Dear Aspirants!

Follow up the Colour

Guidelines for Best Reading Experience

COLOUR Psychology

RED COLOR INDICATES……MOST IMPORTANT

( For Indicating Difficult Vocabulary, Phrases and Idioms )

GREEN COLOUR SHOWS……JUST IMPORTANT

(Names, Abbreviations, rhetorical expression and Grammar)

PURPLE COLOUR IS USED FOR……. TITLES

( Headings, sub heading )

ICEP Dawn Analysis

DAWN EDITORIALS PLUS OPINIONS
DECONSTRUCTION

Dated: Thursday 09 July, 2020

BY: ICEP Analysts M.Usman & Rabia Kalhoro.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

Note:
We pick out Opinions from different Newspapers
related to:

#Competitive Exams
#Essay Writing
#Current Affairs
#Historical episodes
#Pakistan Affairs
# General Knowledge
# Global Issues
# Geopolitics
# International Relations
# Foreign Policy

ICEP Dawn Analysis

American exit | Dawn Editorial
INDEED, the American counterterrorism and nation-
building project in Afghanistan — much like the Soviet and
British imperial forays(attacks) in the past — has been an
unmitigated (absolute) disaster. While the US invaded
Afghanistan in the wake of (following after) 9/11
ostensibly to hunt down Al Qaeda and punish the Afghan
Taliban that sheltered;(protected) the transnational
terrorist conglomerate(group), today, nearly two decades
on, while Al Qaeda may be scattered, the Taliban are very
much in the ascendant(rising).

▪ And while Washington has lost over 2,400 personnel

and spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the effort,
there is not much to show for it as the Afghan
government and military are widely seen as incapable
of running and securing the country once their
Western sponsors depart.
▪ In such circumstances, and considering it is an
election year in America, President Donald Trump’s
haste(in hurry) to ‘bring the boys back home’ can be understood. But as a
trilateral (three) communiqué(official notice) jointly issued by Pakistan,
Afghanistan and China on Tuesday warned, America’s rush to get up and
leave before an intra-Afghan peace agreement is in place can pave the way
for the resurgence of terrorist groups.

Critical Analysis: The broad consensus is that if the US and other Western forces
leave without an agreement between Afghan stakeholders, the chaos that
ensued(happened resultently) after the Soviet withdrawal may be repeated. That is
why the three sides “urged for an orderly, responsible and condition-based
withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan. …” While the Afghan
government would have a tough time maintaining peace in a post-withdrawal
scenario, Pakistan and China also have legitimate security concerns, specifically if
terrorist groups use Afghanistan as a launching pad (easy target or position) to
destabilise the region. While the post-Soviet period saw rival Mujahideen warlords
battle each other as well as the government in Kabul, this time there are far more
bloodthirsty players waiting in the wings, namely the local chapter of the self-styled
Islamic State group. If foreign forces were to beat a hasty retreat, the government in
Kabul — a weak construct riven(tear apart) by ethnic and tribal rivalries — would
be faced with the gargantuan(gigantic) task of fending off(drive back) the Taliban,
IS and other militant groups alone.

Conclusion: There was a ray of hope when the US and Afghan Taliban signed a
peace agreement in Doha earlier this year. However, there has been no workable
counterpart agreement between the government in Kabul and Afghan
factions(groups), principally the Taliban, which is a recipe for disaster. The main
issue is the massive gulf of mistrust between Kabul and the Taliban; there is the
prickly(difficult one) question of prisoner exchanges between the two sides, while
the Taliban continue to hammer government forces. Both the Afghan government and
the Taliban need to reconsider their rigid positions for the sake of their country. On
its part, the US must realise that while its exit is long overdue(long ago required)
however a messy, hasty withdrawal will only add to Afghanistan’s problems.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis:
Use of Hyphen:

A hyphen is a bit of punctuation used to join together two (or more) different
words. When you use two words together as a single thought, then u can use
hyphen.

