also required to provide clean drinking water and an adequate number
of toilets to the workers. However, clean drinking water and safe and hygienic toilets
are a rarity.
Pakistan’s labour laws require that “no adult worker shall be allowed or required to
work in a factory for more than 48 hours in a week; if the factory is seasonal, 50
hours, and if the work is of continuous nature, he may work for 56 hours in a week.”
Work hours are limited to nine a day (10 hours in the case of seasonal work).
The law permits children between the ages of 14 to 18 to work, but only for five
hours a day. The law makes provisions for one weekly holiday and, if that is not

given, a compensatory holiday as soon as possible. These federal regulations apply
to factories in the Sindh and Punjab regions, and remain mostly substantively
unchanged by their respective provincial labour laws, including the Sindh Factories
Act, 2015.
Instead of enforcing and monitoring rights, provincial labour departments have

proved to be slack, indolent and complacent in responding to complaints of
violations and industrial disputes.
Still, it is a common complaint that workers in the garment industry routinely work
beyond the stipulated nine hours a day. Factory owners are required to pay overtime
for the extra hours. And, given the low levels of minimum wage and the fact that
many factories do not pay even the stipulated minimum wage, many workers are left
with no choice but to work overtime.
Every factory in the country is required to register its workers with the provincial
social security institution and the Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI).
Factories must provide all their workers — irrespective of how they are classified —
with social security and EOBI cards. However, not many workers are registered with
either. Some factories use “contract workers” to bypass government regulations on
mandatory minimum wage and benefits, including health and pension.
Workers who are employed at a “per piece” or target-based arrangements are even
more vulnerable, and salaries are routinely deducted for failing to achieve
unrealistic targets. Given that the per-piece rate is extremely low, in addition to
achieving the production target, many workers are compelled to work long hours
merely to make a liveable salary, in most cases below the statutory minimum wage.
The ILO Convention No 158 on Termination of Employment, together with

Recommendation No 166, governs the use of short-term contracts. Pakistan has not
ratified this convention, but it provides useful guidance in the following terms:
States should create “adequate safeguards” to ensure that contracts for specified
periods are not used to avoid worker protection against unfair termination. Fixed-
term contracts should be limited to situations where the “nature of work”, the
“circumstances under which it is to be effected”, or “the interests of the worker”
require them. Where short-term contracts are renewed one or more times, or when
they are not limited to the situations described above, states should deem them as
contracts of indeterminate duration.
In order to avoid their labour rights and safety obligations, owners often resort to
outsourcing labour hiring, the workers repeatedly hired through labour contractors
have a lower likelihood of redress and are at a greater risk of arbitrary dismissals.
Through this device, factories avoid their mandatory obligations to pay medical
benefits, pension, social security, paid leave, sick leave or holidays.
And, in the absence of written contracts and registration, workers seldom complain
when factory managers exploit or ill-treat them, for fear of losing their jobs. Many
factory owners are able to avoid paying statutory minimum wage by employing
workers through a third-party contractor.
WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE

A file photo shows a woman working at a garment factory in Karachi | Hussain
Afzal/White Star
Women workers are exceptionally disempowered and discriminated against in the

garment industry in Pakistan. Many women are employed as contract, on piece-rate,
as non-unionised workers in low-paid and low-skilled roles. According to the World
Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2016, Pakistan ranks 143rd out of 144
countries in the gender inequality index, only above Yemen.
In recent years, Pakistan has enacted a number of provincial laws guaranteeing

protection against workplace harassment. Sindh province passed an anti-
harassment law in 2010 and Punjab province in 2012. However, women’s rights
activists have criticised the poor implementation of these laws. Most workers
remain unaware of these legal protections and mechanisms of redress in cases of
harassment. And poor infrastructure also exacerbates problems for women.
For example, labour laws require employers to provide for separate toilets for
women. However, female workers quite often complain about not having separate
bathrooms for men and women, exposing them to the risk of sexual harassment.
Our law also provides women workers employed in any factory, industrial or
commercial establishment the right to three-month paid leave during pregnancy
and childbirth. The woman is entitled to maternity benefit if she has worked “for a
period of not less than four months immediately preceding the day on which she is
delivered of a child” (West Pakistan Maternity Benefits Ordinance, 1958 — a Punjab
provincial law).
Employers are obligated, by law, to establish day-care centres. And Pakistani labour
law requires that anyone employing more than 50 women should provide a separate
room for children under the age of six. This provision is extensively violated with
impunity.

Forced overtime poses specific additional challenges for women. Because household
labour and caregiving work is gendered in Pakistan, women workers often juggle
employment with primary caregiving and housekeeping responsibilities at home.
Labour laws exempt women from being compelled to work in factories before 6am
and after 7pm — unless it is with their consent and the employer provides
transportation, in which case work till 10pm is permissible.
Women workers who are forced to work overtime in the evenings also have
difficulties traveling back home due to security concerns and a lack of transport.
However, in most cases, factories are not only forcing women to do overtime against
their wishes, but also do not organise transportation, as required under the law.
In some cases, factories use home-based workers for special orders or on a seasonal
basis. Women engaged in home-based work are not formally recognised as workers
and hence are often denied the protections offered by the labour laws. They are not
able to join factory unions or unionise, and their work remains unregulated.
Pakistan’s economic statistics do not have any classification for home-based

workers. According to a 2014 estimate, in Pakistan, almost 80 percent of the total
labour force is engaged in the informal economy, and more than 50 percent of this
consists of women. Approximately 77 to 83 percent of the women in the informal
economy are home-based workers.
Pakistan’s minimum-wage laws have also not been amended to adequately cover
home-based workers. In February 2018, Sindh province passed the country’s first
tripartite labour policy, which extended labour law protections to home-based
workers. An ILO survey in Karachi in 2016 found that the average hourly wage rate
across all work types is 41 rupees (39 US cents), which is about 60 percent of the
current statutory minimum wage (67.50 rupees an hour). However, home-based
workers are paid even less. For cropping, the most common task distributed to
them, home-based workers are typically paid a quarter of the minimum wage rate.
PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN

A
boy sells sherbet from a pushcart in Islamabad | Mohammad Asim/White Star
Children in Pakistan continue to engage in child labour, including the worst forms of
child labour and bonded labour, in different sectors such as brick kilns and
agriculture. It is the increasing cost of living that forces children to work rather than
attend school. Factories sometimes employ children to avoid paying minimum wage
and overtime. Long working hours without adequate breaks, coupled with
unhygienic conditions, can disproportionately affect the health of child workers,
sometimes resulting in serious illnesses.
Pakistan has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which states
that children have a right “to be protected from economic exploitation and from
performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s
education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral
or social development.” Pakistan has also ratified relevant ILO conventions,
including Convention No 182, concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and
Convention No 138, concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment.
In compliance with these conventions, Pakistan has set a minimum age for
admission to work at as low as 14 and has other rules governing work by children.
However, because of poor labour inspections and enforcement, Pakistani child
labour provisions are frequently violated.
Instead of enforcing and monitoring rights, provincial labour departments have

proved to be slack, indolent and complacent in responding to complaints of
violations and industrial disputes. The labour department, quite often, thus refuses
to entertain complaints by individual workers, requiring that they be made by the
workers’ union. Given that effective unionisation in private sector factories is less
“than one percent”, according to some reports, this requirement largely makes
redress from the labour departments inaccessible.
THE WEAKENING OF LABOUR DEPARTMENTS

A series of government policies and regulations since 2003 have made the provincial
labour departments weaker and factory managements largely unaccountable.
The policy for labour inspections changed in 2003 after a military coup by Gen
Pervez Musharraf. Previously, factories were inspected once a year, without prior
notice. The policy was amended to require the labour department to issue a month’s
notice to factory management, mentioning the exact date of the inspection.
Punjab, the country’s largest province, banned labour inspections through the
Punjab Industrial Policy in 2003, with the objective of “developing an industry and
business-friendly environment to attract fresh investment.”
The ban on labour inspections was removed in 2012 following several industrial
disasters in the province. The 2003 Punjab ban on labour inspections was followed
by a similar ban in Sindh. Provincial labour departments are severely underfunded
and understaffed. According to an ILO study in 2016, the labour standards and
inspections systems “are very weak, underfunded, lacking in modern training, and
lacking in capacity to conduct effective training.”
The ILO reported in 2012 that there were only 337 inspectors in the country, around
one for every 250,000 workers. In 2017, according to one report, there were 547
labour inspectors in Pakistan for over 350,000 factories in the country. There were
only 17 women labour inspectors. The provincial labour department inspector often
does not have the capacity or training to conduct thorough inspections and ensure
enforcement of workers’ rights.
WORKING FOR THE COMMON MAN
A worker’s right to organise is well-established under international human rights

law, and explicitly guaranteed in the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights) and the ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights), as well as two of the core ILO conventions: ILO Convention No 87,
concerning the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, and
ILO Convention No 98, concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
— both of which Pakistan has ratified.
These conventions obligate the Pakistan government to ensure that employers do

not thwart workers’ right to union formation and participation. The ICCPR provides
that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others.”
As a member of the ILO, Pakistan has an obligation “to respect, to promote and to
realise, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles of the
fundamental rights which are the subject of Conventions.” The ILO Committee on
Freedom of Association has noted that ILO members, by virtue of their
membership, are “bound to respect a certain number of general rules which have
been established for the common good. Among these principles, freedom of
association has become a customary rule above the Conventions.
Under ILO Convention No 87, “Workers … without distinction whatsoever, shall

have the right to establish and … to join organisations of their own choosing without
previous authorisation” and “to elect their representatives in full freedom.”
Authorities should refrain from any interference that would restrict this right or
impede its enjoyment. States are free to prescribe legal formalities for establishing
unions, but they cannot abuse this freedom by prescribing formalities that impair
fundamental labour rights guarantees.

Our workers are suffering the worst kind of exploitation. Woes of our common man
are multiplying every day. Rights of our workers are being trampled with impunity.
There is not much regard left for the life, honour and dignity of the underprivileged.
Unfortunately, a large part of our society has shown complete apathy and
indifference towards the plight of the less privileged and disadvantaged segment of
our society.
We, the judiciary, also needs to fully morph into a people-sensitive judiciary, and as
a more compassionate organ of the state. We should, therefore, endeavour towards
evolving a framework and mechanism for speedy and effective redressal of the
common man’s complaint of exploitation and deprivation.
This speech was originally delivered at the book launch of Transnational Legal
Activism in Global Value Chains: The Ali Enterprises Factory Fire and the Struggle
for Justice.

Acts of faith: Why people get killed over
blasphemy in Pakistan | Herald
The writer is a former staffer at the Herald and is currently a graduate
student of comparative politics at New York University.
n angry mob sets Christian homes on fire in Joseph Colony, Lahore.
Even though the rally had ended late, even though the night sky over Gangapur was
turning translucent, Falak Sher’s wife insisted we stop by her house for kheer. There
was no electricity all across the village, so she stumbled about in the dark, rattling
pots and pans, intent upon hospitality. Outside, the lanes hummed with festive
chatter: the village – birthplace of Sir Ganga Ram, the father of modern Lahore –
had been looking forward to this rally for months now: a celebration of the glory of
Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) and an assertion of the finality of his
prophethood. Sher, who worked as a police constable in Lahore, had asked for leave
weeks in advance for the rally but the Zimbabwean cricket team happened to be in
town, the first international team to tour Pakistan since the attack on Sri Lankan
cricketers six years ago, and all vacation had been suspended for the police force.
Sher paid no heed and came home anyway. He had never missed a khatm-e-
nabuwwat rally in his village, said his wife.
It was the 26th of May, the death anniversary of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of
the Ahmadi faith, which considers itself a sect of Islam. This was no coincidence, for
everyone at the rally agreed that Ahmadis, whom they disparagingly referred to as
Qadianis, were fifth columnists, aasteen kay saanp, and that the death of their
founding father was something to celebrate. Indeed, the showpiece of the rally was a
nephew of the current Ahmadi leader, Mirza Masroor Ahmed, a large moon-faced
man who had recently split ranks with his uncle and converted to Sunni Islam. All of
Gangapur, a part of the central Punjab district of Faisalabad, seemed to roar when
he came on stage to speak. When he paused, loudspeakers blasted the rally’s
signature soundtrack, a rousing refrain of ghustakh-e-Muhammad teri ab khair
nahin hai, khair nahin, khair nahin, khair nahin hai (O blasphemer of Muhammad,
you are done for now).
From the edge of a neighbour’s rooftop, where the women of the village had
gathered to watch the proceedings, Sher’s wife sang along, not caring that she did
not know all the words. Back at her house, she fussed over the chief guest’s wife,
pressing a second serving of kheer into her hands, ensuring it had enough pistachios
and, by way of small talk, directing her attention towards the top right corner of the
room where rainwater had seeped through the wall, leaving a large damp mark amid
curlicues of peeling paint. If you looked at it closely, said Sher’s wife, wiggling her
torch in that direction, if you tilted your head a certain way, the mark resembled the
name of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him). She paused, then
clambered on top of a trunk and brought down a small pink frame. Inside was a
piece of old roti, its overcooked centre similar in shape to the mark on the wall.
“Subhanallah,” murmured the chief guest’s wife admiringly. Her host beamed,
luminous with pride.
A hundred or so kilometres to the north, in Saroki village in Gujranwala district,

