ARTICLES OF THE DAY

October 16, 2021

IN THE LINE OF FIRE: AN UNACCOUNTED COST OF TERRORISM- AN INVESTIGATION ...................................... 2

SHAZIA TASNEEM FAROOQI, DAILY TIMES ....................................................................................................... 2

IKRAM SEHGAL AND DR BETTINA ROBOTIKA, DAILY TIMES ............................................................................. 5

TOM FOWDY, RUSSIA TODAY .......................................................................................................................... 7

SHAFQAT KAKAKHEL, DAWN NEWS ................................................................................................................. 9

CHRIS LI AND ERIC ROSENBACH, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ....................................................................................... 11

FARRUKH KHAN PITAFI, EXPRESS TRIBUNE .................................................................................................... 15

IMRAN MALIK, THE NATION .......................................................................................................................... 17

ANDROULLA KAMINARA, THE NATION .......................................................................................................... 19

 In the Line of Fire: an Unaccounted Cost of Terrorism- an
Investigation
Shazia Tasneem Farooqi, Daily Times
M uhammad Arif was
part of
motorcade
travelling on a truck following
Benazir Bhutto’s vehicle with
the
other photographers to cover
BB’s historical return from
eight years of self-exile in
2007. Dressed in patriotic
green and white on a
customized shipping
container when BB started her
slow procession, not only
Pakistani, but the whole world
was waiting to see the impact
of her comeback. Arif too,
wanted to shoot best footages
of his life, for the sake of truth,
information and above all to
give his employer a taste of
best and exclusive coverage.
Starting from the Airport he
accompanied the slow moving
motorcade in his pursuit to
find the breaking segment and
like many other newsmen
rushed towards the site of the
first blast, while the second
blast occurred moments after
the first that took his life.
Journalists on the frontline of
breaking news events realize
the dangers they face but it
was saddened to learn that
Arif had no safety kit and was
not wearing even a helmet.
While recalling Arif’s last
moment, ‘Asim Tanveer’,
then from Reuters and a close
friend of Arif says that Arif
was a dedicated video
journalist and was loyal to his
employer. Unfortunately, they
did not give him any
protective equipment required
for covering a conflict or
sensitive event, while the
news of threats to BB’s life
was very much there in the air.
‘Before starting for Dubai to
interview BB
accompanying her to Karachi
and
for further coverage my office
had briefed me about the
dangers and security situation
and my team was well
equipped with safety kit but
Arif was given nothing from
his office, not even a helmet,’
Tanveer said. ‘Local media
outlets don’t really care for
journalists, they just want the
breaking items to be done, and
that’s all, he added.
Remembering the Karsaz
incident photojournalist Athar
Hussain expressed deep
sorrow over losing
Muhammad Arif to the blast.
‘Arif was enthusiastic and
dedicated it is unfortunate that
we have lost him’. Hussain too
was covering BB’s return for
Reuters and was injured in the
blast. Hussain was also
injured in the twin blast
incident near the Pakistan-
American Cultural Centre of
PACC in 2004. ‘I was not
alone, 17 journalists were
injured in the PACC second
sequential blast as they
gathered after the first one,’ he
said.
The amount of cost Pakistan’s
journalists have paid during
this war of terror remained
unaccounted. A very much aware of the
comprehensive study suggests
that until 2001, Pakistan had
not experienced a single
suicide attack but by the end
of 2009, the country had
endured over 200 suicide
attacks (including 87 in 2009
alone) and close to 500 bomb
explosions
detonations.
and IED
Undoubtedly,
after September 9/11 2001
attacks in the US, there
emerged a new culture of
suicide attacks and bomb
explosions in Pakistan. While
reporting these incidents, on
the frontline of newsgathering
process, photo and video
journalists were often the first
to find them in the line of fire.
Media outlets should have
trained their journalists before
assigning events of sensitive
nature and provide them with
safety kits.
Karsaz bombing became a
model of case study as it had
targeted a former prime
minister BB’s homecoming
procession while she was
being warned of dangers.
Therefore, security concerns
were not hidden. Asked
whether there was any safety
measure in place during those
bomb blasts, the Secretary of
Karachi Union of Journalist
(KUJ), Faheem Siddiqui said,
employers did not follow any
safety method for media
personals. Danger was always
there in the line of duty. But
no media outlet took any step
in this connection. Whether
media houses were aware of
the dangers, ‘yes they were
dangers and risks journalists
could face, but the owners did
not prioritize safety of their
journalists,’ he said. Karachi
has been under terror attacks
and blasts for a while and
journalists were injured and
martyred too. It has happened
in Balochistan too. Even
safety training could have
saved many, Siddiqui
observed. Surprisingly, many
of the journalists are not even
aware of any such protective
measures or trainings Photo
journalist ‘Javed Jaija’ was
not warned of any danger or
security concerns by his office
when he was assigned to cover
12th Rabiul Awal
congregation at Nishtar Park
in 2006. “When I reached the
venue the maghrib prayer had
already started. There was a
deafening sound of blast that
raptured my eardrum, one of
my leg and hand fractured and
I found myself in the hospital.
Jaija works for a regional
daily and till to this date
believes that it was not the
responsibility of his employer
to warn of, train or prepare
him for such events. ‘They
paid my hospital bills with
paid leaves then why should I
ask them for safety kit? He
argued.
Journalists face extraordinary
risks while reporting conflict
or sensitive events. They tell
human stories and performing
greater social service. It is
necessary to underscore the
dangers media personals face
in the process of news
gathering and to equip them
with professional readiness to
cover complex events.
‘Despite a mega-mushroom
growth in Pakistan’s media,
the concept of safety training
for journalists has not
developed and frontline
journalists lack safety
preparedness, President
Karachi Press Club (KPC)
Fazil Jamili said.
Furthermore, journalists
themselves do not follow
safety guidelines due to lack
of basic training and it is a
general practice not to take around. I thought it was a
safety precaution while small scar and was about to
covering such rallies. leave the hospital after a
volunteer cleaned my wounds.
Are media employers doing
But Abdul Sattar Edhi sahib
their utmost to guarantee
himself drove me to Liaquat
journalists’ safety? Do they
National. ‘It is poisonous and
practice insuring journalists in
you must get it examined,’ he
case of any causality or bodily
said. They conducted MRI
harm or provide aftercare
and asked me to stay
support? The question why
overnight but I ignored as I
employers do not extend post-
had to file the story. ‘I was
trauma medical cover has
already facing a salary crisis.
been reverberating across
When my condition
Pakistan’s media field as a
worsened, I requested all my
health journalist in need was
known colleagues to get me
left unattended and uncared
examined from a hospital. But
by her employer.
none came forward with help.
Health journalist ‘Zar Nageen
Member Press Council of
Ghatala’, single parent of two,
Pakistan and former secretary
lay unconscious and scratched
KPC, Aamir Latif local media