Examples of hyphenated words in red colour from the above Editorial:

I. an intra-Afghan peace agreement

II. in a post-withdrawal scenario
III. in condition-based withdrawal
IV. self-styled Islamic state group
V. While the post-soviet period
Fancy Adverbs used in the EDITORIAL:

▪ Ostensibly to hunt down

▪ Principally
▪ widely

Best Adjectives used in the EDITORIAL:

▪ Imperial forays
▪ Unmitigated disaster
▪ Transnational (multinational) terrorists
▪ bloodthirsty players
▪ Gigantic Task
▪ Prickly question

Rephrasing-Practice of rhetorical sentence:

Both the Afghan government and the Taliban need to reconsider their rigid
positions for the sake of their country

Analysis: This sentence is not that much complex . But If we try to put it in another
way;

▪ The Afghan government and the Taliban must, for their country's sake,
rethink their stagnant stances.

You can also practice it with your own selected sentences. It can enhance ur writing
skills.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

Sugar industry reform | Dawn Editorial
Introduction:

THE federal cabinet’s decision to form a Sugar Reforms

Committee indicates the government’s intention to eliminate
the widespread informality(chaos) in the country’s sugar
market. The decision comes as a legal battle rages(furiously
happening) between the government and the industry
association over the multiple inquiries ordered against
individuals and companies held responsible for the winter
sugar shortages and price hike (sudden increase). Though the
government is yet to share the mandate of the proposed
committee formed in light of the recommendations of the
probe commission report on the misuse of sugar and wheat
subsidies, the reforms body has reportedly been tasked with the
formulation of a long-term strategy for appropriately regulating and documenting the
sugar business, without waiting for the outcome of the court battle.

Critical Analysis: The sugar probe commission did well by bringing to light the
long-standing systemic problems in the sugar supply chain.

▪ For example, it has pointed out that the sugar industry is not regulated
properly. This allows politically powerful mill owners to fleece(cheat, deciet)
sugarcane growers, manipulate the domestic market, steal taxes and blackmail
governments into giving the industry huge subsidies in the name of smallholder
farmers and urban consumers.
▪ The findings of the report have also raised a number of questions regarding the
existing, flawed sugar policy and the lack of transparency in the distribution of
billions of rupees in subsidy. Government interventions in the sugar market
through direct and indirect subsidies given at different stages of the supply
chain are ostensibly necessitated by a ‘desire’ to ensure a fair cane price for
growers and lower rates of the sweetener for urban consumers for political
reasons. The probe report shows that none of these objectives are ever met
despite huge subsidy spending.

Thus, the committee will need to work on two fronts.

▪ One, it will be expected to propose actions to document the supply chain to

effectively regulate the business and prevent owners from manipulating the
market and stealing taxes.
▪ Two, it will be required to suggest changes in the existing sugar policy to
reduce the government’s presence in the market. This will involve the
elimination of price controls, removal of restrictions on the establishment of
new mills, revision in the policy regulating crop movement, and liberalising the
regime governing sugar imports and exports.

Conclusion:No sugar-sector reform effort can succeed unless the government

decides to pull itself out of the value chain to ensure competitive market practices by
shifting from price controls towards a liberal trade regime.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

Anti-student action | Dawn Editorial
Introduction:

IN a move that will be a blow(shocking hit) to foreign

students, American Immigration and Customs
Enforcement announced on Monday that international
students attending schools in the US may not take a full
online course load and remain in the US.

Key Points:

▪ The law-enforcement agency said those students

whose universities are operating fully online must
leave the country, transfer to in-person schools or face
deportation(exile).
▪ The announcement came just weeks after US President Donald Trump
suspended the entry of certain foreign workers to the US — a decision taken on
the pretext (because of…) that it would help the coronavirus-battered
economy but one which betrays Mr Trump’s anti-immigration motives.
▪ The fresh decision that orders foreign students to leave if they aren’t attending
school in person will have hugely negative consequences for the international
student body of about 1.2m in the US. Not only will it add to the already
uncertain situation they are facing as universities shut down and go online in a
Covid-battered country, it will unfairly force them to leave accommodations
they have paid for out of fear that they will be deported.

Critical Analysis:

The American government’s decision seems to be senseless, unfair and unjustifiable.

It flies in the face of the hopes of so many foreigners who pay thousands of dollars to
gain an education and experience university life which is so prized(highly valued) in
the US. Ahead of the election, Mr Trump appears to have pulled many a shocking
trick out of his hat, yet the recent move targeting foreign students is a new low and
perhaps among the most cruel and illogical.

▪ Not surprisingly, even as the United States becomes the country with the
highest Covid-19 death toll at 133,000 and 3m cases, Mr Trump tweeted this
week to say that universities should open this fall.