Nazeer Cheema rose to offer his fajr prayers. His house was silent: his wife was still
asleep, his three daughters, married now, all had their own homes and his only son,
Aamir, dead at the age of 28, lay buried next door. He would have been 37 had he
not walked into the office of Die Welt, a German daily that had reprinted caricatures
deemed offensive by Muslims, to try to murder its editor, Roger Köppel — and, after
six weeks in a jail in Berlin, hanged himself with a noose made of his own clothes.
Nazeer Cheema, a retired college teacher, does not think his son took his own life;
he believes Aamir was tortured to death by German authorities. So do the thousands
who continue to flock to his shrine; they consider him a martyr, a modern-day
Ilamdin. In the portrait that hangs above his grave, Aamir Cheema even appears to
resemble his early 20th Century predecessor: the same moustache, the same
meticulous side parting, both unnervingly young.
He was a quiet child. His parents say they never heard him utter a single swear word
and that he never lied. He was studying textile engineering at a German university,
with one semester left towards the completion of his degree. Earlier, when some
Pakistanis had gathered outside their consulate in Berlin to protest the publication
of the offensive cartoons, he did not join them. “Nothing will come of it,” he told his
cousin’s husband. A few weeks later, he barged into Die Welt office with a knife. His
family back home was not aware of what he was going to do, which may have been
for the best, says his mother. “We wouldn’t have been able to help ourselves—we
would have tried to stop him.” It was early in the morning and she was not wearing
her denture, so her lips sank into her mouth as she sighed, making her appear very
old and very young, all at once. “In doing so, in persuading him otherwise, we might
have sinned against the Prophet ourselves.”

An anti-blasphemy protest in Lahore in 2012 | M Arif, White Star
A love lyric, a ballad, a legend, an opera, an epic: there are many descriptions of
the dhola, a genre of Punjabi folk music. It was through a dhola that a young Hanif
Shaikh first learnt about Ilamdin, the 21-year-old carpenter’s apprentice who
murdered the Hindu publisher of a “scurrilous” pamphlet about Prophet
Muhammad (may peace be upon him). Rajpal had already escaped two attempts on
his life when, on an April afternoon in 1929, Ilamdin stabbed him eight times inside
his bookshop in Lahore, relenting only when hapless bystanders began flinging
books at him. Executed six months later – his final appeal fought famously by one
Muhammad Ali Jinnah – Ilamdin grew into a folk hero of sorts, inspiring popular
accounts of his exploits in many formats: film, poetry, prose and what can only be
described as fan fiction. In the 1970s, an unabashedly hagiographic biopic
titled Ghazi Ilamdin Shaheed hit cinemas, directed by Rasheed Dogar whose later
credits would include the salaciously titled Pyasa Badan, Husn Parast and Madam
X. When Shaikh went to watch Ghazi Ilamdin Shaheed, he wept.
Shaikh is something of an authority on Ilamdin. He wrote an extensive account of

the young vigilante’s life, tracking down his family home in Lahore’s Mohalla Sirian
Wala. Originally named after the siris (slaughtered animals’ heads) sold there, it was
later rechristened Mohalla Sarfaroshan to commemorate Ilamdin’s bravery. He
recounts meeting Ilamdin’s bhabhi, sister-in-law, who reportedly cooked sweetened
rice to celebrate the assassination of Rajpal. With equal familiarity and fondness,
Shaikh lists other men who took the law into their hands: Abdul Rasheed, who
stabbed the Arya Samaj missionary and shuddhi (reconversion) advocate Swami
Shraddhanand in Delhi in 1926; Abdul Qayyum, who, in 1932, attacked a Hindu
leader, Nathu Ram, in Karachi while he was in court on trial over a provocative book
on Islam; Mureed Hussain, who murdered a Hindu veterinarian in 1935 in Palwal
town of Gorganwan district, now in Haryana, India, because he had named a donkey
after a beloved Muslim figure. Shaikh has written books on all of them; he is a bit of
an expert on this particular brand of the subcontinental ghazi. But when the
conversation turns (inevitably) to Mumtaz Qadri, the security guard who, in January
2011, pumped 28 bullets into Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab at the time,
he hesitates, looking troubled.
“If someone were to actually insult the Prophet, I’m afraid even I might not spare
him. But Taseer didn’t blaspheme, not really — he only criticised the law.”
Shaikh, whose real name is something else, so wary is he even of musing out loud on
this subject, has been thinking about this lately, this creeping expansion of what
constitutes blasphemy. Suppose someone who cannot read, buys food from a street
side stall, suppose what he buys is wrapped in newspaper which has the name of the
Prophet written on it. If the wrapper is thrown away, wonders Shaikh, if the person
who cannot read unthinkingly tosses it into the trash — insult would have occurred,
but without intent.
“That isn’t blasphemy,” he says. “Is it?”
Christian women mourn after the Jospeh Colony attack in Lahore in 2013 | M Arif,
White Star
On the last page of the post-mortem report, the medical examiner had dismissed,
with a large cross, the silhouette upon which she was meant to identify injuries,
scribbling instead: “whole body is completely burnt, almost to ashes, only a bony
skeleton identifiable.” She reiterated this six months later before a roomful of
lawyers wilting in black blazers, patiently describing to the defense counsel how the
victims were delivered to her in plastic bags, one labeled Shama, the other Shahzad.
It was a mid-May afternoon, and the power was out in the antiterrorism court –
load-shedding, Lahore – so the lawyers fanned themselves with their files, casting
beseeching looks at the air conditioner as they listened to witness statements.
Outside, the hallways were filled with villagers from Chak 59 and nearby settlements
of Kot Radha Kishan tehsil – 104 in total – handcuffed to one another. Inside, the
medical examiner’s voice was getting smaller with each sentence, describing bones
retrieved from the site – “small, mostly fractured” – and “organs, completely
charred, matted together.”

The court stenographer paused.
“C-H-E-R-R-E-D,” said the judge impatiently. “Red, like cherry.”
The lawyers looked pointedly at their feet.
According to the Centre for Social Justice, a Lahore-based research and advocacy
group, at least 62 men and women have been killed on mere suspicion of blasphemy
between 1987 and 2015. So far, no one has been executed by the state. In this
particular manifestation of an increasingly familiar phenomenon, on the morning of
November 4, 2014, Shama and Shahzad Masih were dragged out of the 10-by-10 feet
room in which they had sought refuge earlier that day, bludgeoned with sticks and
hatchets by a mob that eyewitnesses say numbered in the high hundreds, then – and
here accounts diverge – tied to a tractor, lugged across crushed stones on a half
constructed road, doused with petrol and flung into the brick kiln where they would
both have gone to work the next day, had Shama not been accused of desecrating
the Quran. She was one of at least 1,472 people who have been accused under the
blasphemy laws between 1987 and 2015 — specifically under sections 295-B, 295-C
and 298-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. As estimated by the Centre for Social Justice:
730 of these are Muslims, 501 are Ahmadis, 205 are Christians and 26 are Hindus.
The religion of the remaining 10 could not be ascertained — they were killed before
any legal proceedings were initiated.
There was initially a great deal of public fury, and wholesale condemnation, after
Shama and Shahzad were burnt to death, followed by what some chose to view as
heartening signs, whatever that could mean in a situation of this sort. Human rights
campaigner Asma Jehangir thought that the response from the religious parties was
positive. The state said it would be chief complainant in the case. People were
rounded up and arrested. But slowly attention moved on to other things: the factory
fire in Jhelum that targeted Ahmadis who were alleged to have blasphemed, the boy
who cut off his own hand in Hujra Shah Muqeem town to punish himself for what
he considered as constituting blasphemy. “Woh joh bhattay pe sarr g’ay,” recalled
one man, himself Christian, but from Lahore, about six months after Shama and
Shahzad’s death in the adjoining district of Kasur. Consider the curiously passive
construction of his sentence: those who burnt to death at the brick kiln, not those
who were burnt to death, as if spontaneous combustion were somehow the cause.
In district Kasur’s Chak-59, a stone’s throw away from the murder site, Muhammad
Ilyas says his son had nothing to do with it.
On the morning of November 4, 2014, Shama and Shahzad Masih were

dragged out of the 10-by-10 feet room in which they had sought refuge
earlier that day, bludgeoned with sticks and hatchets by a mob ...
He pauses to light a cigarette, holding it between two trembling fingers. He exhales

slowly. It is the only plume of smoke in the distance: the brick kilns lie dormant on
that summer day in 2015. Every Wednesday, Ilyas visits his son, who he says is
unjustly locked up in Shadman jail in Lahore. He himself spent four days there in
November 2014, released only when his cough, a hacking sound that wells up from
inside him, even as he continues to smoke, became worse. The scale and pace of life
in Lahore both exhaust and unsettle him: when he tried to cross the road outside the
jail last week, a motor-cyclist nearly trampled his toes. He wiggles them now, for
effect.

No one in Chak 59 would say who the hundreds of men were whose rage led to the
death of Shama and Shahzad, though they all concede, with an air of pronounced
reasonableness, that the deaths did take place. “They came from outside,” Ilyas
insists, referring to the mob. This is Conspiracy Theory Number One in almost all
mob attacks over accusations of blasphemy. The crowd that has assembled around
Ilyas nods in agreement.
As Ilyas continues speaking – “Shama’s sister had converted to Islam, that was at
the heart of everything” – a voice emerges from the crowd.
“You’re not speaking the truth.”
Ilyas stops speaking entirely, surprised into silence by a man who makes his way to
the centre.
“I didn’t know those two. I have no reason to defend them,” the stranger says, his
words tumbling forth with great urgency and deliberation. The effect is of a man
trying to tiptoe across a crocodile pond as quickly as possible. “I don’t. But the truth
is you’re — we’re — all just repeating things we’ve only heard.”
Ilyas tries to interrupt. The man next to him puts a hand on his shoulder. “Let him
say what he has to say.”
The speaker hesitates, then decides to wade ahead.
“It was a misunderstanding. The girl’s father-in-law made amulets; that’s what the
Arabic verses were for — she couldn’t even read. It was all a misunderstanding.
Think about it. In a country like this, you have a majority and you have a minority.
The minority is the ghulam qaum, slave nation — it knows it has to live by the terms
of the majority. Why would anyone deliberately go out of their way to insult the
majority, which has all the power?”
Silence. “I have no reason to defend them,” he repeats. “I didn’t know them.”
“How long have you lived here?” asks the man sitting beside Ilyas, observing the
stranger closely.
“About a year.”
“Have you ever had any trouble here? Has anyone ever given you any trouble?”
“Never,” declares the man. “Not once.”
Ilyas leans forward. “You’re Christian too. So why are you alive and well?”
When Muslims ruled Spain, 48 Christians were said to have been executed on
various charges of blasphemy and apostasy, between the years 851 and 859. They
are remembered today as ‘the martyrs of Cordoba’. Their accounts were related by
Eulogius, a monk who encouraged public declarations of faith as a way to assert the
identity of a Christian community. Death that resulted from these declarations was
the perfect solution: “ … not only did it epitomise self-abnegation and separation
from the world, but it also guaranteed that there would be no opportunity to sin
again,” Eulogius wrote. He was also eventually put to death, and it is unclear if more
Christians after him rebelled in a similar manner.