under a pile of broken glasses
houses do not offer insurances
after the massive blast outside
to journalists whether it is
Jinnah Post Graduate Medical
health or other. ‘Journalist
Center (JPMC), unaware of
unions and the employers both
the fact that she was actually
have been neglecting safety
hit by a splinter, not a piece of
and insurance issues. Sadly,
glass. Ghatala was reporting
cameras of the electronic
for an Urdu daily when she
media houses are insured but
went to the JPMC to access
the users behind the cameras
the blast toll on February 5,
are not,’ he added. I am also a
2010, and was hit by a splinter
witness to Karsaz blast.
during the second successive
Muhammad Arif died on spot
blast outside the hospital. That
in front of me. Like Arif, we
splinter pierced through her
all ran towards the blast point
backbone damaged several
and the second blast occurred.
nerves and eventually she
Because that time we were
developed a permanent neuro
unfamiliar with conflict zone
disorder without proper
reporting tricks while that
medical care. Ghatala could
time Pakistan was gripped by
not afford a surgical
terrorist attacks.
procedure to remove the metal
as she was not given any Government’s new law:
aftercare support from her
While both Jamili and
then employer till today. ‘I
Siddiqui hoped that the new
was not warned of any danger,
media safety act could be a ray
nor was I prepared for any
of hope for the journalists as it
such incident she recalls. ‘I
will hold media outlet owners
went to Jinnah to do a story of
accountable for a loss of
the losses’. I had just come out
journalist’s life and guaranty
of the emergency and was
legal insurance. The law will
helping a crying woman find
mandate media house owners
her missing son where some
to provide training to
people had gathered.
journalists before sending
Suddenly, was pushed down
them to conflict reporting.
by a force. ‘When I regained,
Latif in contrary said the new
there were broken glasses all
policy draft is very murky as it
has no neutral or independent hand to control the media thus
body to decide about fake conflicting with the right of
news offence. The law will press freedom.
give the government an upper
 Towards the Warm Waters (Part I)
Ikram Sehgal and Dr Bettina Robotika, Daily Times
T
he history of the Silk
Road networks and
other trade connections
is closely tied to the rise and
fall of Eurasian empires
including imperial China, the
Mongol Empire of Changez
Khan, the Persian Empire, the
Mughals and the Ottomans.
Well-established empires
guaranteed that roads and
bridges used for trade would
be kept in a good condition,
that traders and caravans
could proceed in security,
reach the markets safely to sell
their goods and buy new ones
that could be sold at home.
Those who ruled the land
ensured safe passage while
collecting an “octroi,” mostly
in the form of goods, if not
gold coins. The traders catered
for this in their anticipated
profits.
Over the centuries, Eurasia
was crisscrossed by many
trade routes-long and short-
but the main direction of trade
always remained east-west or
west-east. Even before
Marco-Polo (and before him,
his father) journeyed from
Venice to the court of Kublai
Khan, these routes had
existed. The north-south
connection, over a long time,
was hampered by the presence
of high mountain ranges and
the fact that northern
territories were not united by
large empires. After the fall of
the Roman Empire, Northern
Europe and Eurasia were
gradually characterised by a
multitude of smaller and
regional kingships that did not
last long enough or lacked
stability and power. In
Europe, the centre of trade and
production lay for a long time for nine months a year. Access
around the Mediterranean. to the Baltic Sea was blocked
Things only changed in by Sweden, whose territory
Eurasia after the birth of the enclosed it on three sides.
Russian empire in the 18th Peter’s ambitions for a
century. “window to the sea” led him,
in 1699, to make a secret
Emperor Peter I (1682-1725)
alliance with Saxony, the
of Russia fought numerous
Polish-Lithuanian
wars and expanded an already
Commonwealth, and
huge empire into a major
Denmark against Sweden.
European power. The Russian
They conducted the Great
conquest of Siberia had taken
Northern War, which ended in
place in the 16th and 17th
1721 when an exhausted
centuries, with the Khanate of
Sweden asked for peace with
Sibir already a loose political
Russia. As a result, Peter
structure of vassalages
acquired four provinces
undermined by the activities
situated south and east of the
of Russian explorers.
Gulf of Finland, securing
Although outnumbered, the
access to the sea. There, he
Russians pressured various
built Russia’s new capital,
family-based tribes into
Saint Petersburg, on the Neva
changing their loyalties and
River, to replace Moscow.
establishing distant forts from
The new model city was
which they conducted raids.
largely built according to
To subjugate the natives and
Western design. He led a
collect tribute, a series of
cultural revolution that
winter outposts and forts were
replaced some of the
built at the confluence of
traditionalist and medieval
major rivers and streams and
social and political mores with
important portages. Peter I
a modern, scientific, Europe-
founded the Russian empire
oriented, and rationalist
by consolidating the huge
system.
territory into a state;
introducing a western-style Even though ambitions
administrative system. While existed, there was no explicit
Russia’s vast lands had a intention nor strategy that
population of 14 million, grain aimed to access the “warm
yields trailed behind those in waters,” which, in any case,
the West despite the entire would have then been the
population being devoted to Black Sea. The first Russo-
agriculture, with only a small Turkish War (1568-1570) had
percentage living in towns. occurred not on Russian
initiative, but when Ottoman
With Russia not having access
Sultan Selim II tried to
to ports and the main maritime
squeeze the Russians out of
trade routes of the time,
the lower Volga by sending a
Peter’s attention turned to the
military expedition to
north. Russia lacked a secure
Astrakhan in 1569. The
northern seaport, except at
Turkish expedition ended in
Archangel on the White Sea,
disaster for the Ottoman army,
where the harbour was frozen
which could not take
Astrakhan and almost
completely perished in the
steppes, while the Ottoman
fleet was wrecked in the Sea
of Azov. The peace treaty
between the two sides
cemented Russia’s conquests
of the Volga. The Ottoman
Empire, through the vassal,
the Crimean Khanate,
continued its expansion
attempts against Russia, but to
no avail. The next round came
about a hundred years later
when the Russian army under
Peter I organised Crimean
campaigns in 1687 and 1689
and campaigns to take the
Asov area in 1695. In the light
of Russia’s preparations for
the war with Sweden, the
Russian government signed
the Treaty of Constantinople
with the Ottoman Empire in
1700, under which Peter the
Great secured the possession
of the Azov region. Before
Peter expired in 1721, he
expanded and consolidated
Russia into a much larger
empire (which became a
major European power)
through several successful
wars. He also laid the
groundwork for the Imperial
Russian Navy after capturing
ports at Azov and the Baltic
Sea. By the 18th century,
Russian trade routes (north to
south) went mainly along the
river Volga that connected
Northern Europe and North-
western Russia with the
Caspian Sea and Persia. This
was the route that Russians
used to trade with Muslim
countries on the southern
shores of the Caspian Sea,
sometimes penetrating as far
as Baghdad. The powerful
Volga Bulgars taded through
the Volga River with the
Vikings of Russia and
Scandinavia (Swedes, Danes,
Norwegians) and with the
southern Byzantine Empire.
Furthermore, Volga Bulgaria,
traded with Russians and the
furselling Ugrians. Chess, for
instance, was introduced to