It appears that ICE’s(Immigration and Customs Enforcement) announcement will

exert pressure on universities to reopen even if they are not ready, therefore exposing
students to health risks. This narrow-minded and unjust decision must be rethought.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

Media Speech Control Is an Attempt to Control
Thought | National Review Opinion
By David Harsany

From CSS point of view it is helpful in covering English

vocabulary and current affairs

Attempting to dictate what words we use is a way to exert power

over our thoughts

ICEP Dawn Analysis

Introduction:

I recently ran across a piece in the Philadelphia In response to BLM

Inquirer (newspaper in USA) that lays out four moment in America:
racist words and phrases that should be banished
Twitter will remove
from the English language. It begins like this:
words of Slave and
Master

It is proposed that All

Steel yourself (be prepare mentally) brave
racist phrases and words
reader, here they are: should be exclude from
dictionary and English
▪ Peanut gallery
language.
▪ Eenie meenie miney moe
▪ Gyp There is a large battle of
▪ No can do semantics behind the
ordinary words.
The same grammarian who authored the piece had
previously confronted the “deeply racist Perhaps we should be
connotation” of the word “thug,” noting that more careful of words
president Donald Trump “wasn’t the least bit now.
bashful” when calling Minneapolis rioters
“thugs” in a tweet, despite the word’s obvious bigoted(prejudiced) history.
In 2015, President Barack Obama referred to Baltimore rioters as “thugs”
as well.

He likely did so because “thug” — defined as a “violent person, especially a

criminal” — is a good way to describe rioters. It’s true that not everyone in a
riot engages in wanton (lawless) violent criminality. Some participants are
merely “looters” — defined as “people who steal goods during a riot.” That
word is also allegedly imbued(filled) with racist conations, according to the
executive editor of the Los Angeles Times and others.

Attempting to dictate what words we can use is another way to exert power
over how we think. Few people, rightly, would have a problem with referring
to the Charlottesville(city in Virginia) Nazis as “thugs.” Only the
“protester” who tears down a Ulysses S. Grant(18th president of United
states) statue or participates in an Antifa riot is spared the indignity of being
properly defined.

The recent assaults on the English language have consisted largely of

euphemisms(Expression of offensive words in an inoffensive way) and
pseudoscientific gibberish(nonsensical words) meant to obscure objective
truths — “cisgender,” “heteronormativity,” and so on. Now we’re at the stage
of the revolution where completely inoffensive and serviceable words are
branded problematic.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

CNN report Analysis:

CNN recently pulled together its own list of words and phrases with racist
connotations that have helped bolster(strengthen) systemic racism in
America. Unsuspecting citizens, the piece explains, may not even be aware
they are engaging in this linguistic bigotry, because most words are “so
entrenched that Americans don’t think twice about using them. But some of
these terms are directly rooted in the nation’s history with chattel (a
personal possession). Others now evoke racist notions about Black people.”
Or, in other words, the meaning of these phrases and words are so obscured
by history that the average person wouldn’t even know to be offended if it
weren’t for CNN.

History of the racist words in English:

The term “peanut (insignificant) gallery” — as in “please, no comment from

the peanut gallery” — is racist because it harkens back(goes back) to the
days when poor and black Americans were relegated(assigned) to back
sections of theaters.

Now, I hate to be pedantic(meticulous), but “peanut gallery” isn’t “directly

rooted” in the nation’s history of “chattel slavery.” As CNN’s own double-
bylined story points out, the cliché wasn’t used until after the Civil War. For
that matter, few of the words and phrases that CNN alleges are problematic
are rooted, even in the most tenuous sense, to the transatlantic(beyond the
Atlantic ocean) slave trade.

Not even the word “slavery,” which is a concept as old as humankind, is in

any way uniquely American. Yet last week Twitter announced that it was
dropping “master” and “slave” from its coding, to create a “more inclusive
programming language.” Only in this stifling(suppressing) intellectual
environment is striking commonly used words considered “inclusive.” Other
tech companies are now “confronting” their use of these
innocuous(harmless)words to atone(to amend) for their imaginary crimes.

I feel zero guilt using the word “master.” Her performance was masterful.
She mastered her instrument. The score was a masterpiece. The composer
was a mastermind. Even CNN concedes that “while it’s unclear whether the
term is rooted in American slavery on plantations, it evokes that history.”