Blasphemy as political or personal protest seems somewhat far-fetched in Pakistan’s
current climate, but proponents of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws often cite this episode
in response to the question of why someone would deliberately insult the majority
religion. But even as the laws pertaining to blasphemy have grown stronger, the
aftermath of accusations is increasingly unfolding outside the courtroom,
presenting a strange and seemingly unsurmountable dichotomy. The court in
sweltering Lahore, after all, wasn’t adjudicating on the issue of blasphemy but
rather on murders that resulted from it. How has blasphemy become such a deadly
issue in Pakistan?
Anti-blasphemy protesters throwing stones at the police in Islamabad in 2012 |

Tanveer
It is possible, of course, to blame colonialism. When Lord Thomas Babington

Macaulay, of “a single shelf of a good European library is worth the whole native
literature of India and Arabia” fame, drafted the Indian Penal Code of 1860, he
introduced a blasphemy law, imported from the British common law with some
additional provisions — for instance, even words uttered out loud could be deemed
offensive.
Macaulay thought the people of the subcontinent were a particularly emotional lot,
predisposed to symbolic offense: “A person who should offer a gross insult to the
Mohammedan religion in the presence of a zealous professor of that religion; who
should deprive some high-born Rajpoot of his caste; who should rudely thrust his
head into the covered palanquin of a woman of rank, would probably move those
whom he insulted to more violent anger than if he had caused them some severe
bodily hurt.” Indeed, he warned, “there is, perhaps, no country in which the
government has so much to apprehend from religious excitement among the
people.”
Whether or not religion was the main dividing line among the residents of the
subcontinent – after all, no one really knew the relative numbers of various groups,
or the demarcation of what exactly separated one group from the other, until the
first census was carried out in India in 1871 – Macaulay incorporated religion into
criminal law, noted anthropologist Asad Ali Ahmed in Spectres of Macaulay:
Blasphemy, the Indian Penal Code and Pakistan’s Postcolonial Predicament. He
referred to religion as the “inaugural site of difference” in the subcontinent. It was a
classic colonial move: for the imperial power to fashion itself as the impartial
umpire between antagonistic religious communities to create or at least highlight
differences and then step in to arbitrate. Even at the time, Ahmed wrote, there was
concern about making wounded religious sentiments, even when they did not lead
to public disorder, a cause for action. The English lawyer Fitzjames Stephen warned
that it would be fine as long as English magistrates continued to interpret the law
restrictively but it “might lead to horrible cruelty and persecution if the government
of the country ever got into Hindoo or Mohammedan hands”.
Ilamdin grew into a folk hero of sorts, inspiring popular accounts of his
exploits in many formats: film, poetry and what can only be described as
fan fiction.
But as the British colonial state helped to shape patterns of community redefinition
and conflict, it stood in self-definition apart from these processes, noted David
Gilmartin, an American historian. It saw itself as a mediator standing outside the
structure of society, rather than assuming the role of a cultural patron, as earlier
states in the subcontinent had done. And so, “with the state no longer defining the
moral parameters of the community or its political forms, individuals remade the
community in the public realm by attaching their hearts to Muslim symbols and
making their inner [feelings] public in open contestation.” This “love” manifested
itself in the increasingly popular emphasis on public ceremonies such as the
birthday of the Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) and the public
agitations in the early 20th Century that mobilised the devoted for the protection of
Muslim traditions and icons under threat — the Ottoman Caliphate, or the
“martyred” mosques in Kanpur and Shaheed Ganj (Lahore). It transcended
divisions of interests and status, wrote Gilmartin, creating “an image of moral unity
that transcended everyday political conflict”. He add: “Calls for devotion and
sacrifice in defense of symbols of community often drew heavily on the gendered
language of male honour, namoos, an idiom that not only evoked the universalism
of patriarchy but also the particularistic (and highly competitive) loyalties attached
to tribe, family and other kinship-based identities.”
“Ki Muhammad se wafa tu nay tou hum teray hain” (only if you are to be loyal to
Muhammad, will I be yours), wrote Allama Iqbal in Jawab-e-Shikwa, as part of
God’s address to the Muslims. Indeed, the uproar for protecting the honour of
Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) was such during Ilamdin’s trial that
the British were forced to intervene and add an additional clause to the blasphemy
law. Nearly a century later, in the events that led to the murder of Governor Taseer,
the verse was invoked again and again.
The blasphemy law was hardly ever invoked in all the early 20th Century instances.
Very few cases of blasphemy were, in fact, registered until the time of General Ziaul
Haq, when new and stricter laws were added to those already existing. Religion had
made a comeback of sorts all across the world then, thrusting itself into the public
arena of moral and political contestation. The Islamic revolution in Iran, the rise of
the Solidarity movement in Poland in protest against God-less communist
suppression, the role of Catholicism in the Sandinista revolution and in other
political conflicts throughout Latin America, and the bloody occupation of the holy
mosque in Makkah by a highly radicalised Salafi group gave religion the kind of
global publicity that forced a reassessment of its place and role in the world. In our
own backyard, the invasion of Afghanistan, a Muslim country, by a purportedly
atheist imperial power, the Soviet Union, turned our society into an extended
religious laboratory and our state an extended jihadi camp.
But even before Zia came to power and made Islamism official, the cultural work for
this had been done, wrote Manan Ahmed Asif, an assistant professor of history at
Columbia University, in a 2011 article, titled Forfeiting the Future, published in the
Indian magazine, Caravan. The blasphemy riots of the 1950s, when Ahmadis were
violently resisted by Jamaat-e-Islami and other religious groups, had taught one
clear lesson to the religious right: the veneration of Prophet Muhammad (may peace
be upon him) made great political theatre, with infinite appeal for nearly every
segment of the Pakistani population, he added. The emergence of Prophet
Muhammad (may peace be upon him) as a centralising and orienting raison d’être
for Pakistan, however, was not, in Asif’s words, merely an organic outgrowth of a
religiously inclined society; it was a deliberate state policy, aided by Islamist parties,
to mould public faith. With the explicit support of Ayub Khan’s military regime, the
figure of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) quickly became central to

national political memory — the celebration of his birth, the mi’raj (his ascension to
the heavens) and other milestones from his life were “heavily funded and carefully
orchestrated events, with the massive participation of the religious elite across
Pakistan.”
The blasphemy law was hardly ever invoked in all the early 20th Century
instances. Very few cases of blasphemy were, in fact, registered until the
time of General Ziaul Haq.
These changes could be seen in the sort of books that were being produced in those
years: Islamic polemics against the Ahmadis and the leftists by the likes of Agha
Shorish Kashmiri, Islamic fiction by the likes of Naseem Hijazi and Islamic poetry
by the likes of Hafeez Jullandhri who composed Shahnama-e-Islam, a verse history
of the Muslim governments of the past (Jullandhri, at the time of writing the book,
was working as an adviser to Ayub Khan). “So the person who read these [in the
1980s] is now a middle-aged man with set views,” Asif says in an interview.
During the Zia era, the ideological framework of the blasphemy laws also became
more complicated than it was during the British period: they were no longer
intended to demonstrate state neutrality, but were an explicit state-administered
defence of sacred Muslim persons and texts. This was a state that was shaping
society as much as it was being shaped by it.
“Underlying the original laws and their postcolonial additions is an unstable

dynamic of incitement and containment — that is, the laws’ attempt to regulate
wounded attachments and religious passions can conversely constitute them. They
have in actuality enabled social groups to organise in order to ensure the state takes
cognizance of blasphemous events and practices,” Ahmed, an assistant professor at
Harvard University’s Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, wrote in his paper, Spectres
of Macaulay.
But, importantly, there have been no executions as yet. State officials have been
particularly reluctant to intervene in disputes between Muslims, for fear that trials
and executions will further sectarian conflict, he pointed out. The attempt to forge a
bond between the state and the nation, according to him, founders on the numerical
preponderance of blasphemy cases registered by Muslims against Muslims.
The anecdote that Ahmed narrated in his paper to demonstrate this concerns a
stand off between Ahle Sunnat – or Barelvis – and Ahle Hadith – or Wahhabis –
over what transpired at a conference about the life of Prophet Muhammad (may
peace be upon him). And it is pretty instructive: some young Barelvi men in Kamoke
town near Lahore attended a gathering of Ahle Hadith. They claimed that two Ahle
Hadith clerics implied during the gathering that Barelvis were like “dancing girls”
and made fun of the Barelvi insistence on the Prophet’s intercessory role and
perpetual presence.
The Barelvis responded insult for insult 12 days later. The Ahle Hadith lodged a
blasphemy case against them, invoking sections 295-A and 298 of the Pakistan
Penal Code. The Barelvis responded to this by lodging a case under section 295-C
that carries the death penalty. The state dragged its feet, so, eventually, they had to
compromise. But no one was entirely happy.

Having seeped into almost all aspects of national life, the spillover of the
blasphemy issue has now, understandably, entered the political sphere as
well.
“It is this gap between the filing of the case and their inability to prosecute,” wrote
Ahmed, “between their expectation that the government would perform its
sovereign duty and its refusal to do so, between the law’s incitement to action and
the administration’s tenuous regulatory capability that had led the blasphemy laws
to become a site of passionate attachment and mobilisation, and a site of
disaffection and betrayal by the state.” That explains both violent protests over the
caricatures deemed offensive and mob attacks that follow the real or perceived
instances of blasphemy.
For Barelvis, it is also a matter of waning political power — the realisation that
Deobandis have institutional presence in a way that Barelvis do not. Through
political parties such as Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUIF) and, to a certain extent,
Jamaat-e-Islami, which, by its own claim, is non-sectarian but most of its individual
members are either Deobandi or Ahle Hadith, through government institutions such
as the Council of Islamic Ideology, Federal Shariat Court, moon sighting
committees, and through the possession of state-built mosques and madrasas,
Deobandis far outweigh Barelvis in the organised social sphere, even though the
latter claim to be as numerous as the former, if not more. This then explains why
Qadri and his death sentence became such a major flashpoint — it provided Barelvis
an opportunity to demonstrate that they have street power like any other religious
group in Pakistan.
Having seeped into almost all aspects of national life, the spillover of the blasphemy
issue has now, understandably, entered the political sphere as well; when Muttahida
Qaumi Movement (MQM) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) had a political spat
year before the last, the former lodged a blasphemy case against the latter’s
prominent leader, Syed Khursheed Shah, claiming the remarks he had reportedly
made about the muhajirs, the migrants from India that MQM represents,
constituted blasphemy because Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) was
himself a muhajir.
Rimsha, a Christian girl accused of blasphemy, being escorted to safety in Islamabad

in 2012 |M Arif, White Star
Wednesday is meeting day at Shadman jail in Lahore. Irfan Prince hands over his
identity card and his cell phone to the guards at the entrance hall to the prison and
receives a parcha in return. He then peers at the clock at the opposite end of the
room. It is loadshedding time, which means that only the central column of ceiling
fans, directly above the cubicles of jail officials, is functioning. A woman in the
ladies section fans herself with her white chador and keeps looking up at the ceiling
and then glaring at the police wallas. The walls have Quranic verses displayed on
them -- sponsored by Shezan, a soft drink maker.
As soon as the clock strikes 2pm, the time when the meeting starts, Prince rushes to
the security counter, gets his food checked, and then rushes to the tuck shop and
gets a cold bottle of mango juice. In his hurry, he looks younger than he is. He then
dashes towards what is titled mulaqaat shed, or the shed for the meeting. He hangs
his backpack on a nail at the entrance, turns around the corner and disappears into
a narrow pathway that ends at a gate with iron bars. Behind the bars are inmates.
Most of them have been jailed for blasphemy. Among them is Prince’s brother
Adnan, a former pastor.
Those who say the blasphemy laws do not target non-Muslims are right in that more
Muslims have been accused of blasphemy than non-Muslims — but the counter-
argument that non-Muslims are disproportionally targeted is also correct. And this
vulnerability extends beyond mere accusation. Consider, for instance, what the trial
court wrote in its judgment in the case of Aasia Bibi, who became internationally
known when Governor Taseer took up her cause and was later killed because of his
stance. “[Aasia] admitted that she exchanged ‘hot words’ with those two Muslim
sisters [who are the accusers in the case]. When a Muslim and Christian exchange
‘hot words’ the blasphemy was a natural outcome. And, thus, she committed
blasphemy.”
Adnan was accused of writing blasphemous words on a book, about a month and a
half after the twin bombing of the All Saints Church in Peshawar in 2013 had killed
80 Christians (rights groups say there was a rash of blasphemy accusations
immediately after that attack — they are not entirely sure why). He said the book did
not belong to him and that it was found in a shop in Lahore where he was covering a
shift for his brother, Prince.
He was accused of blasphemy the very next day after the offending words were
found written on the book. He fled. He, his mother and his brother went to their
family in Youhanabad, a Christian slum on the southern edge of Lahore. But the
community there, worried by what had happened in Joseph Colony, another
Christian neighbourhood in Lahore set on fire just a few months ago, told them to
leave. Adnan went into hiding. Prince and his uncles – his father having passed
away a long time ago – were arrested and told they would not be allowed to leave
until Adnan surrendered himself. And so he did.
Adnan sips the mango juice, the bottle steadily perspiring in the heat, with the straw
that his brother has carefully angled through the bars. His own face glistens with
sweat. “We’ll see you next week,” Prince tells him. But the judge hearing his case
goes away on holiday. Next week stretches into next month. Even as freedom
becomes increasingly elusive for Adnan, the spectre of a death sentence looms large
— or, worse still, death at the hands of an inmate or a police guard incensed by his
alleged act of blasphemy.
Those who say the blasphemy laws do not target non-Muslims are right in
that more Muslims have been accused of blasphemy than non-Muslims.
John Joseph, a Roman Catholic bishop in Faisalabad, was highly wary of the
treatment of Christians facing blasphemy trials. In May 1998, he shot himself with a
pistol in front of a court in Sahiwal in protest against a death sentence handed down
to one Ayub Masih. Yet, not every Christian in Pakistan opposes the blasphemy
laws. Many activists – both Muslim and Christian – and many church leaders have
argued that the Islam-specific provisions of the blasphemy laws, indeed, should
cover the holy personages and religious texts of all religions. It was precisely this
position that the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jillani
took when, according to Dawn, he remarked during the hearing of a case in May
2014 that “offence against any religion comes under the blasphemy law”.