Russia via the Caspian-Volga
trade routes from Persia and
Arabic lands.
Russia entered into another
war with the Ottoman Empire
in 1736, prompted by raids on
Ukraine by Crimean Tatars
and the military campaign of
the Crimean Khan in the
Caucasus. In 1783, Russia
annexed the Crimean
Khanate. It took another
hundred years (until in the
second half of the 19th
century) before Russia
conquered Central Asia that
became Russian Turkestan
and later Soviet Central Asia.
But by that time, the “Great
Game” had already started
that blocked Russian progress
towards the South. The “Great
Game” was actually a British
foreign policy strategy to stop
Russian progress towards the
South to secure their prized
colonial holdings in the
subcontinent, which they
considered the “Jewel of the
Crown” and whose riches
made the small British island
into a world power. Britain
feared that Russia planned to
invade India and that this was
the goal of Russia’s expansion
in Central Asia, while Russia
feared the expansion of
British interests in Central
Asia. As a result, there was a
deep atmosphere of distrust
and the talk of war between
the two major European
empires. Afghanistan was
designed as a buffer between
Russia and British-India. The
four British-Afghan wars (the
first of which ended in a
disaster for the British) were
thus fought to establish British
over-lordship over Afghan
lands without taking the
trouble to physically colonize
them. The end of British rule
in the subcontinent in 1947,
the end of the Soviet Union
and the end of the armed
western presence in
Afghanistan has opened a new
chapter for the establishment
of north-south trade routes in
the 21st century.
The US is waging a war on poor, unfortunate Lebanon, which has
been an unruly playground of Western misdeeds for decades
Tom Fowdy, Russia Today
T he growing crisis in
Beirut, fueling
concerns of another
bloody civil war, is not the
fault of Hezbollah or Iran, but
of the Western powers and
Israel who want to keep the
country weak, divided and
bereft of majority rule.
Lebanon is a country in crisis.
Its economy is on the brink,
teetering under power
shortages and experiencing
sporadic political violence and
unrest, with six people having
been shot dead on Thursday.
Some are contemplating that it
may now be classed as a
‘failed state’.
The mainstream media craft a
narrative that the militia
group, Hezbollah, is
exclusively responsible for
Lebanon's woes, and claim
that its presence is malign,
illegitimate and threatens the
country’s democracy and
institutions. The standoff has
seen the country laden with
sanctions from the US and the
EU. The West makes the
argument that if this ‘Iran-
linked group’ was to simply
go away, then all would be
milk and honey in this
Mediterranean country, right?
But that isn't the full side of
the story, not even a fraction
of it.
As a friend who runs the
online magazine, The Cradle,
once told me, the United
States is “waging a war on
Lebanon.” It’s something that
has stuck with me ever since,
because even though it is not a
war in literal terms right now,
(although there has been
plenty of that in Lebanon’s
troubled history) it perfectly
conceptualizes and depicts the
strenuous campaign of
deliberate interference,
manipulation and strife in the
country's affairs as a broader
geopolitical aspect of the
‘Anti-Iran’ and ‘Anti-Syria’
agendas.
Western foreign policy has
shifted away from the Middle
East somewhat, yet the mantra
of completely destroying
target countries in the pursuit
of geopolitical interests
remains, irrespective of what
the will of those countries
might be. As is the case with
every Middle Eastern story,
we are fed a simplistic and
romanticized narrative of
‘good versus evil’, which fails
to explain why Lebanon is in
such a dire situation, why it is
a nation prone to such grave
instability and unrest, and how
the legacy of colonialism and
an inherently unequal political
model in the country –
designed to keep the majority
from getting a proportionate
share of power – is all
responsible for its ultimate
ruination.
Lebanon was a pet colonial
project, one envisioned by the
French, who after partitioning
the former lands of the
Ottoman Empire with the
British in the Sykes-Picot
agreement of 1917,
endeavored to carve out a
strategic client state on the
Eastern Mediterranean that
would consolidate
economic options in the
region. They worked with
London to draw lines on a
their
map, and installed puppet
governments who would
ideally after independence
secure their commercial
interests. They paid scant
attention to the ethnic and
sectarian divisions in the lands
they occupied.
In establishing Lebanon,
France cut the land out of
greater Syria with the goal of
creating a state tailored to the
population of Maronite
Christians who inhabited the
land. But it came with a snag:
that the colony's territory
included a majority
population of Shiite Muslims,
who were incorporated into a
discriminatory constitutional
set up which deliberately gave
precedence to the Maronites
and made Muslims second-
class citizens, with limited
representation in parliament.
This sectarian strife would
ultimately define the country,
as the French had created a
state which was void of
legitimacy amongst the
majority of its population and
was inherently unstable. This
led to the 15-year-long civil
war between 1975 and 1990,
and may yet cause another.
Since that conflict, the
geopolitical theme of Lebanon
has been very much
consistent: there has been a
concerted effort between the
US, France and Israel to
suppress the political
influence of its Shia majority
population and Hezbollah,
who are dubbed as a terrorist
group, and to affirm a de facto
upholding of minority rule
under the guise of the usual
cliches such as ‘transparency’,
‘democracy’ ‘upholding the
constitution’ and ‘the rule of
law’.
Although the French Empire
is long gone, instability in
Lebanon has been promoted,
and democratic change has
been obstructed, by the
aggression of Tel Aviv, which
seeks to keep Lebanon weak,
divided and militarily
subjugated in order to
maintain dominance toward
Iran. Israel happily tramples
over Lebanese sovereignty,
invading and bombing the
state as it sees fit.
Israel’s behavior serves the
interest of Western foreign
policymakers, who fear that
for the Shiites to succeed in
Lebanon equates to an
inevitable expansion of the
political axis and influence of the country is completely
Tehran, as well as Assad in distorted. The world needs to
Syria. see Lebanon as it really is, as
opposed to the fantasy story
Hezbollah is frequently
that depicts Western states
labeled as the villain, despite
and Israel as righteously
the fact the country is under
tackling terrorism and Iran.
effective siege from all sides.
The country is a legacy and a
This bizarre outlook even
symbol of decades worth of
depicts the bringing of Iranian
Western mistakes and
fuel to the country for
adventurism in the region
humanitarian purposes as a
which spans every generation,
heinous crime that apparently
from creating a colonial state
undermines its national
out of strategic preferences, to
sovereignty and is bad
rigging a system against the
because it violates the triple-
majority of its population, and
lock US sanctions on
then seemingly trying to
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
correct this lack of legitimacy
But with the Lebanese prime with foreign interference,
minister not doing anything sanctions, and war.
about the power shortages, the
Lebanon is essentially an
real question is why does he
unruly playground of Western
have no actual power and why
misdeeds, and its people a
is his control limited? The
victim of the coercive anti-
answer is because the
Iran campaign that has
Lebanese government lacks
brought the country to the
legitimacy amongst huge
absolute brink.
swaths of the population, who
see it as an unwanted, foreign
imposed colonial entity. The
whole Western narrative of