It’s not unclear, at all. The etymology of the word “master” is from the Old
English and rooted in the Latin “magister,” which means “chief, director,
teacher, or boss.” “Master’s” degrees were first given to university teachers
in the 14th century in Europe.

Until a few months ago, the “master bedroom” evoked visions of the larger
bedrooms, and the Masters Tournament evoked images of golfing legends
like Tiger Woods, winner of four titles. Simply because the Nazis used the
word “master” in their pseudoscientific racial theories — not in the 1840s,

ICEP Dawn Analysis

but in 1940s — doesn’t mean I am offended by the postmaster general.
We’re grownups here, and we can comprehend context.

American Discourse:

Or we used to be. The race-obsessed intellectuals who now dominate

American discourse circumvent all debate by stripping their critics of agency.
As one professor tells CNN, though many offensive phrases “didn’t originate
in times of slavery,” the use of words like “black” to describe basically
anything “is subconsciously racialized” rhetoric.

You might point that the term “blackballing” originated in late 18th century
from the practice of putting an actual black-colored ball in a ballot box to
vote “no,” and had absolutely nothing to do with chattel slavery, but your
racist subconscious tells a different story. Or you might point out that the
phrase “black mark” first appeared in Benjamin Disraeli’s 1842
novel Sybil — “Won’t there be a black mark against you?” —which is about
the English working class, and has as much do with chattel slavery as
“whitewashing” has to do with Irish indentured servitude, but it won’t
matter.

Honestly, I’m disappointed that CNN missed the commonly used

“blackmail” — a word that appears in 439 stories on their website. The
phrase was first used to describe protection money extracted by mid-16th-
century Scottish chieftains. Maybe it’s the Scots who should be offended.

In and of itself, depriving Americans of “eenie meenie miney moe” — a

phrase with an opaque(not transparent) and complicated history –isn’t
going to hurt anyone. Allowing ideological grievance mongers(dealer)to
decide what words we’re allowed to use, on the other hand . . . well, no can
do.

“If thoughts can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thoughts,”
Orwell famously wrote. Every time some new correct-speak emerges, CNN
and all the media will participate in browbeating(bully) us into
subservience. Progressive pundits will laugh off concerns about the
Orwellian slippery slope it poses. And all of them will immediately sign on
to the next round of rhetorical groupthink(collective decision) and further
degrade clear language and clear thinking.

Conclusion:

If we allow the seemingly innocuous attempts to control words and thoughts

go uncontested, more-nefarious control will be a lot easier in the future.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

 Important for current affairs

Fiscal anemia | Dawn Opinion

F.S. Aijazuddin

The writer is an author.

WHAT could be more disheartening for the new chairperson of the Federal Board
of Revenue Muhammad Javaid Ghani than to encounter, on his way in, the
tombstones of three of his predecessors? All three had been disposed of within two
years.

A musical chair depiction : frequently changing of FBR chairpersons

It is said lightning never strikes thrice. Yet out of all the senior posts in the federal
government, the top job in the FBR seems particularly accident-prone. Run down the
list of former chairpersons over the past 50 years, since 1971. You will find unusually
high casualties.

Mr. Muhammad Ms. Nausheen Muhammmad

Javed Ghani Javaid Amjad Shabbar Zaidi

(7-7-2020)-Present (8.4.2020-4.7.2020) (10.5.2019-8.4.2020)

Between 1971 and 1975, there were three. Another three (N.M. Qureshi, 1975-80;
Fazlur Rahman Khan, 1980-85; I.A. Imtiazi, 1985-1988) survived longer — a total of
13 years. However, between May 2009 and July 2020 (a period of just over 11
years), the FBR chair has seated 13 incumbents — an average of just under one
every fiscal year. Two women amongst them received shorter shrift. Ms Rukhsana
Yasmin lasted one month in 2018, and Ms Nausheen Javaid Amjad, inducted in April
this year, was ushered out by July.
ICEP Dawn Analysis
Ex-Chairperson Shabbar Zaidi’s views on tax collection and revenue
mobilization

The first of the four appointed by the present coalition government was Syed Shabbar
Zaidi, a senior chartered accountant. Some years before his selection, he had
articulated his views in an article he wrote for Dawn in 2015. In it, he held “taxes are
the price of civilisation. There can be no state, and no rule of law, without
proper revenue mobilisation. And revenues do not come walking through the
door of the tax authorities”. FBR chairpersons do, and are then expelled through its
revolving doors.