Nobody no longer says openly that the blasphemy laws need to be repealed on the
ground that they violate human rights.
The first trial that Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry – the Lahore-based head of the
Khatm-e-Nabuwwat Lawyers’ Forum – formally worked on was that of Muhammad
Yusuf Ali, who was accused of posing as a prophet in 1997. This is not the name by
which Chaudhry refers to him, however. He calls him Yusuf Kazzab
— kazzab meaning ‘liar’ in Arabic, an epithet given throughout Muslim history to
people claiming prophethood or betraying Islam in some way. An epithet
popularised in this case by daily Khabrain, which was then a relatively new Urdu
newspaper and was trying to establish its readership. Yusuf Ali is said to be a
shareholder in the office building on Lahore’s Lawrence Road that houses
daily Khabrain’s headquarters. It is not clear whether or not this point came up
during his trial.
At least 62 men and women have been killed on mere suspicion of

blasphemy between 1987 and 2015.
Yusuf Ali was convicted and sentenced to death in 2000, three years before the
parliament would make the last real – but eventually aborted – effort to amend the
laws. As it were, he was murdered while in prison by another inmate, Tariq, who
was on death row (the gun with which Yusuf Ali was fired at was taken into the
prison reportedly by an employee of daily Khabrain). The murder inspired the
movie Aik Aur Ghazi, directed by Syed Noor and released years later in 2011 —
curiously just months after yet another ghazi had entered the public consciousness:
Mumtaz Qadri. Noor insisted that he was not trying to cash in on the prevailing
sentiments on the subject. In any case, the film flopped.
Chaudhry, who was a part of the legal team for Qadri’s defense, says he has full faith
in the legal system. If the courts do justice, there will never be any problem, he says
on a hot summer day in 2015. At that point Qadri’s case was in its final appeal.
Chaudhry proclaims that Qadri was justified in doing what he did because there was
no way that Taseer, the sitting provincial governor, could have been taken to a court
for making remarks about the blasphemy laws.
Chaudhry does not think that his association takes up blasphemy cases disregarding
whether they are fake or genuine. All cases are investigated before the lawyers take
them up, he says. As of last summer, they were handling from 500 to 600 cases. He
says he did not take up the case that led to arson at Joseph Colony because the
complainant was said to have been drinking with the accused. The imbibing of
alcohol, turned Chaudhry off. But even in a state of inebriation, he insists, a Muslim
will not tolerate an insult to Islam.

The wings of the ceiling fans in the hall of the Presbyterian church had drooped in
the heat, like wilted petals, and this, people later said, was proof that it had been no
ordinary fire. It must have involved special chemicals, the sort that were not readily
available in Sangla Hill, wedged between Lahore, Sheikhupura and Faisalabad —
and, they further reasoned, this meant that the fire must have been planned by
outsiders, carefully orchestrated, rather than resulting from a spontaneous outburst
of passion. Perhaps this was easier to stomach than wondering which of your
neighbours had tried to attack you. In any case, there was no way of knowing
whether the 88 arrested from the town were actually the ones who had set fire to the
three churches, a convent, a girls’ hostel and a pastor’s house. So Reverend
Tajammal Parvez and his Catholic counterpart decided to forgive them.
In return, a local Muslim, Kalu Suniara, withdrew the case against Yusuf Masih
whom he had accused of setting fire to a shed that stored fragments of old Qurans.
The two communities – Christian and Muslim – approached the courts and assured
the judges that the matter had been resolved. It helped that no lives had been lost in
the mob attack. It also helped that the small town of Sangla Hill was fairly
integrated and that the elders of its various religious communities –Barelvi, Ahle
Hadith, Shia, Catholic, Protestant – were well acquainted with each other.
In an influential study, political scientist Ashutosh Varshney investigated why some

cities in India experienced more Hindu-Muslim violence than others, and concluded
that this variance depended on how strong ‘cross-communal’ civic associations
were. In Sangla Hill, old relationships did not prevent violence but they did help the
healing process afterwards. Still, Yusuf Masih had to leave town so that the other
Christian families, who had fled when their homes were attacked, could return —
though local leaders insist he was not forced to leave, but chose to do so himself.
When he died a few years later, in 2008, his wife is reported to have blamed his
death on injuries sustained during his time in government custody under the
blasphemy charge.
Her youngest son, traumatised from watching the mob haul away his
father, refused to speak for months afterwards and compulsively picked at
his own skin.
In the renovated Presbyterian church, immediately after delivering a Sunday

sermon, Reverend Pervez says the incident is firmly in the past. “The only change
here is that no one takes out a procession in protest anymore — we are all too scared
of what it might lead to. Last month, there were load-shedding protests all over the
province, but no one came out on to the streets here. Ten years have passed. It is
behind us now.”
In another part of the province, healing has never happened. Hafiz Farooq Sajjad’s
wife in Gujranwala has not forgotten the murder of her husband 22 years ago,
although she has also pardoned the killers. For years, she pursued the case, ensuring
that at least four of the murderers remained behind bars. Then her own father died
and her spirits flagged. Her father was the one who dealt with the lawyers and sat in
on the hearings. She had six children to care for, and little time or money, or
emotional energy. When she reached a settlement, she received 200,000 rupees
from each of the four perpetrators, she says. The money did not last her very long.
For a while, the local chapter of Jamaat-e-Islami provided a monthly stipend of
3,000 rupees to her but that too stopped eventually. “Now if I ask anyone for
money, they think it’s just my habit,” she says bitterly.
Her youngest son, traumatised from watching the mob haul away his father, refused
to speak for months afterwards and compulsively picked at his own skin. At the local
police station, where police briefly sheltered Sajjad after he was dragged out of his
house and into the city streets, he begged for a bullet to the head instead of being
handed over to the crowds outside. Beaten, bludgeoned and burnt to death, he was
buried in Lahore because authorities feared his grave in Gujranwala would be
frequently desecrated. These are the details his wife remembers. She cried
continuously for months, bewildered: how could this happen to a religious man —
a hafiz-e-Quran? “My father didn’t let me bury my own husband. He said I wouldn’t
be able to bear the sight of his mutilated corpse. I’ve had no closure … sometimes I
still think he’ll come back. I can’t believe it; I can’t forget it.”
Others around her seem to have forgotten. The lane where Sajjad’s family lives has
changed over the years; old neighbours have moved away, new ones have moved in;
the woman who accused him of blasphemy has died. Two doors down from his
house, a group of women sitting in the outer veranda of their house struggle to recall
the incident. “Oh yes,” says a young woman finally, “God only knows, of course, but
I heard [Sajjad’s wife] had her own husband killed…”
Maulana Zahidur Rashidi believes there is room for tobah, for seeking divine
forgiveness.
Rashidi, a religious scholar based in Gujranwala, is the founding editor of Al-Sharia,

a journal that examines matters pertaining to Islamic legal thought. Sometimes, the
opinions espoused in Al-Sharia can swerve dramatically away from mainstream
religious opinion: the notion, for instance, that it is not permissible on religious
grounds for non-Afghan Muslims to fight against international forces in
Afghanistan. On other occasions, they are less innovative, such as on the status of
Ahmadis. Still, Rashidi appears to be one of the few clerics in Pakistan willing to
show flexibility on the blasphemy issue. “We talk about this in our circles,” he says.
“The majority believes that blasphemy cannot be pardoned, but I firmly belong to
the camp that thinks pardon is permissible in certain conditions. At the end of the
day, naturally, the voice of the majority is the one that is heard.”
Our circles. Rashidi belongs to Deobandi sect for which the issue of blasphemy, in
particular against Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), is a little less
emotive than it is for Barelvis. But when it comes to the issue of the blasphemy laws,
particularly with regard to their repeal, Deobandis and Barelvis band together as
one — it is almost as if religion becomes a monolith only in the face of an external
threat.
Very few cases of blasphemy were, in fact, registered until the time of
General Ziaul Haq, when new and stricter laws were added to those
already existing.
Still, Rashidi admits, without caveat, that the laws are extensively misused. After a
young Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, was falsely accused of blasphemy, Rashidi’s
son, Ammar Nasir, who now edits Al-Sharia and teaches Islamic studies at a private
university in Gujranwala, noted: “The practice of charging individuals with
blasphemy is thriving in Pakistan. As a consequence, it is not totally unforeseeable
that in time even committed religious people and those dedicated to faith might be
forced to consider the repeal or suspension of the blasphemy laws as a better option
than enduring the deteriorating situation where the law is abused against innocents.
And if the situation comes to this, I will proclaim without any fear of contradiction
that the blame falls squarely on those persons of faith who aided and abetted the
unbalanced public conduct in this matter. I will say this even if they ostensibly
defend their innocence in claiming that such moves to repeal the blasphemy laws
were a conspiracy conducted by the enemies of Islam.”
It matters who is talking, says Arafat Mazhar, a young researcher committed to

reforming the blasphemy laws through Islamic jurisprudence. Others, of course,
have also tried taking the same route, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi being the most famous
among them. Ghamidi has argued that prosecuting blasphemy is not, for the most
part, the business of the state. He was hunted out by hardliners, and now lives in
Malaysia after he received serious and frequent threats to his life.
Days before Mumtaz Qadri was executed in February 2016, a handful of students
stood before the gates of Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail on Valentine’s Day, bearing gifts
for him. It made no sense, and was a source of amused horror for many. “We admit
it is not our tradition and it is wrong to celebrate Valentine’s day, but it is now
widely celebrated and the media is full with Valentine’s day activities,” the students
are reported to have said. They knew that this was how to catch the attention of the
media. Perhaps it was for the same reason that two weeks later when Qadri was
hanged, in a move that caught many off guard for its suddenness, young men
attended his funeral wearing placards that read I am Qadri – an apparent
appropriation of I am Charlie placards that cropped up all over Europe during
protests against the attack on Charlie Habdo, the French magazine that had
published the offensive caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him.
Irony aside, it appeared to be an attempt to connect to a global protest, to speak the
same language as the “other”.
A false binary has been created, argues Arafat Mazhar: human rights abuses versus
respect for religion; the victim complex of the majority versus the persecution of
minorities;repeal of the law versus making it even more stringent. Perhaps it is time
to start speaking each other’s language.
In a dusty office in Nankana Sahib, a district town near Lahore, three lawyers and a
cleric were huddled together last summer. They were conversing heatedly about
Aasia Bibi, whose death sentence by a trial court was upheld by the Lahore High
Court in 2014 though the Supreme Court suspended the sentence in 2015 until her
appeals were decided. One of the lawyers had successfully prosecuted the case at the
district level: the cleric, a neighbourhood moulvi, was the one who had first reported
the case to the police. He had heard Aasia Bibi confess, heard it with his own two
ears, though he could not repeat her words now for that too would be a sin. He
failed to understand how any true believer could feel sympathy for her: she had
ridiculed the Prophet, nauzubillah, and the only punishment for ridicule was death.
The other men in the room nodded vigorously.
“But what about that story we’re all told as children,” I ventured, “the one about the
old lady who would throw trash on the Prophet (may peace be upon him) whenever
he went to the mosque? He never said a harsh word to her.”
“A story?” the older lawyer repeated in alarm, eyebrows raised, tone admonitory.
“You cannot call it a story.”
At another time, in another place, many conversations could have been had:
whether ordinary men and women can forgive an offense against the Prophet (may
peace be upon him); whether to follow his practices of Makkah or only of Medina
after an Islamic state had been established there; whether the word story, kahani, is
indeed offensive, implying something that is not true; and why violence has become
the predominant proof of love. Perhaps someone more articulate, more
knowledgeable and less paranoid would have brushed off this policing of speech,
and pressed on. But fear is a great conversation-stopper: unnerved, I fell silent and
let them talk, about love and honour and the irrefutable glory of
The writer is a former staffer at the Herald and is currently a graduate student of
comparative politics at New York University.