Shafqat Kakakhel, Dawn News
T
HE annual UN climate
summit — COP26 —
to be held in Glasgow
is the most significant
international meeting on
climate change since the
adoption of the Paris
Agreement in 2015. The
conference will test the
robustness of the multilateral
system for promoting
cooperation to address global
threats. Specifically, it will
indicate the international
community’s ability to take
actions to counter the increase
in temperature caused by the
huge concentration of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse
gases caused by burning fossil
fuels since the Industrial
Revolution and avert a planet
wide catastrophe.
The Glasgow Conference is
taking place against a
sobering backdrop shaped by
the deadly Covid-19
pandemic that has claimed
five million human lives,
wrought colossal material
destruction, and upended all
kinds of human activities
since March 2020. The rich
countries’ indifference
towards the vaccination of the
most vulnerable groups in
poor countries may have
undermined the spirit of
solidarity conducive for
compromises on contentious
issues.
Covid-19 was preceded by
worldwide angry protests
inspired by youth leaders like
Greta Thunberg and triggered
by the blunt warnings of
climate scientists that unless
global carbon emissions are
Shafqat Kakakhel
reduced sharply the world is
headed for an increase in
temperature of two degrees
Celsius or higher which will
threaten human life and other
species with extinction. Youth
groups seem poised to resort
to disruptive protests if
Glasgow fails to deliver.
COP26 has to achieve
consensus on several issues.
The losses inflicted by Covid-
19 were compounded by an
unprecedented spike in
climate-induced extreme
weather events such as
cyclones, typhoons and
hurricanes, heavy floods and
flash floods, droughts,
heatwaves and forest fires
alongside accelerated melting
of ice and snow in the Arctic.
In July 2021 alone, over 50
extreme events took place in
32 countries. COP26 has to
achieve consensus on several
substantial and procedural
issues holding up full
implementation of the
mechanisms of climate action
outlined in the Paris
Agreement. Failure to find
compromises concerning
‘Rule Book’ issues as well as
adaptation and finance had led
to the collapse of COP25 held
in Madrid in 2019 causing
widespread disappointment.
The UK presidency has made
untiring efforts to forge
consensus on the pending
issues in order to ensure the
success of COP26. The
contentious issues include:
Climate ambition (a
euphemism for deeper
emissions cuts and other
mitigation measures): Under
the Paris Agreement, all
countries were required to
submit more ambitious plans
for mitigation in their revised
Nationally Determined
Contributions by 2020. Until
July 30, 2021, revised NDCs
were received from 95
countries, including the US
which has committed to
slashing its emissions by 50 to
52 per cent compared to the
2005 level. Large emitters
China, India, Russia and
Australia have not announced
their latest commitments.
According to the synthesis
report issued by the UN
Environment Programme
scrutinising the revised
NDCs, the mitigation pledges
represent a 12pc increase over
previous commitments but are
likely to cause a temperature
increase of 2.7°C, not 1.5°C,
the global climate goal!
Climate finance: Under the
Paris Agreement, developed
countries had pledged to
collectively mobilise $100
billion annually from public
and private sources by 2020
for supporting the mitigation
and adaptation initiatives of
developing countries.
However, the highest amount
provided by the developed
countries through various
channels in recent years was
around $78bn in 2018. This
figure is cited by
representatives of developing
countries as evidence of their
rich partners’ unwillingness to
fulfil financial commitments.
The Global South has also
de--m-anded that all funds
provided to them should be in
the form of grants, not loans or
investments, and they must responded to persistent development mechanisms
come from public sources. demands of developing established under the Kyoto
countries by establishing the Protocol and other
Adaptation: Dev-eloping
Warsaw International cooperation processes has
countries, including those that
Mechanism on Loss and turned into a conundrum.
are insignificant carbon
Damage to assist developing Differences also exist over the
emitters, demand a better
countries hit hardest by transparency framework
balance between allocations
climate-induced disasters but aimed at making mitigation
for mitigation and adaptation
did not provide funds. foolproof and common time
whilst the developed countries
Developed countries have frames for the NDCs (five or
have preferred mitigation
thus far stubbornly refused to 10 years).
highlighting their emphasis on
give money for L&D.
reducing emissions, not
building resilience in Article 6 and other issues:
developing countries. Article 6 of the Paris
Agreement providing for
Loss and damage: COP19
continuation of the clean
held in Warsaw had
 Can the U.S. and Chinese Militaries Get Back on Speaking
Terms?
Chris Li and Eric Rosenbach, Foreign Affairs
N early nine months
into the
administration of U.S.
President Joe Biden,
Washington’s relationship
with Beijing has sunk to a
historic low. After a high-
level diplomatic meeting in
March that devolved into an
ugly exchange of insults,
fruitless visits to China by
U.S. Deputy Secretary of
State Wendy Sherman and
Special Presidential Envoy for
Climate John Kerry, and
virtual climate talks that failed
to produce clear deliverables,
the world’s two great powers
have reached a dangerous
impasse.
By forming a new trilateral
security pact with the United
Kingdom and Australia, the
United States has made it clear
that it is serious about
defending its allies in Asia and
countering China’s territorial
claims. But while the move
has been hailed by some
Western commentators as a
stroke of strategic brilliance, it
has also sharply increased
military tensions in the Indo-
Pacific.
During a phone call last
month, Biden and Chinese
President Xi Jinping discussed
the “responsibility of both
countries to ensure
competition does not veer into
conflict.” History suggests
that open communication is
the best way for the two great
powers to uphold that
responsibility, but Xi and
Biden’s recent call was their
first conversation in seven
months. More alarming, misunderstandings have too
neither U.S. Secretary of often led to war.
Defense Lloyd Austin nor
In an era of renewed
Deputy Defense Secretary
competition, the risks of
Kathleen Hicks has yet met
inadvertent escalation—
with his or her Chinese
leading even to a nuclear
counterpart. Although the
showdown—are higher than
Pentagon’s first reported
ever. As U.S. and Chinese
contact since Biden’s
forces in the Indo-Pacific
inauguration took place on
operate in ever-closer
August 27 and was followed
proximity, military leaders
by video conferences at the
from both countries must
deputy assistant secretary
commit to working together to
level in September, no
develop a flexible framework
communication has occurred
for substantive, real-time
at the senior-most levels of
communication in order to
military leadership. As Kurt
mitigate the risk of
Campbell and Jake Sullivan
miscalculation, effectively
have argued in these pages,
manage the professional and
the U.S.-Chinese rivalry is not
safe conduct of forces, and
a problem to be solved but a
promote deconfliction
condition to be managed. If
mechanisms in the event of a
the Biden administration
crisis. Though restarting
hopes to manage the
strategic communication with
competition and prevent it
China will be challenging, and
from turning into catastrophe,
will not always produce
it must take urgent action to
tangible results, the Biden
establish and maintain open
administration must make it a
channels of communication
priority.
between the Pentagon and
China’s armed forces. MUTUAL
PROVOCATIONSThe
In the aftermath of the 2020
danger of a miscalculation is
U.S. presidential election,
especially acute around
General Mark Milley, then
Taiwan. Beijing’s military
chairman of the Joint Chiefs
posturing over the Taiwan
of Staff, grew so concerned
Strait has turned increasingly
that China’s leaders were
aggressive, with almost daily
mistakenly predicting an
incursions into the island’s air
imminent U.S. attack that he
defense identification zone,
preemptively assured his
coupled with “combat drills”
Chinese counterpart that the
targeting U.S. warships.
U.S. government was
When a U.S. Senate
“stable.” Milley’s decision
delegation visited Taipei in
may well have forestalled
April, the People’s Liberation
military conflict: historically,
Army sent its carrier strike
accidents and
group, the Liaoning, to
conduct “training exercises”
off Taiwan’s coast. Beginning
on Friday, October 1, as the
People’s Republic celebrated
its National Day, and
continuing through the
holiday weekend, the PLA
dispatched nearly 100 sorties
of aircraft, including nuclear-
capable bombers and fighters,