It is hardly surprising that the FBR has found it difficult to sustain its lofty vision.

Mr Zaidi lasted exactly one year in office. He might have stayed longer, had he
learned to dance like his chartered accountant predecessor Abdullah Yusuf. Mr
Yusuf felt no shame prancing (to walk in an energetic way and with more
movement than necessary) before an official audience in Islamabad, applauded by
president general Pervez Musharraf and prime minister Shaukat Aziz. Had they
presence of mind, they would have realised that their mis-gendered mujra was being
transmitted live across social media. It is now the more shameful part of FBR
folklore.

Vision of FBR : strained by high turnover of chairpersons

With such a high rate of turnover in its chairpersons, it is hardly surprising that the
FBR has found it difficult to sustain its lofty (dignified) vision, leave alone fulfil its
mission — (Vision of FBR) “to enhance the capability of the tax system to collect
due taxes through application of modern techniques, providing taxpayer
assistance and by creating a motivated, satisfied, dedicated and professional
workforce”.

Each year, the government looks to the FBR to collect taxes for funding and then,
disappointed by descending targets and insufficient revenues, it severs (cut off) the
FBR’s head to cure its own migraine. FBR’s sticky-fingered (thievish) collection
system remains untreatable.

FBR reports displays earnestness but real CNIC issued data remains
untraceable

The FBR, to demonstrate its earnestness, routinely publishes data on the increasing
number of taxpayers it has garnered. In March 2020, for example, it announced that
there were 373,877 new taxpayers, bringing the total number of persons who had
filed returns to 2,483,866. Compare that to 31.3 million personal bank account
holders and over 100m CNIC holders (the exact number of CNICs issued to
individuals by Nadra to date is not available).

To shame the public into cooperation, the FBR releases two directories — a Tax
Payers Directory for All Taxpayers and a Parliamentarians’ Directory of Tax Payers.
The latest editions are for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. Both are facts
derived from fiction. Now that the information in them is in the public domain, Mr
Jahangir Tareen will have no objection to the disclosure that in 2017, he paid income
tax of Rs97,317,272. Nor should Asad Umar. He paid Rs4,849,615 in taxes. Measure
that against the figure of Rs4,692,897 — the total tax paid by prime minister Imran
Khan over 36 years, from 1981 to 2017. And the FBR still does not know what to do
with Mian Nawaz Sharif’s contribution of Rs263,173 to the national exchequer.
ICEP Dawn Analysis
The ‘Pain of Penalty’ or ‘tax in riches’ : choosing alternatives

Is Mr Zaidi’s proposal — “the pain of penalty” — the only scourge to force the
moneyed classes to pay taxes? Shaikh Rashid bin Saeed al Maktoum, the sage ruler
of Dubai, had a novel solution. As his emirate became Croesus-rich, he imposed a
nominal municipal tax. When his subjects complained, he mollified (relieve) them
with the explanation that if he imposed taxes when times were stringent, the public
would react. Tax them during a time of affluence (abundance) and they would
hardly notice.

Suggestions to FBR for increasing the amount to add in govt. Treasury

Is it beyond the imagination of the government to collect a nominal amount, say

Rs100, from every CNIC holder to begin with? Once 100 million-plus adults are in
the tax net, increase that amount annually. Even arsenic ingested in small doses can
be therapeutic.

Pakistan is in danger of collapsing not from FBR’s poison but from being
weakened by recurring bouts of fiscal anaemia.

Description of Idiomatic Expressions

Lightning never strikes thrice : said to show that it is unlikely that
something bad or unusual will happen to the same person twice

facts derived from fiction: truth from falsehood (It can sometimes be hard to
separate fact from fiction in this controversy)

Even arsenic ingested in small doses can be therapeutic : arsenic is poisonous, but if
injected in limited dose it can cure ailment.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

 Important for Current affairs and international
relations

Gulf security: troubled by unreliability of traditional

partners |Global Village Space

Introduction:

Resolving the tug of war in the Middle East will require a backing away from
approaches that treat conflicts as zero-sum games, and engagement by all regional
and external players. To achieve that, players would have to recognise that in many
ways, perceptions on both sides of the Gulf divide are mirror images of one
another: all parties see each other as existential threats to Gulf security.