The Hindutva Doctrine | Daily Times
By: Asad Tahir Jappa
India propagates to be a secular state by virtue of its constitution but the fascist
Hindutva ideology nullifies the tall claims of its phony secularism. The last nail in its
coffin was hammered by none than the butcher of Gujrat, Modi who had rebranded
himself as a mascot for ‘Incredible India’. But, in reality it was just that sham
branding. Simmering under the carefully constructed veneer of democratic ideology,
Modi’s Hindutva ideology was waiting for an appropriate moment to strike. His
energized right-wing Hindu base loved the idea, giving him overwhelming majority
in the May 2019 elections. “This victory gave the Hindutva goons to take even bolder
steps to entrench their ideology of hate. Next came the long-promised goal of
revoking Kashmir’s autonomous status, in August of 2019. And with it, the wheels
started to come off Modi’s Hindutva wagon. India’s right-wing fascist ideology was
at display for the entire world to see. Even within India, the saner voices started to
question Modi publicly. Muslims, Christians, even lesser caste Hindus, started to
view their own State as enemy of the people. It is a fact of history that following
independence, Nehru considered Hindu communalism to be the country’s top
enemy; his fears were heightened after Nathuram Godse-a man associated with the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological wellspring of Hindu
nationalism-murdered Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. In contrast to secular political and
territorial notion of India, Hindu nationalist ideology, first codified in the 1920s by
V. D. Savarkar in Hindutva. It envisages India culturally as a Hindu country and
intends to transform it into a Hindu rashtra (nation-state). Hindus see themselves
as the true sons of the soil, whereas they view Muslims and Christians as products of
bloody foreign invasions or denationalizing influences. The demolition of the Babri
mosque was a clear reflection of the Sangh Parivar’s anti-Hindu rashtra which
necessitates the eradication of so-called foreign influences, as exemplified by the
recent rechristening of cities that previously donned Islamic names, like Allahabad
(which is now called Prayagraj), and more importantly, the “obliteration” of Islam
and its proponents from the public sphere. The actions taken in this regard range
from attempts at converting Muslims to Hinduism to preventing interreligious
marriages.
The seeds of discord and division were sown immediately after partition of
Indian Subcontinent. The history witnessed an alarming rise in communal
riots between Hindus and Muslims which erupted in Ahmedabad in 1969.
The seeds of discord and division were sown immediately after partition of Indian
Subcontinent. The history witnessed an alarming rise in communal riots between
Hindus and Muslims which erupted in Ahmedabad in 1969. At least 1000 people
were killed during this riot. At that time, there was a dispute over the leadership of
the Congress party between Indira Gandhi and Morarji Desai. There were
suggestions that violence was deliberately engineered to discredit the chief minister
of Gujarat who was a supporter of Mr. Desai. Likewise, in 1983, more than 2,000
Muslims, who were labeled as foreigners, were killed in the northeastern Assam
state. This blood-curling violence went on for six hours on Feb 18. Similarly, in 1984
during anti-Sikh riots which lasted for five days, reportedly 2,800 to 8,000 Sikhs
were killed across India. The violence, however, was centered in Delhi. A series of
anti-Sikh pogroms were launched after then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was shot
dead by her Sikh bodyguards. Adding salt to injury, Hindu mobs attacked and
destroyed the historical Babri Mosque in Ayodhya city of the northern state of Uttar
Pradesh. The mosque was built by 16th-century Mughal Emperor Babur. Following
this incident, wide-scale communal riots took place in Mumbai. The riots began on
Dec. 6 and raged on for a month. Some 900 people were killed and 2,000 injured.
In 2002, during Gujarat riots nearly 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in
the western state of Gujarat. Another 2,500 were injured as Hindu mobs went on a
rape, loot and kill rampage. Some 20,000 Muslim homes and businesses and 360
places of worship were destroyed. Roughly, 150,000 people were displaced. The
two-month violence took place when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was Chief
Minister of the state. It resulted in massacre of more than 100 Christians and
torching of thousands of homes in Odisha’s Kandhamal district in 2007 and 2008,
according to civil rights groups. In one particularly grisly incident, Graham Stuart
Staines, an Australian Christian worker, and his two underage children, 10-year-old
Philip and Timothy, 6, were burned alive by a group of people while the three were
sleeping in a station wagon in Manoharpur village in eastern Odisha State’s
Keonjhar district in 1999.
India was jolted by the deadliest communal violence in New Delhi in decades. The
violence began on 23 Feb 2020, and lasted for several days, leaving at least 46
people dead in Delhi, the majority of them Muslims. It was the worst religious
violence in India in years. It quickly emerged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s
Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Delhi police force his
government oversees, had tacitly supported the mobs, who chanted Hindu
nationalist slogans as they burned buildings and beat Muslims while police
reportedly looked on.” The trend we see across India is that a lot of the violence
perpetrated against Muslims these days is actually perpetrated by subsidiaries of the
Hindu nationalist movement,” says Thomas Bloom Hansen, a Stanford professor of
anthropology who has studied religious identities and violence in India for three
decades. “The government and the BJP can wash their hands and say, ‘we have
nothing to do with it, these are just patriots acting on their own.” Ashutosh
Varshney, a Brown University professor and author of the prize- winning Ethnic
Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India, believes that recent riots in
Delhi bear some of the hallmarks of an organized pogrom.”
In yet another biased move, the BJP pushed through a new citizenship law the
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that makes it easier for all of South Asia’s major
religions, except Islam. “India is now face to face with the darkest period in its
history as an independent country,” Sumantra Bose, professor of international and
comparative politics at the London School of Economics tells TIME. In a statement
released by her publisher, Arundhati Roy, one of India’s most famous writers,
compared the Citizenship Amendment Act and NRC to the Nazis’ 1935 Nuremberg
Laws, which blocked Jews from German citizenship. There is a large body of
evidence pointing to the fact that the RSS and its affiliated organizations have
consistently played a leading role in organizing and inciting communalist hatred
and violence. Various judicial commissions of inquiry on communalist violence have
pointed towards the RSS. For instance, the Judicial Commissions on violence in
Tellicherry (1971), Aligarh (1978), Moradabad (1980), Sambhal (1980) blames the
RSS for inciting violence towards Muslims. Institutional Bias; regarding the issue of
protection of religious minorities against discrimination and existing mechanism for
accountability Singh (2015:51) has argued: “The National Commission for
Minorities constituted as late as 1993 – more than 43 years after the formation of
the Indian Republic in 1950 – remains a mere paper tiger without the power and
institutional infrastructure to track systematic inbuilt bias against religion
minorities. Hindu majoritarian bias pervades the Indian constitution, bureaucracy,
security forces, parliamentary institutions, judiciary, prison, academic institutions,
health services, media and cultural and art organizations.
Furthermore, on the question of institutional communalism, Singh observes,

“Institutional communalism became evident in the Supreme Court decision to
award the death sentence to Mohammed Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri militant who was
secretly hanged on 9th February 2013. The bench deciding his case said that the
death sentence was necessary in order to satisfy ‘the national conscience’, which is a
surrender of legal reasoning to a structure of bias.” Likewise, Manisha Sethi also
finds systematic bias in the workings of the intelligence agency and police in their
dealings with members of the religious minority communities, particularly Muslims,
who have found to be the victims of these government agencies during Hindu mob
attacks. He lamented at the divisive political dispensation of India, “in the case of
terror attacks or communalist riots, if the police go after the perpetrators of
violence, and they happen to mostly Muslims, you cannot, in the name of
secularism, expect the police to act in proportion of their population.”
The writer is a civil servant by profession, a writer by choice and a motivational

speaker by passion!

Pandora Papers: Another Proof of the
Elite Capture | Daily Times
By: Hafeez Khan
Pandora Papers are a reality check. Really and truly, the political divide is a façade.
There are the takers and those who get taken every five years. Corruption, money
laundering, bribes and loot have no ideology. This common thread runs across party
lines. It does not end there. It has permeated into media, uniforms, bureaucrats,
businessmen including their kith and kin. The malaise runs deep and has taken
roots within every segment of society.
This distortion and Machiavellian manipulation of the global financial system

started decades ago. The temptation to steal and hide the proceeds to shelter them
against exposure goes back centuries. It got a boost during World War II when the
persecuted Jews and corrupt Nazis converged on Switzerland to conceal their
wealth. The temptation of anonymous numbered accounts, untraceable shell
companies and accommodating Swiss bankers protected by Secrecy Laws was
irresistible. Money poured into Switzerland from all over the globe including the
Zardaris.
I remember visiting Switzerland and interacting with businessmen and bankers in

their heady days of the eighties. Geneva had more Rolls Royce and Mercedes
limousines than anywhere in the world. The beneficiaries were rich and famous,
drug barons, organised crime, dicey business leaders, corrupt dictators and
politicians, and unscrupulous public servants. The allure and convenience of
concealed wealth reached a pinnacle in the nineties forcing the US and other world
powers to pressurise the Swiss banks to disclose client information.
The effect was similar to clampdown on “Bazaar-e-Husn” in Lahore. It spread to all

parts of the City. The same thing happened to hot money. The beneficiaries started
to look for safe havens elsewhere. There were plenty of takers. Islands dotted
around the Caribbean, the British Isles and Europe dramatically emerged as willing
participants. A common thread ran across all these host destinations. Weak
powerless governments, stupidly uninterested; administratively unable or
determinedly averse to avoid easy pickings, opened their doors. Dubious law firms,
unprincipled bankers and fraudulent accountants were quick to jump in and get a
firm control on this huge cash cow.
The biggest fish were corrupt rulers robbing their exchequers blind,
indebting their nations and concealing their ill-gotten gains in these off-
shore tax-havens.
Criminal investigators and tax officials were rendered powerless in this massive
fraud. Transparency International estimates at least 32 trillion dollars are hidden
away in these untraceable assets. Rich stealing from their own countries was only
one component. The biggest fish were corrupt rulers and elite of the third-world
countries robbing their exchequers blind, indebting their nations and concealing
their ill-gotten gains in these off-shore tax-havens.
Pakistan is no exception. It is a society with clear demarcations between a small elite
that controls or has access to levers of power. Then, there are the teeming millions
suffering from abject poverty struggling to feed themselves and their families. It is a
completely unjust society ruled by the corrupt, for the corrupt. The worst part was
that all the theft and money laundering that was being sucked out of this
impoverished nation was being denied with a straight face by the corrupt rulers.
I remember in the early days of the PTI, PM IK held a demonstration in London

outside the Hyde Park residences of Sharifs; yet they denied it with a blank face.
Zardari refuted the charges of owning Surrey Palace till it was ready to be auctioned.
He suddenly surfaced claiming to be the lord and master. He pleaded insanity when
summoned by Swiss Courts, yet we rewarded him by making him the President of
Pakistan.
Mention of this widespread network of the corrupt and the criminals was kept away
from the public eye and scrutiny by controlling the media, who were a part and
parcel of this criminal enterprise. Successive governments around the globe
shielded or avoided this touchy subject. The global conscience was jolted by a group
of journalists assembled under the umbrella of the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists know as ICIJ. It involves credible folks from 91 reputable
news organizations based in 100 countries. They started in 2014 and were able to
pierce the corporate veil gaining access to papers leaked from Mossack Fonseca, a
mammoth undertaking shielding the criminals.
In 2016, they revealed the Panama Papers. Nawaz Sharif and his offsprings were
front and centre in this exposé. It was followed by Paradise Papers that involved
tech giant Apple, associates of Trump, and Vladimir Putin. Pandora Papers is a
much bigger deal than the previous ones. It identifies leaders and public officials in
100 countries including 100 billionaires involving 29,000 offshore accounts.
Pakistani elite was not left behind. 700 public figures have been named. The blood-
sucking elites belong to politics, armed forces, and media as well connected
businessmen. Four out of five named media personalities belong to Pakistan. The
nexus of power, politics, judiciary, business and bureaucracy have usurped this
nation’s resources. Their crimes go unchecked and unpunished. The laws have been
manipulated to shield their misdeeds. The judicial system is without teeth and
incapable of dispensing justice to punish these culprits.
Increasingly, PM IK is becoming an isolated voice in this sea of criminality. The

compromised media and the “Consortium of the Corrupt” want him gone. His team
is anaemic. There can be no delivery of the promised reforms through the imbeciles
sitting in the Parliament. We are a rusted pail with a leaking bottom. Patchwork will
not work. An overhaul of the system dispensing ruthless justice is the only option if
we have to survive and turn around the nation.
The writer is the director of CERF, a non-profit, charitable organisation in Canada.