in a menacing show of force.
Meanwhile, U.S. Navy
surveillance aircraft have
flown over Taiwan, while
guided missile destroyers
have routinely transited the
Taiwan Strait, in what the
Pentagon has affirmed are
demonstrations of American
commitment to a free and
open Indo-Pacific in
accordance with international
law.
Those familiar with the
military planning process
recognize how easily an
accidental collision could
ignite a conflict. The
Pentagon’s war-gaming and
simulation exercises
demonstrate that once the
military machines are in
motion, escalation and
entanglement are hard to
avoid. Alarming scenarios are
not entirely hypothetical. In
2001, when a U.S. Navy EP-3
reconnaissance plane collided
with a PLA F-8 fighter over
the South China Sea, leading
to the death of a Chinese pilot
and forcing the American
plane to make an emergency
landing on China’s Hainan
Island, an 11-day military and
diplomatic showdown ensued.
The U.S. ambassador to China
at the time, retired Admiral
Joseph Prueher, later recalled
that he was unable to reach
any senior Chinese military
officials during the initial
hours of the crisis. The dispute
ended only after seasoned
diplomats defused the incident
with a carefully worded letter,
and the U.S. crew was
released from Chinese
custody.
Today, an accidental collision
in the Taiwan Strait or the
South China Sea—or even on
the Korean Peninsula—
compounded by cyberattacks
and hardening nationalistic
pressures at home, could set
both countries on a path to all-
out war neither wants. And if
American and Chinese leaders
fail to establish meaningful
military-to-military dialogue,
the question won’t be if such
an accident will occur, but
when.
COMPETITION WITHIN
BOUNDARIESBoth
governments must commit to
restarting high-level bilateral
talks between both military
and civilian officials and
expanding checks and
safeguards to limit
competition and prepare for
crises before they occur. To
start, both countries should
take immediate action to
arrange meetings between
senior leaders of their
respective armed forces.
Neither side should allow
organizational differences
between the two militaries to
get in the way of meaningful
exchange. Recently,
controversy ensued when
Secretary Austin’s requests to
speak with General Xu
Qiliang, vice chairman of the
Central Military Commission
and China’s top-ranking
military officer, were
rebuffed. Meanwhile, China’s
state-run media have accused
the Pentagon of flouting
diplomatic protocol by
refusing to speak, instead, to
the more junior defense
minister. While the U.S.
secretary of defense’s titular
counterpart, Chinese Defense
Minister Wei Fenghe, may not
hold equivalent functional
status, Pentagon chiefs of
previous administrations have
consistently met with China’s
defense ministers. The
Chinese military structure
divides authority differently
than the Pentagon, and while
the external-facing defense
minister is subordinate to the
vice chairman, both are part of
the Central Military
Commission’s senior
leadership, which exercises
command and control over the
PLA. Austin should begin
dialogue with any senior
Chinese leader in the Central
Military Commission.
Productive engagements often
occur between different levels
of leadership, and in the past,
Chinese leaders have often
offered meetings with
progressively more senior
officials in order to
demonstrate progress over
time.
The United States and China
should also commit to
reestablishing a formal
structure for communication
between the U.S. Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Chinese Joint
Staff Department, one that has
not existed since former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
General Joe Dunford visited
Beijing in 2017. Most
important, senior Pentagon
officials must fundamentally
rethink the nature of crisis
management mechanisms and
make use of communications
between retired military
officers and officials in so-
called Track 1.5 and Track II
backchannel dialogues.
Both militaries must also
prioritize sustained face-to-
face engagement, with initial
senior-level meetings serving
as a launching pad for
recurring functional
engagement focused on
practical cooperation to
promote deconfliction and
operational trust. The focus
should be on space and cyber
domains, as well as on safe
conduct of maritime forces at
sea. The joint staff dialogue
mechanism, which was
initiated under the
administration of President
Donald Trump in 2017 and
enabled bilateral
communication at the three-
star level, could serve as a
model.
OVERCOMING CHINESE
RETICENCEThe lack of
success in prior efforts at
establishing guardrails and
risk mitigation is in large part
due to the Chinese
government’s consistent
refusal to engage. In
December 2020, for example,
representatives from China’s
navy failed to appear for
scheduled meetings with the
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
as part of the Military
Maritime Consultative
Agreement. Much of this
stems from China’s political
culture, in which the degree of
communication is a product of
the health of the overall
relationship, and defense
officials are wary of military
engagement on the grounds
that it legitimizes U.S.
presence in the region. And
because of political pressures
on the chain of command and
rigid hierarchies within the
PLA, top Chinese officers are
especially reluctant to engage.
After the United States and
China established a secure
bilateral "Defense Telephone
Link” as a crisis notification
mechanism in 2008, the line
was rarely used. The Biden
administration’s top Indo-
Pacific official, Kurt
Campbell, recently noted that
on past occasions when U.S.
military officials tried to reach
their Chinese counterparts
using the hotline, it “just rung
in an empty room for hours
upon hours.”
Yet there is reason for
cautious optimism that such
reticence can be overcome.
While in the past, Chinese
military leaders have hesitated
to engage out of fear that they
could reveal operational
vulnerabilities, such concerns
are abating as the PLA
modernizes and gains
recognition as a peer
competitor. U.S. and Chinese
forces operate in closer
proximity today in greater
numbers of domains (space
and cyber), making risk
mitigation an interest for both
countries. Xi has consolidated
sufficient formal and informal
influence over the military,
making foreign outreach less
of a political risk. And as
National Security Council
China Director Rush Doshi
has argued, Beijing’s concern
that military-to-military
mechanisms would evoke
Cold War comparisons are
moot given Washington’s new
bipartisan consensus that
China is a strategic
competitor. What’s more, the
announcement that the United
States will provide Australia
with nuclear-powered
submarines, despite
predictably hostile response
from China, may in fact make
PLA leaders more receptive to
reviving military-to-military
dialogue: China’s leaders
understand that since, like it or
not, American security
commitments and alliances in
the region will only grow
stronger, it is in their own
interests to engage militarily.
Perhaps most important, there
are signs that Xi holds great
personal interest in improving
military engagement, as
demonstrated by his remarks
during an unusual private
meeting with Dunford in
August 2017, in which he
expressed hope that military-
to-military relations could
serve as a stabilizing force in
the overall bilateral
relationship. Reinvigorating
military-to-military dialogue
would be entirely consistent
with long-standing U.S.
policy, under both Republican
and Democratic presidents.
The Trump administration’s
2018 report on China’s
military lauded Department of
Defense engagement with
China as supporting an
“overall U.S. policy and
strategy toward China” and
the military-to-military
relationship as a “stabilizing
element to the overall bilateral
relationship.” And in July,
Secretary Austin declared his
staunch commitment to
“stronger crisis
communications” with the
PLA.
To call for dialogue and
communication with China’s
military leadership is not to
condone its aggression or
Beijing’s repression at home.
Even at the height of the Cold
War, U.S. President Ronald
Reagan, while denouncing the
Soviet Union as the “evil
empire,” hosted Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev for arms
a
control negotiations. More
recently, during the war in
Syria, the Trump
administration pursued high-
level military contact through
a private channel between
Dunford and Russian Chief of
the General Staff Valery
Gerasimov. In addition to a
hotline between U.S. military
officers at the operations
center in Qatar and Russian
counterparts in Syria, a
dialogue between the two
countries’ armed forces at the
three-star level helped to
ensure that military activities
did not create dangers with the
rival country that could
quickly spiral out of control.
The United States and China Indo-Pacific. Both sides must prevent a wider conflict
are on a dangerous path in the seize the opportunity to before it is too late.
 Lessons from America and Afghanistan