Like many paradigms across the globe, the pandemic and its associated economic
downturn have changed the paradigm shaping debates about Gulf security that was
inevitably set to gradually migrate from a unipolar US defense umbrella that
shielded energy-rich monarchies against Iran to an architecture that was more
multilateral. In many ways, the pandemic’s fallout has leveled the playing field and
not necessarily in ways that favour current policies of Gulf states.

Saudi Arabia’s relations with the West are increasingly being called into question,
with the Saudi–Russian oil price war in March potentially having broken the camel’s
back. The Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) stand to lose at least some
of the financial clout that allowed them to punch above their weight even if they are
likely to exclude arms purchases from their austerity measures.

Weakened financial clout comes at a moment when the Gulf states and Iran are
gearing up towards an arms race, in the wake of Iran’s recent satellite launch
and unveiling of an unmanned underwater vehicle against the backdrop of the 2015
international agreement that curbed the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme
inching towards collapse.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

The unmanned underwater vehicle puts Iran in an elite club, of which the only other
members capable of producing them are the United States, Britain and China. The
satellite adds Iran to a group of only about a dozen countries able to do launches of
their own.

Gulf Security Challenge: Unreliability of geopolitical partners

Add to this the fact that none of the regional players — Saudi Arabia, the UAE,
Qatar, Iran, Turkey and Israel — feel secure that any of the external powers —
the United States, China and Russia — are reliable security and geopolitical
partners.

Gulf states have, for years going back to the era of Barak Obama if not Bill Clinton,
increasingly perceived the United States as unfortunately their only option under the
premise that the others are not willing to change their policies, particularly towards
Iran.

Their relationship with the other partners is one that is demonstrably unreliable,
unwilling to defend Gulf states at whatever cost, and at times at odds with them in
terms of policy objectives.

The Gulf states’ problem is that neither Russia nor China offer real alternatives
at least not on terms that all Gulf states are willing to accept. Russia is neither
interested nor capable of replacing the United States. Moreover, its Gulf
security plan is at odds with at least the policy of Saudi Arabia.

The plan calls for a security arrangement modelled on that of Europe under the
auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It
would be an arrangement that, unlike the US defence umbrella in the Gulf,
includes Iran, not directed against it. It would have to involve some kind of
regional agreement on non-aggression.

Saudi Arabia, under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has made clear that it is
not interested, as is evident in the pandemic where it has refrained, in contrast to
other Gulf states, from reaching out to Iran with humanitarian aid even though it last
year engaged in an indirect exchange with the Islamic Republic. That exchange died
with the killing by the United States in January of Iranian general Qassim Soleimani.

China: The Elephant in the room

China is obviously the elephant in the room.

Logically, China and the Gulf states are in the same boat as they grapple with
uncertainty about current regional security arrangements. Like the Gulf states,
China has long relied on the US defence umbrella to ensure the security of the
flow of energy and other goods through waters surrounding the Gulf in what the
United States has termed free-riding.

In anticipation of the day when China can no longer depend on security provided by
the United States free of charge, China has gradually adjusted its defense strategy and
built its first foreign military facility in Djibouti facing the Gulf from the Horn of
Africa.

With the People’s Liberation Army Navy tasked with protecting China’s sea lines of
communication and safeguarding its overseas interests, strategic planners have
ICEP Dawn Analysis
signalled that Djibouti is a first step in the likely establishment of further bases
that would allow it to project long-range capability and shorten the time needed
to resupply.

But like with the Russians, Chinese strategic planners and their Gulf counterparts
may part ways when it comes to what would be acceptable geopolitical parameters
for a rejuvenated regional security architecture, particularly with regard to Iran.

Any new architecture would break the mould of Chinese engagement in the Middle
East that is designed to shield the People’s Republic from being sucked into the
region’s myriad conflicts.

Can China also lose interest in Middle East?

The assumption has long been that China could at best postpone execution, but that
ultimately, it would have no choice but to engage in the politics of the region. More
recently, influential Chinese analysts are suggesting that China has another
option: turn its back on the region. That may seem incredulous given China’s
dependence on Middle Eastern energy resources as well as its significant
investments in the region.

These analysts argue, however, that China is able to diversify its energy sources and
that Chinese investment in the Middle East is but a small percentage of overall
Chinese overseas investment. They describe Chinese Middle Eastern economic
relations as past their heyday with economies of both in decline and the prospects of
the situation in the Middle East getting worse before it becomes better.

“China–Middle East countries is not a political strategic logic, it’s an economic logic.
For China, the Middle East is always on the very distant backburner of China’s
strategic global strategies … Covid-19, combined with the oil price crisis, will
dramatically change the Middle East. (This) will change China’s investment model in
the Middle East … In the future, the pandemic, combined with the oil price problem,
will make the Middle East situation worse.” said Niu Xinchun, director of Middle
East studies at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR),
widely viewed as China’s most influential think tank.

Pessimistic forecasts of economic prospects in the Middle East bolster Niu’s

prediction. Data and analytics company Global Data predicted in an email that
depressed oil markets and prices in the Middle East and North Africa would lead to a
contraction in non-oil sectors, including construction.

“Construction activity for the remainder of 2020 is set to see poor performance … In
addition, public investment is likely to be moderate, which will translate into fewer
prospects for private sector businesses to grow — especially within sectors such as
infrastructure.

Middle East: Increasingly troubled Economies reduce external

interest
Expected increase in taxes, selected subsidy cuts and the introduction of several
public sector service charges will influence households’ purchasing power, having a
knock-on effect on future commercial investments,” said Global Data economist
Yasmine Ghozzi.

ICEP Dawn Analysis

Moreover, the downplaying of Chinese economic interest in the Middle East fits a
pattern of reduced Chinese capital outflows. “What we may not have seen is how
much China has retreated financially already for the past four years … Especially
since 2016, China’s outflows have come down dramatically in both lending and
investment. Foreign direct investment is now at about 30 per cent of what it was in
2016,” said Agatha Kratz, associate director of Rhodium Group, an independent
research provider.

To be sure, Chinese officials and analysts have consistently maintained that the
Middle East is not a Chinese priority, that any future battles with the United
States will be fought in the Asia Pacific, not in the Gulf. Their assertions are
backed up by the fact that China has yet to articulate a comprehensive policy towards
the region and in 2016 issued its one and only white paper on policy towards the
Arab world that essentially was an elaboration of its basic foreign and defense policy
principles.

More likely than China seriously entertaining turning its back on the Middle
East is the probability that it is sending the region a message that is not
dissimilar from what Russia is saying: get your act together and find a way to
dial down the tension. It is a message that appears to varying degrees to have been
heard in the smaller Gulf states but has yet to resonate in Riyadh. It is also a message
that has not been rejected out of hand by Iran.

Discussing a possible extension of a United Nations arms embargo against Iran,

Saudi Ambassador Abdallah Al Mouallimi, arguing in favour of a prolongation,
suggested that it would serve Russian and Chinese interests even though they
would not agree with that assessment. “They have their views, we respect their
views, but their interests would be better served and promoted with the embargo
extended,” said Al Mouallimi.

A Chinese Communist Party newspaper made days later a first reference in the
People’s Republic’s state-controlled media to reports of an alleged secret 25-year
multi-billion-dollar co-operation agreement in Iran amid controversy in the Islamic
Republic. Chinese officials and media have largely remained silent about Iranian
reports of an agreement worth anywhere between US$120 billion and US$400
billion that seemingly was proposed by Iran, but has yet to be accepted by
China.

Writing in the Shanghai Observer, a subsidiary of Liberation Daily, the official

newspaper of the Shanghai Committee of the Communist Party of China, Middle
East scholar Fan Hongda argued that the agreement, though nowhere close to
implementation, highlighted “an important moment of development” at a time that
US–Chinese tensions allowed Beijing to pay less heed to American policies. Fan’s
suggestion that the US–Chinese divide gave China more room to develop its
relations with Iran will not have gone unnoticed in Riyadh and other Gulf
capitals.

An Emerging Tug of War

How all of this may shake out could be determined by the emerging tug of war in the
Middle East between China and the US. Israel has already been caught up in it and
has made its choice clear, even if it still attempting to maintain some wiggle room.
Nonetheless, Israel, in the ultimate analysis, knows where its bread is buttered,
particularly at a moment where the United States is the only backer of its
annexationist policies. In contrast to Israel, the US is likely to find the going
ICEP Dawn Analysis
tougher when it comes to persuading Gulf states to limit their engagement with
China, including with telecom giant Huawei, which already has significant
operations in the region.

Like Israel, UAE officials have sought to convey to the US that they see relations
with the United States as indispensable even though that has yet to be put to a test
when it comes to China. Gulf officials’ stress on the importance of ties will, however,
not shield them from American demands that they review and limit their relations
with China, nor its warnings that involvement of Huawei could jeopardise sensitive
communications, particularly given the multiple US bases in the region, including the
US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and the forward headquarters of the US military’s Central
Command, or Centcom, in Qatar.

The US Embassy in Abu Dhabi, in a shot across the Gulf’s bow, last month rejected a
UAE offer to donate hundreds of coronavirus tests for screening of its staff. The snub
was designed to put a dent in China’s health “Silk Road” diplomacy centered on its
experience with the pandemic and ability to manufacture personal protective and
medical equipment.

A US official said the tests were rejected because they were either Chinese-made or
involved BGI Genomics, a Chinese company active in the Gulf, which raised
concerns about patient privacy. The US softened the blow when the prestigious Ohio-
based Cleveland Clinic sent 40 nurses and doctor to its Abu Dhabi subsidiary. The
Abu Dhabi facility was tasked with treating the UAE’s most severe cases of
coronavirus.

The problem for the US is that it is not only Trump’s policy or lack thereof towards
the Middle East that undermines confidence but it is also policies that, on the surface,
have nothing to do with the Middle East. The United States has been asking its
partners including Gulf states to give it time to develop an alternative to
Huawei’s 5G network. Yet at the same time, it is barring the kind of people
entry that technology companies need to develop systems.

A Silver Lining
No matter how the tug of war in the Middle East evolves, the silver lining is that, like
China, the United States despite its desire to reduce its commitment cannot afford a
power void in the region. That is what may create the basis for breaking the mould.

It will require a backing away from approaches that treat conflicts as zero-sum games
not only on the part of regional players but also of external players, like in the case of
the US versus Iran, and it will require engagement by all regional and external
players. To achieve that, players would have to recognise that in many ways,
perceptions on both sides of the Gulf divide are mirror images of one another:
all parties see each other as existential threats.

Failure to break the stalemate risks conflicts becoming further entrenched and
threatening to spin out of control. The opportunity is that confidence-building
measures and a willingness to engage open a door towards mutually acceptable
regional security arrangements and conflict resolution. However, for that to
happen, major powers would have to invest political will and energy at a time when
they feel they have bigger fish to fry and prioritise geopolitical jockeying.

In a twist of irony, geopolitical jockeying may prove to be an icebreaker in a

world, and certainly a region, where everything is interconnected. Increasingly,
ICEP Dawn Analysis
security in the Gulf is not just about security in the Gulf. It is not even just about
security in the Middle East. It is about security in the Mediterranean, whether one
looks at Libya on the sea’s southern shores, Syria in the east, or growing tension in
the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean. And it does not stop there with regional
rivalries reaching into the Black and Caspian Seas and into Central Asia.

Finally, there are the grey and black swans built into partnerships and alliances that
are either becoming more fragile like those of the United States or ones that have
fragility built into their DNA like the ties between Iran, Turkey, China and Russia.
Those swans could at any moment swing the pendulum one way or another.

To be sure, contrary to Western perceptions, relations between Iran, Turkey, Russia

and China are not just opportunistic and driven by short-term common interests but
also grounded in a degree of shared values. The fact of the matter is that men like
presidents Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei find common ground in a view of a new world order that rejects
democracy and the rule of law; disregards human and minority rights; flaunts, at least
for now, violations of international law; and operates on the principle of might is
right.

That glue, however, is insufficient, to prevent Turkey and Russia from ending up on
opposite sides of conflicts in Libya and Syria. It is also unlikely to halt the gradual
erosion of a presumed division of labour in Central Asia with Russia ensuring
security and China focusing on economic development. And it is doubtful it would
alter the simmering rivalry between Iran and Russia in the Caspian Sea and long-
standing Russian reluctance to sell Iran a desperately needed anti-missile defense
system.

In short, fasten your seat belt. Gulf and broader regional security could prove to be a
bumpy ride with unexpected speed bumps.

Dr James M Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and a senior fellow at

Nanyang Technological University’s S Rajaratnam School of
International Studies in Singapore. He is also an adjunct senior research
fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute
and co-director of the University of Wuerzburg’s Institute of Fan Culture
in Germany. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and
do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.

ICEP Dawn Analysis