Biden the Realist | Foreign Affairs
JOSHUA SHIFRINSON
JOSHUA SHIFRINSON is Associate Professor of International Relations at Boston
University and the author of Rising Titans, Falling Giants: How Great Powers Exploit
Power Shifts
President Joe Biden was supposed to return U.S. foreign policy to its pre-Trump
path. A septuagenarian with a half century of experience in national politics, he was
the presidential candidate who most clearly embodied the American establishment.
Surely, the expectation went, he would bring back the United States’ pursuit of
political and military preeminence designed to reshape the world in its own image.
Biden even presented the restoration of U.S. leadership in global affairs as his
hallmark: “America is back,” he proclaimed after taking office.
But Biden’s decision to terminate the U.S. war in Afghanistan has revealed another
side of the United States’ 46th president. In ending the two-decades-long war, Biden
rejected every “liberal internationalist” premise of the enterprise, including the
notion that building a democratic Afghanistan and transforming the region served
U.S. interests or advanced universal values. He repeatedly argued that the United
States had only one valid reason to use force there: to “get the terrorists who
attacked us on 9/11” and might attack again. Once that objective had been achieved,
the United States had no business waging war. It was for “the Afghan people alone
to decide their future,” he said, including whether they would live in a Western-style
democracy or under Taliban rule.
The Taliban’s swift takeover, far from changing Biden’s mind, seems to have only
affirmed his views about the limits of U.S. military power—in Afghanistan and
elsewhere. Ending the war was “about ending an era of major military operations to
remake other countries,” he said after the last U.S. soldier left Afghanistan.
All this might surprise those who detect a “Biden doctrine” aiming to assert
American power and defend democracy across the globe. Yet the Biden who
terminated the United States’ longest war has been hiding in plain sight.
Throughout his career, Biden has put the pragmatic pursuit of national security over
foreign policy orthodoxy. For more than a decade, that calculus has made him a
critic of regime-change wars and other efforts to promote American values by
military force.
Although his predecessor, Donald Trump, gave voice to similar impulses, it is Biden
who offers a more coherent version of pragmatic realism—a mode of thought that
prizes the advancement of tangible U.S. interests, expects other states to follow their
own interests, and changes course to get what the United States needs in a
competitive world. If Biden continues to apply this vision, he will deliver a welcome
change from decades of overassertive U.S. foreign policy that has squandered lives
and resources in pursuit of unachievable goals.

LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE
Since entering the Senate in 1973, Biden has stood out for adapting his foreign
policy views to changing domestic and international circumstances. He struck a
moderate line early in his national political career when confronted with Americans’
weariness with the war in Vietnam in the 1970s and mounting tensions with the
Soviet Union in the 1980s. He opposed sending additional military aid to South
Vietnam in 1975 as North Vietnam launched its final offensive. And when President
Ronald Reagan launched a massive military buildup to increase pressure on the
Soviet Union, he voted against many of the administration’s top priorities.
Notably, Biden voted against the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq. “What vital interests of
the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi
Arabia?” he asked. He also worried that U.S. troops would unfairly shoulder most of
the casualties and that “the enmity of the Arab world” would be directed toward the
United States.
Biden’s views shifted, however, after the Soviet Union collapsed and the United
States attained unipolar dominance. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Biden emerged as a leading proponent of enlarging NATO—a
policy that created new, open-ended security commitments for the United States at
the time when the “vital interests” involved were highly debatable. He contended
that enlargement would guarantee “another 50 years of peace” in Europe as well as
redress the “historical injustice” of Stalinist domination in Eastern Europe.
Recanting his opposition to the earlier Gulf War, Biden championed U.S.-led
military intervention against Serbia in the Bosnian war and the Kosovo crisis. After
the 9/11 attacks, Biden voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan and, with some
reservations, the war in Iraq. One week into the United States’ “shock and awe”
campaign, he expressed hope that the invasion would “put Iraq on the path to a
pluralistic and democratic society.”
Yet once the wars faltered, Biden adapted again. In the face of insurgencies in
Afghanistan and Iraq, he grew skeptical of both U.S. state-building missions. In
2006, Biden put forward his most distinctive foreign policy proposal to that point:
he advocated dividing Iraq into a federal system along sectarian lines, paving the
way for the U.S. military’s withdrawal from the country. Without acquiring an
antiwar reputation, Biden was looking for an exit from Iraq. Accordingly, he bluntly
opposed the U.S. “surge” of troops into Iraq when it was first floated in 2006,
describing it as “the absolute wrong strategy.”
Biden has consistently put the pragmatic pursuit of U.S. national security
over foreign policy orthodoxy.
Biden’s opposition to large wars with inflated goals only deepened as vice president.
He was nearly alone among President Barack Obama’s senior advisers in dissenting
from the administration’s decision to surge U.S. forces into Afghanistan from 2009
to 2011. Biden reasoned that the U.S.-backed Afghan government had insuperable
flaws that made a complete victory over the Taliban insurgency impossible. He
instead counseled a narrow counterterrorism mission targeting al Qaeda and related
groups.
It is possible Biden wanted to go even further. In his diary, U.S. envoy Richard
Holbrooke recounted that Biden wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan entirely.
During one particularly contentious debate, Holbrooke recounted Biden yelling, “I
am not sending my boy back there to risk his life on behalf of women’s rights!”
Advancing liberal values at gunpoint, he explained, “just won’t work, that’s not what
[U.S. troops are] there for.”
Biden also appears to have been a voice of caution within the Obama
administration on other foreign policy debates. He expressed concern about
launching the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden,
suggesting that the United States gather additional intelligence before taking a step
that could imperil relations with Pakistan. Biden also claims to have opposed the
bombing of Libya that same year. At the time, he publicly urged U.S. NATO allies to
take over the mission from the United States. “We can’t do it all,” Biden said,
underscoring that Libya was peripheral to “our strategic interest” in the region.
To Biden’s critics, his shifts on foreign policy no doubt seem opportunistic. His
supporters, meanwhile, can herald his willingness to learn from experience. But
Biden’s trajectory from Cold War moderate to liberal-hegemony enthusiast to
nation-building skeptic contains a through line: he has always regarded U.S.
security as the paramount basis of foreign policy, and has been willing to reassess
how to advance American interests in light of new conditions and stubborn realities.
And this pragmatic realism may augur even more sweeping changes to American
foreign policy now that he resides in the White House.
AFTER AFGHANISTAN
Afghanistan represents the starkest example of Biden’s pragmatic realist streak. He
ended the war swiftly after concluding that doing so would benefit the United States,
heeding the strong preference of the U.S. public and resisting pressure from the
Pentagon and many foreign policy elites to renew the U.S. state-building project. In
justifying his decision, Biden insisted that U.S. service members should be sent into
combat only to defend the United States. As an animated Biden told an interviewer
during his presidential campaign, “The responsibility I have is to protect America’s
national self-interest and not put our women and men in harm’s way to try to solve
every single problem in the world by use of force.”
Afghanistan may be just the beginning. Biden has ordered the Defense Department
to conduct a “global posture review” of the United States’ forward deployments. If
the review acts on the insight of General Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint
chiefs of staff, that many existing deployments were “developed during the Cold
War,” it could recommend a significant restructuring of the U.S. military footprint.
The administration has already signaled its intention to “right-size” the U.S. military
presence in the Middle East and has recently begun that process by pulling
antimissile systems out of Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Biden may also
become the first president in three decades to avoid the enlargement of NATO: he
has soft-pedaled talk of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, although he has
continued to send military aid to the country.
To be sure, Biden has often framed U.S. relations with China and Russia in
ideological terms. He has vowed to disprove the notion that “autocracy is the wave
of the future” by demonstrating the continued vitality of American democratic
institutions. Yet Biden’s actual policies toward the two powers betray his pragmatic
bent. Rather than merge the countries into a single specter of an authoritarian
menace, Biden has prioritized competition with a rising China well above that with a
weaker Russia. He has aimed to establish a “stable and predictable relationship”
with the latter, an approach that seeks to limit bilateral tensions and potentially
enable the United States to focus on counterbalancing China.

If Biden continues to apply this vision, he will deliver a welcome change
from decades of overassertive U.S. foreign policy.
As he did during the Cold War, Biden has taken steps designed to open the door to
negotiated resolutions to disputes with the United States’ geopolitical rivals. He
chose to hold his first major bilateral summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin
and has also signaled his interest in meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Diplomacy, he said after his summit with Putin, does not depend on trusting the
other party. It requires merely that both sides have mutual interests and establish
understandings based on those interests. “This is about self-interest and verification
of self-interest,” Biden emphasized. “It’s just pure business.”
At times, Biden’s own rhetoric can obscure his most distinctive foreign policy
instincts. He has expressed revulsion at Trump for embracing “all the thugs in the
world” and vowed that “human rights will be the center of our foreign policy”—a
claim that is hard to square with his unapologetic defense of vital national interests
as the sole grounds for war. And in December, he plans to hold the first of two
“Summits for Democracy” intended to help the world’s democracies defend against
authoritarianism and show they can deliver for their citizens. Contrasted with
Trump and his affinity for autocrats, Biden may sound like he is returning to the
United States’ muscular promotion of liberalism and democracy abroad.
Still, most of Biden’s statements and actions are consistent with an outlook that puts
national security above all other considerations. Likewise, the Summits for
Democracy so far do not reflect a substantial effort either to expand U.S. alliances
with democracies or to restrict U.S. alliances to liberal states. After all, pro-
democracy rhetoric has not precluded the Biden administration from deepening ties
with authoritarian states such as Thailand and Vietnam and increasingly illiberal
democracies such as India and the Philippines. The summits may simply reflect the
fact that Biden supports democracy, liberal values, and human rights—without
thinking they should be promoted at the point of a gun or dictate U.S. defense
obligations.
RESHAPING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

If the Biden administration continues to prize pragmatic realism above liberal
primacy, far-reaching changes may be in store for U.S. foreign policy. The security-
focused analysis that Biden applied to Afghanistan would also lead to force
reductions elsewhere in the world. The thousands of ground troops currently in Iraq
and Syria to prevent a future resurgence of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS)
are an obvious place to start. Their deployment violates Biden’s stated requirement
to “set missions with clear, achievable goals” because success can never be verifiably
achieved.
For the same reason, Biden ought to assess whether the United States’
counterterrorism operations are targeting only those groups with the capability and
intent to attack the United States. In recent years, the United States has engaged in
anti-terror strikes, exercises, and training missions in approximately 85
countries across the globe. Although many efforts targeted al Qaeda and other
groups that threaten the U.S. homeland, some targeted organizations such as the
Somalia-based al Shabab and groups in the Sahel and Latin America that are less
clearly able to attack the United States. If Biden’s assessment yields even a murky
result, then he should wind down the “war on terror,” lest he hand an “open-ended
mission,” as he described the Afghanistan war, to his successor.