Farrukh Khan Pitafi, Express Tribune

Let’s face it. There is no comparison between the US and Afghanistan in terms of state power. America
remains the most powerful country on the planet, Afghanistan one of the weakest ones. In Afghanistan’s
defence, you can advance only one argument. That it still stands. That it has not lost any territory to
another country during some of its weakest moments. Sovereignty often, but not territory.

But this piece is not about state power. It is about one precious commodity that is increasingly rare around
the world, namely democracy. Afghanistan’s democracy, or whatever passed for it, was so weak that it is
now defunct and an idea so remote for its de facto rulers that they do not even pretend the country could
ever return to democracy. The world’s most powerful democracy, America, believes it is also in crisis. But
if our introverted American peers could pay some heed to these parts, perhaps, they would never tire of
counting their blessings.
Consider this. There are eight countries in South Asia and only one with a near uninterrupted history of
procedural democracy. Not uninterrupted. Nearly uninterrupted. Because of the two years of the
emergency rule. Elsewhere, in the region, it struggles for wider approval. And the one exception to the rule
we just identified has morphed and regressed so demonstrably that it is difficult to tell it apart from
populist autocracies of the world.

Afghanistan then is chosen here for its shock value. To show how quickly the accumulated fruits of the
evolution of twenty years can disappear without a trace. And the US for the unique nature of challenges its
democracy faces today. I, for one, will not deny it. How could I? When on November 14, 2020, I wrote a
piece in this space titled “America needs constant vigilance” with the subtitle “The quantum of
misinformation being used to discredit the election outcome”, I could foresee some sort of disruption.
These challenges, as illustrated by Bill Maher in one of his unusually sobering segments, have only
compounded since January 6 this year. In both these examples, there are lessons for all of us, especially
struggling democracies like Pakistan. So, let us dive in.
One, stop taking everything for granted. The entire state apparatus of Afghanistan collapsed in a single
day. In the US, despite deep suspicions about foreign election meddling and a whole host of oversight
mechanisms neither Trump’s momentum could be checked in 2016 nor an insurrection on January 6, this
year. Democracy is not a naturally occurring element. In our Darwinian, anarchical world, autocracy and
authoritarianism occur naturally. For democracy to hold you need a permanently updating, robust, and
boisterous ecosystem. This ecosystem does not have a mind of its own. You may think that every threat
will be caught in the net, but we know one thing about the destabilising ideologies. That they can easily
contaminate the safety valves and destroy the system from within.

Two, by its nature democracy has to be inclusive. Populists try to other entire segments of the society. The
hatred of this cultural or political other creates divisions in the society and makes the task of nation
building impossible. Like democratisation, nation-building is also a constant zero-sum exercise. When you
are not progressing, you are regressing. You can see how inclusive the Afghan government was by looking
at the voter turnout in 2019 (18.87 per cent) or the composition of the state apparatus. In America the
turnouts are now outstanding, the society incredibly inclusive but still due to the predatory nature of some
of the capitalist policies and absence of a broad-based social safety net, the sense of victimhood among
depressed classes grows exponentially.
Three, address the roots of dysfunction in governance. They can lead to total and quick disaster.
Four, go out of the way to ensure exceptional civil-military relations. Ex-president Ghani’s heavy-handed
and impulsive mistreatment of his general officers was a great source of demoralisation. In the end, hardly
anyone was ready to stick his neck out for Ghani’s rule. Now, established democracies do not like to pay
much attention to military power. But it is a fact that following the January 6 insurrection had all military
leaders in the US not thrown their weight behind the transition process we still could be struggling with an
unstable government and violence on the streets. I know you will be surprised when I quote Samuel
Huntington here for my regular readers know I have no love lost for him. But this one is an important
exception. In his 1957 book, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relation,
he draws a useful distinction between the objective and the subjective control over the armed forces. The
subjective control is in the shape of the constitutional and institutional restrictions on the autonomy of
these forces. This seldom works on its own. The other, the more realistic and the optimal, the objective one
is exerted when you professionalise them. This means no attempts to politicise them by inviting them into
the political domain, not interfering in the internal clockwork of merit-based transfer and postings, and
obviously no favouritism. It doesn’t hurt if you earn their respect by being professional yourself. But that is
exactly what was on display following the insurrection.

Five, build robust institutions and always strengthen them. Consider how the US judicial system threw out
flimsy election challenges by Trump’s legal team, especially a conservative-dominated Supreme Court.
Because of strong institutions.

Six, free and fair media with an honest if a proportional representation of dissent is an absolute must for
the health of democracy. Deny this and conspiracy theories start to fly.

Seven, always know that national survival is more important than any ideology. Never risk the survival of
the nation, its political system for the sake of ideology. When things regress even the best ideologies can
work as knives in the enemy’s hands.

Eight, never legitimise or normalise the enemies of the democratic ecosystem. The most notable example
is of the violent extremists. In Doha talks, the Trump administration locked a representative government
out of the dialogue process permanently undermining it and legitimising the militant group that now
controls Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s situation might be different than Pakistan but here the state should
fight the terrorists until their total defeat.

Nine, beware of the bad-faith actors, who try to pervert and undermine the system from within.

Ten, never prolong a dispute or crisis. Such disputes or crises are putty in the hands of the system’s
enemies. Seek an immediate resolution and layout an elaborate dispute resolution mechanism.

Eleven, never undermine your/system’s allies for the sake of optics.

Finally, find a way to win people’s trust and respect instead of forcing them against their will. Develop a
robust and honest thought process to win over people. Seek to understand the other side’s perspective
before trying to be understood.
The list of lessons goes far beyond this space. But these are the most important lessons to guarantee the
stability of a healthy democratic system.
 US’ strategic designs for Asia
Imran Malik, The Nation
T
he US has thus been
forced to redefine and
reconstruct its policy
towards Asia. By leaving
Afghanistan it has moved
away from Mackinder’s
Heartland, critically losing
direct contact with it, and
greatly freeing up Russia and
China in the process.
Historically, the US and its
allies had ringed the Heartland
(essentially the Warsaw Pact
countries) with military bases
in Western Europe to the
Mediterranean through
Greece, Turkey, Iraq, Iran,
Pakistan, Singapore,
Philippines, Japan, South
Korea etc. In the 70s, the
USSR breached this ring
when it invaded Afghanistan.
However, the US-led “free
world”, with Pakistan in the
forefront, forced the USSR to
retreat back into the ring. With
the US and its allies now out
of Afghanistan-SCAR, a huge
gap has emerged in this ring
which the Chinese and
Russians are exploiting to
move South to the Persian
Gulf (PG)/Arabian Sea/IOR.
The US egress from
Afghanistan/SCAR is
unfathomable. If it had wanted
to confront China in the IPR
then its presence in the APR-
SCAR too was crucial. Its
potential military operations
in the IPR and Indian
operations along the LAC
would have had to be mutually
supporting, synergetic and
synchronised to put real,
meaningful pressure on
China. By hightailing out of
the APR-SCAR it has upset
the strategic balance in the
larger region, much to India’s
detriment. Thus, India alone
(with Terrorism Central in
direct support) will have to
deal with the Chinese along
the LAC, neutralise Pakistan
along the LOC, the Working
Boundary and the
international border, cope
with a potentially unstable
base of operations in the
IIOJ&KR and control a
volatile internal front in a
debilitating two-front war
scenario. India just does not
have the political will,
economic clout or the military
capacity and capability to
meet these challenges. The US
would have got many strategic
advantages had it stayed on in
Afghanistan, the central and
most critical position in the
region. It would have
continued to occupy China’s
flank as its BRI-CPEC moved
through Pakistan onto the
Makran Coast/Arabian
Sea/IOR. It could have
exercised oversight and
intimate strategic reach over
the BRI-CPEC and posed
existentialist threats to it as it
evolved and ventured further
into the CARs, Iran and the
GMER. It could have
exercised a literal veto over
efforts at regional
connectivity and economic
integration in the GMER-
SCAR—one strategic
objective of the BRI-CPEC.
Terrorism Central could have
been launched in more
conducive environments. It
could have also blocked
Russia’s and the CAR’s
access to the Pakistani ports
on the Arabian Sea. It could
have threatened any future or
potential Sino-Pak military
presence on the Makran Coast
or Sino-Iranian military
presence in the PG with
double envelopments—from
across the Persian Gulf and
Afghanistan. And most
critically it could have
continued having a close
oversight on Pakistan’s and
Iran’s nuclear and missile
programmes. All of the above
and more will now be that
much more difficult to
achieve from over the
horizon—from the Arabian
Peninsula-Persian Gulf (PG)
region or even India. The
Chinese on the other hand
have made phenomenal
progress while the US wasted
its time and energies in
unnecessary wars in the
GMER. In the current
scenario China has clear
access to the Makran
Coast/Arabian Sea and its
presence along the Iranian PG
coastline is a done deal. This
will give China a very
formidable position within the
PG and astride the Hormuz
Strait through which the bulk
of the world’s oil supplies
pass daily. Crucially it will
nullify, to a very great extent,
the effects of any blockades at
the Malacca Straits. Any
Chinese military presence on
the Makran Coast and on the
Iranian coastline will cause a
pull on the US and its allied
forces in the IPR and also
draw the USCENTCOM and
USAFRICOM into the fray.
This will expand the spectrum
of any future or potential
conflict to over two theatres of Government of Pakistan for It will be (t)asked to moderate
war and inevitably draw in the Taliban between 2001 and the Afghan Taliban’s
countries of the GMER- 2020 including the provision governance and conduct of
SCAR and Africa into the of sanctuary space, financial, domestic and international
battle. Therein lie the seeds of intelligence, medical and policies. Despite the US’ holy
a potential World War! logistics support, training, pronouncements Terrorism
equipping and tactical, Central will be employed by
Where will Pakistan fit into
operational and strategic hostile intelligence agencies
the US’ potential strategic
direction.” All those to destabilise the APR-BRI-
design for Asia? The die
determined to have helped the CPEC at a time of its
appears to have been cast. US-
Afghan Taliban will be made choosing. The US will want
Pakistan history will yet
to pay the price. Was the US Pakistan to move away from
repeat itself ad nauseum.
unaware of that during its China, stunt the further
Pakistan will be made the
military campaign or has it progression of the BRI-CPEC
scapegoat for the US’
only dawned upon it now after and deny Russia access to the
ignominious defeat and
conceding defeat at the Arabian Sea/IOR.
subjected to crippling
strategic level? Pakistan will Furthermore, it will want to
sanctions and coercion—a
be coerced to secure US deny China sole leadership,
repeat of US policy towards
interests vis a vis India, stewardship and control over
Pakistan post USSR
Afghanistan and China. It will regional connectivity and
withdrawal from Afghanistan.
be required to consign the economic integration in the
Section 202 of a bill that has
Kashmir issue to the SCAR-GMER Complex and
already been placed in the US
backburner and loosen its the multidimensional benefits
Congress seeks “an
stranglehold on the Indian accruing therefrom.
assessment of support by state
military to let it pursue US
and non-state actors and the
interests against China freely.
 COP26 as the turning point: From climate negotiations to
solutions
T
he evidence is clear. In
August, the world’s
leading scientists
concluded once again that
immediate action is needed.
Climate change is
uncomfortably close to all our
daily realities no matter where
in the world we live. Already
it is triggering the kind of
climate disasters we saw this
summer, putting the survival
of many species at risk and
soon rendering certain parts of
the Earth uninhabitable to
humans.
As climate scientist Prof.
Kimberly Nicholas framed it,
“It’s warming. It’s us. We’re
sure. It’s bad. But we can fix
it”. In Paris, five years ago, the
international community
finally agreed to embark upon
an ambitious journey: to limit
global warming to between
1.5 and 2°C. While such levels
of warming might seem
trivial, the difference could be
existential. For the human
body, a two-degree difference
can be the difference between
life and death. Containing
Earth’s temperature increase
means limiting climate
disruption and reducing the
chance of natural disasters.
Yet the news is not all grim—
science also tells us that a
zero-carbon society
possible—a society of new
green jobs and growth that
limits warming to 1.5°C. The
European Union has already
shown that it is feasible to
decouple growth from CO2
Androulla Kaminara, The Nation
emissions (since 1990, our pushing for progress in the
GDP has grown by over 60 fight against climate change in
percent while net greenhouse all international fora and in
gas emissions have fallen by a our bilateral relations.
quarter). In July 2021 we
We invite all partners to
launched a set of measures to
strengthen their climate
implement the European
mitigation and adaptation
Green Deal and deliver a 55
plans. We are ready to offer
percent net reduction in
technical and financial
greenhouse gas emissions by
support, and are walking the
2030 on the path to climate
talk with our own Climate
neutrality by 2050. This
Law, 2030 package and
transition—how we generate
Adaptation Strategy. The EU
and use energy, move around,
and its member states are
build and heat houses and use
among the world’s biggest
the land—is designed in the
providers of climate finance to
fairest way possible, ensuring
developing countries, with
no one is left behind.
EUR 22 billion (USD 26
Otherwise, it won’t work.
billion) released in 2019
Being responsible for 8
representing more than a third
percent of global CO2
of the total effort by
emissions, the EU will not be
developed countries.
able to solve the climate crisis
alone. We have to inspire This amount will need to be
others—even the most scaled up in the years to come
reluctant partners—to join the and the EU is committed to
path to climate neutrality. increase its contribution, as
When the EU committed two can for instance be seen by
years ago to zero net GHG European Commission
emissions by 2050, few President Von der Leyen’s
believed Japan, USA, South recent announcement of an
Korea and even China would overall 4 billion top-up under
follow. When we announced the EU’s core budget over the
the EU Green Deal, few 2021-2027 period.
imagined the EU would
But we need others to do
finance the most ambitious
more, also to meet the
climate neutrality plan in the
commitment by developed
world. We set up the first
countries to provide USD 100
Green Alliance for climate
is billion per year for climate
neutrality, starting with Japan
action in developing
on 27 May, and we pushed for
countries. Mobilising more
the G7 to commit to climate
private funding will also be
neutrality in June. Now we are
important in this regard. The
strongly pleading for the G20
EU has fought hard to keep the
to follow suit. The EU is
Paris Agreement alive. Now,
determined to never stop
after the UNFCCC’s
disheartening report released
last July, the time has come to
materialise the declared
contributions and
significantly boost climate
action globally. Under current
reduction commitments,
global temperature would still
rise by an unacceptable 2.7°C
by 2100—a gloomy outlook
to say the least.
Each and every country in the
world needs to increase its
ambition to cut global
emissions. A lack of ambition
means a tax will be levied by
climate change itself, a tax
that is bad for everyone, paid
for with destruction, and
without any upside for
society. This is why the EU is
launching a flexible carbon
border adjustment mechanism
allowing to equalise the price
of carbon between domestic
products and imports. This
will ensure that imports from
outside Europe do not have an
unfair advantage if
manufactured with a bigger
carbon footprint. Putting a
price on carbon is essential to
trigger the fundamental
change the world needs and
stimulate clean technology
and market innovation. That
being said, such a mechanism
will take into account the
limited capacity of some of
the EU’s trade partners. Those
who are unable to decarbonise
rapidly, will not be penalised
unfairly. But those who can,
are expected to deliver. If we
close the gaps in financing and
ambition, if all countries
commit to doing more, then
we can still keep the climate
crisis under control. The
science is clear: today’s cost
of inaction is immeasurable. It
is a fantasy to believe we
could afford not to act.
We need a systemic shift away
from fossil fuels. It is good for
our health, our households,
our crops, our water, our jobs
and our economies. World
leaders’ commitment and
pressure from citizens need to
go hand in hand. Every action
counts: how we vote, what we
eat, how we travel. Just how
damaging climate change will
be is in our hands.
The EU strives to take a
leading role in climate action,
and we want to do more with
Pakistan. Pakistan is the 8th
most affected country in the
world due to adverse impacts
of climate change—including
severe water stress, food
insecurity, degradation of
ecosystems and biodiversity
loss and extreme weather
events such as floods and
droughts. Pakistan is
signatory of all major climate
and environment international
agreements and is also
showing its determination to
act concretely through bold
initiatives in support to
reforestation and to preserve
biodiversity and ecosystems,
tackling both climate change
adaptation and mitigation of
climate related risks.
Cooperation on climate
change is an important aspect
of the EU’s strategic ties with
Pakistan, and we are eager to
take all the opportunities that
may present to intensify this
collaboration. Several
International Conventions
related to the environment are
part of Pakistan’s
commitments related to GSP+
trade preferences, which
allow Pakistani businesses to
export duty free to the
European Single Market. In
this sense, by delivering on its
commitments, Pakistan is not
only contributing to the global
fight against climate change,
but also helping secure its
trade benefits.
The EU remains fully
committed to a sustained and
increased investment in
enhancing resilience and
adaptation in the most
disaster-prone countries and
regions and to build-back-
better strategies for recovery.
With the collective efforts of
the international community
we are in a position to make
sure that the whole society can
benefit from green, inclusive
growth. Particularly
vulnerable groups such as
refugees, women and children
need to be actively involved in
decisions about resources that
will affect future generations.
Pakistan should feel free to
challenge us and go even
further than the EU. Climate
action can take place
anywhere, at any level. There
is no time left for inaction—
the time for practical solutions
is now, from the most basic to
the most innovative.