Biden will need to act boldly just to disentangle the United States from the greater
Middle East. But at a time when China is rising and the United States requires
serious domestic reform, he should think even bigger: his administration can work
to cap if not cut U.S. commitments in Europe and avoid an excessively militarized
and zero-sum approach in Asia. Unlike his predecessors, he could embrace
mounting calls for a European defense force outside American control, so as to pass
responsibility for the continent’s security into European hands. And in the Indo-
Pacific, despite Biden’s call for “extreme competition” with China, his pragmatic
instincts ought to keep him from making an explicit guarantee to defend Taiwan or
otherwise enlarging the United States’ already extensive regional commitments.
Biden’s pragmatic realism is not a cure-all.
However, Biden’s pragmatic realism is not a cure-all. On key questions, his foreign
policy instincts pull in opposite directions. Biden’s sensitivity to political currents
allowed him to end the war in Afghanistan, but the remaining U.S. wars have less
public salience, even if their strategic rationale may be no less dubious. Indeed,
Biden went along with the Obama administration’s expansion of the war on terror
via aerial strikes and commando operations, even as he soured on nation-building
occupations. His pragmatism may keep him from taking political risks that a
rigorous realist perspective requires.
Pragmatism could also make Biden move too slowly to shrink outmoded
commitments that no longer advance American security. If Europeans can defend
themselves, merely maintaining the current size of NATO is not enough—Biden
should actively reduce the U.S. role in the alliance. More important, Biden’s all-of-
the-above approach toward China—intensifying geopolitical rivalry, welcoming
cooperation on common challenges, and preserving room for diplomacy—may seem
pragmatic in the short run but may come to look unachievable and undisciplined
years in the years ahead. Biden should take advantage of the manageable military
threat that China still poses to prioritize diplomatic engagement on such issues as
climate change and trade and tamp down on the domestic demonization of China,
lest a new cold war take hold.
The opening months of Biden’s presidency have shown that even seasoned
politicians are capable of surprises—especially if their hallmark is to change with the
times. Biden is certainly no radical. But after decades of foreign policy radicalism
that has created a string of disasters, his approach may at least begin to revitalize
the United States’ role in the world.

Why Afghanistan Fell | Foreign Affairs
AJMAL AHMADY
AJMAL AHMADY served as Central Bank Governor of Afghanistan from June 3,
2020, until August 15, 2021. He is now a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy
School
“The current conditions in Afghanistan do not lend themselves well to the

consolidation of democracy.” That’s what I wrote in 2007, when I was a young
student at the Harvard Kennedy School. Even then, it was clear that the forces
threatening to undermine the new democratic Afghan state would likely prove too
powerful for it to withstand. Despite my analysis, I returned home and attempted to
help build the new government, first as senior economic adviser to President Ashraf
Ghani, then as minister of industry and commerce, and, most recently, as central
bank governor. In the end, 14 years after I wrote those words, the Taliban retook
Afghanistan and democracy died overnight.
From my vantage point working for the government in Kabul until August 15, when
I scrambled to board a C-17 to escape the country, I had a front-row seat to what
went wrong. For years, the Afghan government was plagued by political infighting,
corruption, and national security and law enforcement leaders who abused their
positions of power or had little to no experience. Thus, when the United States
brokered the Doha peace deal with the Taliban in February 2020, it dealt an already
weak Afghan government a devastating blow. As the United States and the
international community started heading for the exits, other regional players,
especially Pakistan, took additional steps to further shift the balance of power to the
Taliban. As these external drivers shaped the country’s future, Afghan political
actors did not adjust accordingly. When the United States decided to fully withdraw
its troops, these same leaders continued to compete for power rather than plan for
the worst-case scenario.
I typically did not discuss security issues with the president, but in early August,
after he asked me to become finance minister when Khalid Payenda resigned and
fled the country, I expressed concerns about the deteriorating situation. At this
point, most rural districts and many provincial capitals in northern Afghanistan had
already fallen to the Taliban. Ghani replied that the security forces required six
months to reconfigure and realign themselves. The comment seemed out of touch
with the rapidly advancing Taliban. I wanted instead to hear the one-week plan.
Ghani then stated that he was in talks to bring in other external security contractors
and also expressed frustration that U.S. General Austin Miller, commander of U.S.
forces in Afghanistan until he left on July 12, never discussed the drawdown in
detail with him. Less than a week after my conversation with Ghani, Kabul fell to the
Taliban.
This combination of U.S. betrayal and disbelief on the part of Afghan leaders set the
stage for the government’s swift collapse. Any accounting of what went so horribly

wrong needs to acknowledge this confluence of external and internal factors, which
worked to reinforce each other as the state hurtled toward its downfall.
Pulling the Rug From Under

In February 2020, in the final year of the administration of President Donald
Trump, the United States signed the Doha agreement with the Taliban. The
negotiations, led by U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan
Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad, and the resulting deal legitimized the Taliban
while undermining the Afghan government: the United States was negotiating with
a terrorist organization while excluding a country with which Washington had a
bilateral security agreement. As part of its deal with the Taliban, the United States
agreed to withdraw its troops and, in return, the Taliban committed to not attack
U.S. troops as they left. The arrangement also required the Afghan government to
release 5,000 Taliban prisoners, which it did reluctantly. At the time, Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo even criticized the Afghan government for not releasing them
quickly enough. Now, some of those same men make up key parts of the Taliban
leadership.
By shifting the balance of power toward the Taliban, the Doha agreement helped
create the conditions for the state’s collapse. Although Khalilzad is a seasoned
diplomat, he was perhaps too close to the issue. He and Ghani were in the same
international student exchange program in the United States decades ago, and there
is well-known animosity between the two men. This meant that in addition to being
about the future of two countries, the Doha deal was about two individuals. With
Ghani and the Afghan government left on the sidelines, the deal contributed to the
worst-possible outcome. It would have been far better if the U.S. military simply left
Afghanistan, rather than signing a deal with the Taliban on the way out.
The Doha agreement helped create the conditions for the Afghanistan's
collapse.
U.S. President Joe Biden reinforced the problem by announcing within a few
months of his arrival in the White House that he would comply with the
commitments made by the Trump administration to withdraw all U.S. troops from
Afghanistan, even if on a delayed timeline. This decision ran contrary to the advice
of both the Afghanistan Study Group, a bipartisan task force created by the U.S.
Congress, and U.S. military leadership. In recent U.S. Senate testimony, General
Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, clearly stated that he had
recommended maintaining 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan and warned that removal
of such troops would lead to the collapse of the government. But Biden had long
been skeptical of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. In 2008, as a senator, he traveled
to Kabul and had dinner with Hamid Karzai, then president of Afghanistan.
Frustrated with Karzai’s denials about corruption, Biden reportedly threw down his
napkin and stormed out. As vice president, he opposed the 2009 troop surge. In an
August 19 interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, Biden said that he
would have found a way to withdraw U.S. troops even without Trump’s Doha deal.
Given the Afghan National Security Forces’ dependence on logistical and air support
from international forces, the decision to withdraw troops and all its associated
contractors in such a short period of time significantly weakened ANSF capabilities.
The Taliban, in contrast, enjoyed consistent external support, above all from
Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence directorate. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, the
former president of Pakistan, was famously quoted as saying that Pakistan always
sought to keep the temperature boiling in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s most important
contribution was providing sanctuary to the Taliban. “Make no mistake: The Taliban
operated from Pakistan consistently,” former U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter
said at an event last week at Harvard University. "It's no accident that [Osama] Bin
Laden was in Abbottabad. It's no accident that [Sirajuddin] Haqqani's running the
place now. Where did Haqqani spend the last couple of decades? In
Western Pakistan." The previous ISI director, Faiz Hameed, even visited Kabul on
September 4, looking quite relaxed as he met with Taliban leaders. Two days later,
an interim Taliban government was announced and it included key posts for leaders
of the Haqqani network, a militant group with links to al Qaeda that received refuge
in Pakistan and is viewed as an ally of the ISI.
Other regional actors also played a role. China approved of Pakistan’s support for
the Taliban, with the aim of countering perceived Indian interests in Afghanistan
and to help make the United States seem like an unreliable partner. Iran was
unhappy when, under pressure from the United States, the Afghan Central Bank
sanctioned Aryan Bank, an Afghan subsidiary of an Iranian bank, in 2018. It also
complained about the construction of dams along Afghan rivers that flowed into
Iran. Russia supported and legitimized the Taliban through the Moscow process,
negotiations that took place between the Taliban and the Afghan government and
were hosted by Russia, in order to undermine the Afghan government.
The Center Cannot Hold

Thanks to its own weakness, the Afghan government was unable to withstand these
external forces. Part of the problem was Ghani’s approach to governance. He was
more interested in long-term state development than in appeasing domestic
political actors. This made enemies of local power brokers who had, for better or
worse, maintained strong regional security networks—including former Vice
President Abdul Rashid Dostum in Jowzjan, Atta Nur in Balkh, and Ismail Khan in
Herat. This left Ghani with too few allies as he centralized decision-making, relying
instead on best-practice institutional structures—a single treasury account, a single
procurement authority, and a single chain of command for the military. If Ghani
had had more time in office and more external support, his state-centric approach
might have been the correct one for the country. But he miscalculated when it came
to the opposition of both domestic and international political actors to his policies.
He should have known better – Amanullah Khan, the Afghan king who led the
country to independence from Britain in 1919, was overthrown almost 100 years
earlier for trying to make reforms too rapidly. Ghani refused to adjust to changing
circumstances, and his governing strategy failed.
But Ghani wasn’t alone in this. As the United States negotiated with the Taliban and
later, as the Taliban advanced across the country toward Kabul, other Afghan
politicians did little to strengthen the Afghan government and instead focused on
their own political futures. Ghani’s rival Abdullah Abdullah contested the
presidential election results in 2020—and, in March of that year, even held a
parallel inauguration. It was the third time he had run for president and lost. Karzai
also wanted to return to the political stage and was reputed to be angling to become
president again in an interim arrangement with the Taliban. Since he left the
government in 2018, former Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal thought he could
convince the Taliban that he could help them become legitimate in the eyes of the
international community. Other domestic politicians, including Mir Rahman
Rahmani, Ahmad Zia Massoud, and Mohammad Younus Qanooni, flew to
Islamabad on the day Kabul fell to seek some sort of political influence with the
Taliban via the Pakistani government. These politicians thought they could obtain
better political outcomes in a power-sharing arrangement with the Taliban, but they
lost on both ends of the bargain: they weakened the country and have obtained no
position in the new Taliban government.
Corruption was ensconced in the Afghan state.
This all took place against a backdrop of corruption—another key domestic driver of
state weakness. I would be the last to argue that there was no corruption in
Afghanistan. There clearly was. But Afghanistan had been making slow incremental
progress on this front. Afghanistan’s score in the annual Transparency
International Corruption Perceptions Index improved from 11 out of 100 in 2015 to
19 in 2020; its Parliament passed significant new legislation that improved
transparency in the natural resources sector; and the government created an
independent anticorruption council. As head of the central bank, I ensured that
central bank accounts were connected electronically to all commercial banks in the
country, in order to make government salary payments fully electronic, which over
time could have significantly reduced the presence of “ghost workers” and ensured
transparency in the payment of salaries to soldiers and police. But these actions
were clearly too little, too late. Corruption was ensconced in the Afghan state.
Finally, there were consequential leadership failures among security officials. The
ANSF fought bravely over the last two decades. But National Security Adviser
Hamdullah Mohib, one of Ghani’s close associates, had no military or intelligence
background and made sure that all military appointments had to be approved by
him. In October 2020, Mohib appointed new provincial district governors and
district police chiefs throughout Afghanistan, most of whom had no connection to
the local communities they were overseeing.
What’s more, frequent senior-level changes to military leaders led to confusion and
continual shifts in strategy. During a critical period throughout much of 2020 and
2021, acting Minister of Defense Asadullah Khalid was sick and out of the country
for many months. It was never clear why Khalid was left in his position during this
time, although Ghani mentioned to me that the U.S. military wanted him to remain
there. Then, in June 2021, as the military situation worsened, Ghani replaced both
the defense and interior ministers, as well as the army chief of staff. At no point did
the military seem to be planning a high-level strategy for the protection of major
cities. And, in the end, it was a surprise to me to see Minister of Defense Bismillah
Khan departing the country, seated comfortably, on the same flight I scrambled to
board.
Interconnected Failures
None of these factors alone was responsible for the collapse of the Afghan state. But
they interacted and reinforced one another in ultimately fatal ways. Leadership
failures in the Afghan security sector, for example, were exacerbated by Biden’s
decision to rapidly withdraw not only all remaining international forces but also all
associated contractors. Only three years earlier, the United States had stopped
buying Russian-produced Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan military and switched to
U.S.-made UH-60 Black Hawks. But there was no time to train enough Afghan
pilots and maintenance crews required to operate the new fleet of U.S. helicopters,
which were more advanced and complex machines. With the withdrawal of
international troops and contractors, the ability of the Afghan military to project
power through its air force significantly declined.

The fallout and sense of betrayal from the Doha agreement deepened the bickering
between Ghani, Abdullah, and Karzai, further weakening any sense of a strong,
central government. Karzai and Abdullah continued to push for an interim
government, which Ghani opposed. Given the Taliban opposition to Ghani during
the peace negotiations, Khalilzad then reportedly encouraged Karzai and others to
consider themselves candidates for a negotiated interim president position. In the
end, it didn’t matter. The Taliban surrounded Kabul, and Ghani fled.
We will undoubtedly debate the reasons for the Afghan state’s quick collapse and
cast blame for a long time to come. Understanding what led to its rapid downfall
will, eventually, allow others to learn from our experience and formulate
appropriate policy responses. In the meantime, the consequences will be borne—yet
again—by Afghan citizens who had no say in any of these matters.

Can Berlin Get Tough on Beijing? | Foreign
Affairs
IAN JOHNSON
IAN JOHNSON is Stephen A. Schwarzman Senior Fellow for China Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations
Like all leaders who stay on too long, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has left her
successor with an inbox of unfinished business—but also with opportunities to
revise policies that have outlived their usefulness. Nowhere is that better illustrated
than in Germany’s moribund strategy toward China.
Early on, Merkel was nimble and self-confident in dealing with China. She quickly
made China one of her foreign policy priorities: she visited China just six months
after taking office in late 2005, the first of 12 visits, more than all her predecessors
combined. That made China her most visited country after Russia, the United
States, and Germany’s European neighbors.
Merkel also seemed able to balance interests that tripped up other world leaders.
She was a welcome guest in China, helping open doors for German businesses and
making Germany one of the most popular foreign countries in China. Germany
provided the machine tools needed for China’s rapid industrialization and the most
popular car brands in what has become the world’s largest automobile market. Last
year, China was Germany’s biggest single trading partner, eclipsing the United
States and every EU country.
At the same time, Merkel didn’t hesitate to speak out on human rights. In 2007, she
met the Dalai Lama in her office and shrugged off the subsequent anger of Chinese
officials. She also supported an EU arms embargo on China, despite coming under
pressure from industry leaders to drop it. She tried to arrange for the ill Nobel Peace
Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo to leave China for medical treatment and later successfully
pressed Chinese leader Xi Jinping to let Liu’s widow, Liu Xia, emigrate to Germany.
Merkel’s strategy made sense on many levels. Germany has no major strategic
interests in the Pacific and depends largely on trade for its prosperity. Finding a way
to benefit from China’s rise while maintaining Germany’s democratic principles was
feasible. That was especially true when she took office; back then, China was
relatively open under the leadership of President Hu Jintao and his premier, Wen
Jiabao. Beijing may not always have pursued economic reforms with vigor, but it did
allow Chinese civil society a greater degree of freedom.
The idea that trade and engagement could change China resonated especially
strongly in Germany. The old West German strategy of pursuing Wandel durch
Handel (change through trade) in its dealings with the Soviet Union contributed to
the breakdown of barriers and the building of trust that allowed Germany to reunify
with little Soviet opposition. In their dealings with China, Merkel and other German
policymakers saw a reflection of their country’s own transformation. Unfortunately
for them, China went the other way—and German policy struggled to adjust.
THE GROUND SHIFTED BENEATH HER FEET
Even before Xi assumed leadership in 2012, the Chinese Communist Party was
tightening its grip on society and the economy. Under Xi, these trends accelerated
and deepened, leading to a reassertion of control over parts of the economy, a
crackdown on the once freewheeling city-state of Hong Kong, and an aggressive
policy of Chinese cultural assimilation in the Turkic border region of Xinjiang.
Merkel’s China policy, however, did not truly respond to these changes. Even after
China sanctioned German academics and think tanks (about which she said
nothing) in March of last year in response to EU sanctions to punish China for
alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron
pushed through the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) between the
EU and China. This was a trade deal meant to win market access for European firms
in China—but it sidestepped the most contentious issues, such as government
control over key industries and the lack of a comprehensive way to resolve disputes.
German and French officials rammed the deal through on December 30—two days
before Germany’s term in the EU’s rotating presidency ended—showing just how
keen Merkel was to make commerce the cornerstone of Europe’s future relations
with China.
Merkel did not truly respond to the authoritarian turn in China.
Merkel’s commitment to trade with China irrespective of its authoritarian turn

under Xi reflects a kind of skepticism about the ability of open societies to survive.
Policymakers seem to doubt Europe’s ability to stand up to Chinese coercion in the
future, especially in the not altogether outlandish scenario in which the United
States returns to some version of Trumpism and its relative indifference to
traditional allies. Better to nail down a trade agreement now, before Europe’s
bargaining position further weakens.
Overall, however, Merkel’s approach is to manage problems rather than to

anticipate them. She has adeptly dealt with crises and challenges at home and
abroad, but mostly in a reactive way that doesn’t suggest a coherent and consistent
strategy. The chancellor counterbalanced her boldest move—allowing a million
refugees to emigrate to Germany in 2015—two years later when she pledged that
“2015 must not be repeated.” In the process, she ducked the politically charged issue
of encouraging regular flows of immigrants to Germany, something the country
badly needs as its workforce ages and dwindles.
The ground has also shifted out from under Merkel inside her own country. In early
2019, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) issued an influential paper calling
China a “systemic competitor”—not just a country prone to some unfair economic
practices but a country that wanted to supplant its competitors.
That was followed two months later by a European Union paper that largely
mirrored the BDI’s claims, analyzing China in a tripartite frame: Beijing is
simultaneously a potential partner in solving global issues, an economic competitor,
and a systemic rival. The widespread change of attitude was also reflected in the
European Parliament’s rejection of the CAI earlier this year. Merkel may have stuck
to her decade-old approach to China, but most of Europe was moving on.
A NEW LANDSCAPE
Recent national elections in Germany will likely push the country’s dealings with
China in new directions. The mixed results of the vote allow for only three possible
ruling coalitions. One is a grand coalition led by Olaf Scholz’s center-left Social
Democrats and Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats—now under the
leadership of her successor, Armin Laschet—as junior partners. Both parties,
however, have rejected that option.
That leaves two other possibilities, both of which involve the Greens and the
Liberals joining up with either the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats—
two options that likely will mean significant changes in Germany’s China policy.
That is because both the Greens and the Liberals are among the sharpest critics of
Merkel’s China policy, and in both scenarios, either the Greens or the Liberals (most
likely the Greens) would get control of the Foreign Ministry.
Recent elections in Germany will push the country’s dealings with China in
new directions.
An analysis of party platforms by the German think tank Merics has shown what
could happen under the most likely outcome—a coalition of the Social Democrats,
the Greens, and the Liberals. All three favor condemning China’s human rights
violations and preserving Hong Kong’s autonomy. They also favor crafting more
Europe-wide protections, such as the 2019 EU investment-screening mechanism,
which aimed to prevent foreign enterprises from buying up strategic industries. EU
officials introduced the mechanism after high-profile Chinese purchases of utilities
and advanced technology companies in EU member states.
Embracing this sort of agenda could return Germany to a more forceful foreign
policy toward China, echoing the period from 1998 to 2005 when the Greens’
Joschka Fischer was foreign minister. Motivated by the party’s strong positions on
human rights, Fischer advocated for German participation in the Kosovo war and
the stationing of troops in Afghanistan.
This does not mean that a new German government will immediately confront
China. Under Merkel, policy toward China became a Kanzlersache (the chancellor’s
business), especially given the economic importance of maintaining good ties. This
is unlikely to change dramatically under Scholz, although it wouldn’t prevent the
new foreign minister from speaking out on human rights violations.
SPEAKING TRUTH TO CHINA

The European consensus of seeing China as simultaneously a partner, a competitor,
and a rival has now been taken up by most Western countries, including the United
States under President Joe Biden. But what that understanding means in practice is
unclear. Should it spark more trade sanctions, even though they do not seem to
work? Should Germany prepare for more military engagement in the Asia-Pacific
region, even though such actions would be largely symbolic, given Germany’s (and
Europe’s) limited military capacity?
One option that too often gets short shrift is simply for German leaders to speak out
more forcefully in favor of what they believe—explicitly underlining what they see as
acceptable norms. This forthrightness can help show that although Berlin isn’t
trying to isolate Beijing, open societies will not accept China as a fully “normal”
country as long as it pursues repression at home and expansionism abroad.
(Germany is in a better position to take the moral high ground here than is the
United States; witness the civility of the recent vote in Germany versus the debacle
that followed the 2020 U.S. presidential election.)

Germany could also bolster beleaguered democracies in the region, such as Taiwan.
After years of confronting Russian cyber-espionage, German officials have some
expertise in this area and could help advise their Taiwanese counterparts, at least as
a symbolic way of demonstrating to Taiwan that it is not alone.
Germany could also take another page out of the West German Cold War playbook
and advance another policy from that era: Wandel durch Annäherung (change
through rapprochement) in which West Germany agreed to cooperate with Soviet
bloc countries in exchange for commitments regarding human rights. In the words
of the German writer Jörg Lau, the policy’s success was the “creative combination of
incentives and pressure, economics and morality, values and interests.”
Skeptics will rightly point out that China is not the Soviet Union. It is far more
important economically and doesn’t need the West’s economic patronage, making it
less vulnerable to pressure on human rights. But this strategy, first advocated in
1963, still offers a useful reminder that trade and values can and should go hand in
hand. These ideas would let Germany break from the tiptoeing of Merkel’s later
years and allow it to draw from its own profound experience, as a country that knew
all too well the lures of authoritarianism but has since thrived as one of the world’s
great democratic success stories.


Down Newspaperss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Down Newspaperss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Down Newspaperss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Politics in chaos

Today, Afghanistan faces a

1 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

BI-WEEKLY DAWN EDITORIALS &

October 01 to Oct ,12___2021

▪ Foreign Policy and so on…

✍️ Deconstructed By: M.Usman

2 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

CSS Essay 34-42

How Pakistan Sees Afghanistan 44

3 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

5 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

6 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

▪ With terrorism topping American concerns about Afghanistan under the

▪ Prime Minister Imran Khan on October 8, 2021 ordered setting up of a special

▪ Overseas Pakistanis sent the highest-ever $8 billion remittances during the

▪ Investigative journalists Maria Ressa of the Philippines and Dmitry Muratov of

7 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

▪ Tanzanian-born novelist Abdulrazak Gurnah on October 7, 2021 won the

▪ Amid criticism by opposition parties, President Dr Arif Alvi on October 6, 2021

8 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

Which is the biggest economy to join COVAX Global Covid-19 vaccine

Correct Answer: B [China]

Correct Answer: C [Bangladesh]

3.Which country has successfully sent 13 satellites from a single rocket?

Correct Answer: B [China]

9 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

Correct Answer: D [China]

5.Where is the headquarters of UN Environment Programme – World

Correct Answer: C [Cambridge]

6.Which organisation has launched ‘Halo’ initiative to counter the

Correct Answer: B [UN]

Correct Answer: B [Japan]

8.The CLMV Countries are the group of countries belonging to which

Correct Answer: A [ASEAN]

Correct Answer: C [United Kingdom]

10.Gaofen-14 earth observation satellite has been sent to space by China

Correct Answer: C [Long March 3B]

11 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

12 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

IT is no secret that ties between Pakistan and the United States

13 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

Bedevil (this relationship) (verb) — to make something more worrying and

Govt unilateral decision making has bedeviled the relationship between

bluster (verb) — to talk/protest aggressively/threateningly to make a point

driven home a point (idiom) — to say something in a very strong or forceful

dial down (phrase) — to make something less forceful and extreme.

14 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

15 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

Initial reports about the finance ministry’s fresh interaction

16 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

On Thursday, thousands of people from all over the region gathered to

Wayforward for Govt:

17 (ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)

THE unemployment phenomenon underpins a number of large

In the present circumstances, Covid-19 and the months-long curbs on movement

According to the Labour Force Survey 2017-18;

▪ around 8.78m youth, 20 years or older, hold a Bachelor’s degree.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court during a suo motu hearing on

Critical Analysis of the issue: