CSS Articles Collections Final PDF

The British Academy
1
ikonsoft057@gmail.com 03422857057
The British Academy
Contents
1. Indian Ocean, Conflict Zone of Another Great Game ……………… 3
2. Pakistan the victim of Indian Hybrid warfare ………………………. 5
3. Navigating the Middle East ……………………………………………7
4. The UN’s unhappy birthday …………………………………………. 8
5. UAE – Israel relations ………………………………………………. 10
6. Modi accelerated Balkanization of India…………………………….. 12
7. What the new Iran-China partnership means for the region ………… 14
8. Analysis of juvenile justice system of Pakistan……………………… 16
9. The world cannot forget the Rohingya……………………………….. 18
10. Post-August 2019 Developments: Kashmir, Hindutva and Regional
Security ………………………………………………………………. 19
11. Holding India accountable for war crimes…………………….……… 22
12. Presidential or parliamentary government for Pakistan ……………… 24
13. Turkey and Mediterranean’s energy politics………………………… 26
14. Revocation of article 370 – one year on……………………………… 27
15. Jadev’s case review ………………………………………………….. 29
16. Dawn of new Middle East ……………………………………………. 30
17. Brexit still haunting Britain…………………………………………....31
18. Scenarios for post – US Afghanistan………………………………..... 33
19. India, China and the Addis papers……………………………………. 39
20. Acquisition of Rafeel by India ……………………………………….. 41
21. Pakistan & World Maritime Day ……………………………………. 42
22. Nineteen years of 9/11 ………………………………………………. 44
23. Brexit in focus again ………………………………………………….46
For CSS/PMS notes join
https://www.facebook.com/thebritishlanguageacademy/
2
The British Academy
Indian Ocean, Conflict Zone of another Great Game
Brigadier Intekhab Hussain Shah (Retd)
{The National Herald Tribune 12 September 2020}
Member Board of Experts, Center for Global & Strategic Studies (CGSS), Islamabad
1. Indian Ocean has witnessed maximum human activities e.g. trade, transportation, explorations,
communication even piracy during known human history. Great civilizations in history evolved
either on the rim of this great water source or in its near confines. Its fundamental reason is the
human population living around it. The regime includes 28 continental and island states with
35% of the world population. Natural resources especially Hydro Carbon stocks around this
ocean have also been a great attraction for power aspiring nations. Earlier, it could be reached
through either Cape of Good Hope or Strait of Malacca but opening of the Suez Canal boosted
shipping and trade to unprecedented limits. Another important factor that transformed this ocean
into a power struggle regime is access to energy rich Middle East and Central Asia. Thus, its
dominance is mandatory not only to protect trade objectives but trade resources through military
dominance being interdependent. In the late 18th and early 19th century, Great Britain ruled the
world from East to West. The basis of this ascendancy was greatly due to the authority over the
Indian Ocean. British formulated a policy known as possession of “String of Pearls”. It entailed
physical occupation of important port cities starting from Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to
Malaya (Malaysia) including Zimbabwe, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, India, and Burma.
2. After the decline of Great Britain, the USA progressively replaced the vacuum but instead of
physical occupation on the rim of the ocean, a strong naval presence was adopted followed by
intrigues and conspiracies to instill puppet regimes in the rim countries of the Indian Ocean. The
nations resisting to this strategy were embroiled into unrest and civil wars and many settled and
prospering nations turned into ruins like Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Yemen. So is the case in a
power struggle in the contemporary world. After the fall of USSR, US became a guardian of the
world and ruled the globe on its terms and conditions being a single superpower. Many nations
were devastated for disobedience directly or indirectly. Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan were
openly invaded and destroyed while Somalia, Liberia, Zimbabwe, and Egypt were pushed into
internal unrest and civil wars. Millions of people were killed and millions displaced. Pakistan
and Central Asia stood fast although suffered a bit merely because of strong armed forces and
religious/ethnic strengths. At the same time, another power aspiring nation was rising in the East.
China was winning the world instead of applying arrogance, policing, coercing, and punishing as
policy tools but affection, support,
and trade as gears of extending influence. Today, China is felt everywhere in the world
regardless of strong and bitter US opposition. The US own debt to China was $23.4 trillion as of
Feb 19, 2020, which may signify the economic strength and prospects of Chinese designs,
capabilities, and future. Chinese military muscles are also compatible in terms of naval
inventory, aerial might, and space pursuits. Shall the US succumb to new geo-political change
without resistance and reactions? Will the Indian Ocean witness a new conflict in terms of
military clash is the scope of this study with a view to evaluating the effects of future geo-
political milieu in the Indian Ocean and nations living around. Overview of recent past and
present settings in the region are: –
a. In 1890, Alfred Thayer Mahan, a US Naval strategist emphasized on importance of naval
power to dominate the globe. In his famous book “The influence of sea power on the history,
1660-1783″ he denotes that ” whoever controls the Indian Ocean will dominate Asia, the destiny
of the world will be decided on its waters”. After the WW-2, Britain influence in the world
started declining while naval presence also dwindled. In 1968, US virtually took over the
3
The British Academy
command of Indian Ocean from UK. US established a naval base in Diego Garcia while her
flotilla patrolled Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. By then 50% of the world business and 80% of
energy trade was taking place in Indian Ocean making it an International Trade Highway.
b. China was a growing economy and her energy demands were ever increasing. All routes
leading to China for supplies were physically dominated by US. A cold war was being fought
between West and Warsaw Pact countries. China wisely remained away from this clash. After
the demise of USSR, US became single guardian of energy resources of the world while her blue
water navy guaranteed domination in Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. In the arena China could
not afford one on one confrontation with US.
c. Another stake holder in the region was India. India has a 750 km long coast along the Indian
Ocean with important islands like Andaman and Nicobar. Although, India is considered a
stakeholder and boosts to be a future broker of power in Indian Ocean, Indian mind set is
accustomed to a proxy status or subordinate role with liberty to a limited extent. This state of
mind has developed due to prolong and sustained slavery by the people of sub-continent. US saw
a potential proxy in the region while India after USSR gone, found a friendly master thus a new
collaboration started. India unfortunately, could not get rid of Pakistan centric policy while US
had threats from China. A duo formed with divergent objectives. A new great game commenced
in Indian Ocean which is possibly ending soon with US recoiling from the globe due to
economic degradation.
d. Many small economies are dependent on the Indian Ocean like Singapore, Malaysia,
Bangladesh, UAE and Indonesia. Except UAE, the remaining countries have strong influence
and presence of China in their business infrastructure in the form of investments, experts and
technical support. China is physically present at all important ports on the rim of Indian Ocean.
US roars are that of a dying lion as economic strength is shrinking fast with strong and draining
military in size and deployment.
e. Another key disadvantage to US is an unreliable and untrustworthy proxy. India has history of
switching partners, owing to its economic and geographic lollipops. Any rapprochement with
China whereby India sees advantage, India shall happily depart from US’ embrace into Chinese
arms. China is probably already working on such lines. Indian strategists are perplexed rightly as
US also has long history of abandoning partners after the completion of objectives. Thus India is
not willing to dump China totally lest a future superpower become hostile next door.
f. China takes a broader approach. Geo-strategically, China defines South Asia and the Indian
Ocean as an extension of its Maritime Silk Route, the trade and infrastructure corridor linking
coastal China to other Asian countries. The Maritime Silk Route is half of China’s Belt and Road
Initiative, which seeks to expand China’s links throughout Eurasia. Thus, Beijing treats the
region as extending from coastal China, through Southeast Asia, into the Indian Ocean, and all
the way to the Arabian Peninsula and African reaches. Unlike India’s limited objectives, the
Chinese view of the region is an integral part of a broader geo-economic and geostrategic vision.
g. Pakistan despite feeble economic state, some governance and administrative issues have been
convincingly wise in the great game unfurled in the context of Indian Ocean. Without alienating
US, Pakistan joined hands with China. Resultantly, deep Sea port Gawader is coming up while
CPEC is progressing. Trade and military ties between China and Pakistan have always been
strong and upbeat. Hopefully, China taking over Indian Ocean regime shall benefit Pakistan with
surprising pace and quantum.
3. In the wake of the above referred conclusions, Afro-Asiatic region with Indian Ocean, a
medium of future conflict, following is likely to transpire sooner or later: –
a. China unlike US has devised a policy whereby spirit of Belt and Road vis-a-vis Maritime Silk
Route objectives are trade and commerce, incorporating other nations as partners and equal
4
The British Academy
beneficiaries although its military advantages shall also be reaped. Thus competition and revelry
are expected to be least except India. India shall strangely react with whatever possible means
considering herself a big market economy and attractions for West and US.
b. India could benefit more by joining Chinese economic and broad trade and transportation
pursuits but as mentioned earlier, Indian intelligentsia has unique mindset which has shaped
owing to centuries long suppression and tends to conspire, intrigue and deceive. Resultantly,
India fails to visualize a larger picture. Another issue of Indian policy is enmity of Pakistan
which forces India to forego bigger advantage if Pakistan gets a share even smaller. A recent
standoff with China is an example where India was prompted by US and India got engaged into
nonproductive and worthless conflict.
c. China has already established its grip starting from South Africa to Indonesia. The String of
Pearls has reemerged with better planning, resources and future designs. Chinese Naval force
with two aircraft carriers is already operating and a growing fleet of sub-surface ogre shall be
able to regulate and influence military maneuvers and trade in Indian Ocean. India is likely to
react but in the absence of substantial support from US, India alone may not sustain opposition
for longer duration.
d. US shall be rolling out of region sooner or later due to declining economy and ethnic unrest
which is growing. While contemplating US withdrawal from Indian Ocean, it may be
remembered that USSR had huge war waging potentials but crippling economy compelled USSR
to forego the status of the spear head of an opposing camp instead of contesting a futile effort. A
wise and timely departure even casted USSR fragmentation. If US does not extricate timely, fate
may not be different from USSR.
e Australia although is showing interest in the region and express close cooperation with India
but Australia is not that strong in international geo-politics while India herself is not that strong
and role worthy therefore, no significant role may be contemplated from Australia.
4. The geo-political setting of the region are changing fast. Although, a game of thorn was
already fought in the context of Indian Ocean but COVID-19 has increased the speed manifolds.
The resistance of stake holder has retarded due to health and economic issues at home. Recent
threat of US president to WHO is sign of a same depression, anger and helplessness. US
sponsorship dwindling, Middle Eastern economies shall stall besides no policy of own. India,
propagated as emerging economy is cosmetic and over-exaggerated. India with new fascist
internal outlook and poverty with corruption in administrative working can never be global or
regional power. Russia neither has fortitude not capabilities to exercise some significant role in
Afro-Asiatic region except supporting aspiring nations in the region. China shall not only govern
global supremacy in term of trade, business, and transportation, communication but military
expressions too and shall solely dictate the geopolitics in Indian Ocean. Pakistan being close and
trustworthy partner shall also have a defining role in the regional regime.
****************************************************
Pakistan the victim of Indian Hybrid warfare-
By Parliament Times -September 11, 2020 Naseebullah Achakzai
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting; Sun Tzu.
The conventional war in the contemporary world has been changing. War stratagems have been
evolving due to which war culture has been revamped. The modern world is witnessing the latest
buzzword of hybrid war. This is a clandestine non-military effort on the part of the aggressor
country. This warfare is waged by the aggressor state through unconventional methods and
irregular forces so that to target the vulnerabilities of the opponent. Myriad of tacts like cyber
warfare, sponsoring terrorism, promoting criminal activities, wimpishing the rival economy by
5
The British Academy
many means, political interference in the targeted state, promotion of colour revolution, division
of the vulnerable on sectarian and religious grounds, media war by propaganda dissemination,
psychological operations and false flag operations are the major tools, used in hybrid warfare.
The rival country is engaged in multiple fronts. Innumerable countries including Pakistan, are the
victim of this warfare. Since the inception of Pakistan, India has always tried to destabilise it so
that to compel Pakistan to obey Indian hegemony. India has tried to balkanize Pakistan by
adopting ample unconventional and irregular warfare strategies. The national security adviser of
India Ajit Doval who , in 2014, presented his doctrine of defensive, defensive offensive and
offensive. He suggested that the vulnerabilities of Pakistan be exploited through defensive
offensive mode. In his speech, Mr. Doval threatened Pakistan that you do one Mumbai you may
lose Balochistan and that India will unconventionally use conventional means to achieve its
goals. In conventional war, India cannot triumph over Pakistan. Being a nuclear power and
having other sophisticated missile, warheads, strong air force, Muscular Navel, and herculean
Army, Pakistanis are capable to defend the motherland. This capability of Pakistan has changed
Indian plan from conventional war to unconventional, irregular and cyber warfare to destabilise
Pakistan. The Indian strategy is based on 3D objectives: to destabilise Pakistan, to demoralize
and disintegrate it. These objectives have further five fronts such as proxy warfare, information
warfare, cyber warfare, economic and political warfare. India has tried to use every possible step
against Pakistan so that to attain these notorious ambitions. Time and again it has violated Line
of Control so that to engage Pakistan. Further, to fulfil its malicious design of cold start doctrine,
India desiderated to attack Pakistan by using its cold start doctrine of surgical Strike so that to
psychologically down the morals of Pakistani forces and people of Pakistan. That Indian plan
was bulldozed and destroyed when Pakistan hit down its two planes and arrested its Pilot
Abhinandon. Apart from this, time and again India has supported insurgents and separatists in
Pakistan. India wanted to destabilise Pakistan by her Satanic CAW plan and by supporting
Mukhti Bani. At present, Balochistan is its main target where India is interfering with its terrorist
groups. To delicate the economy of Pakistan, the grid stations and pipelines of gas have been
destroyed many times. In addition to these groups, India has started its war in the economic hub
of Pakistan, Karachi. Where the Indian support to a political party is no more hidden. Cyber
warfare and the use of media as a propaganda tool are the most important points of hybrid
warfare. In such kind of war, the aggressor state uses strategies to hack data and use international
forum to malign the opponent. In this regard, Indian has propagated and employed lobbyists
against Pakistan. In the UNO and FATF, India has tried to alleged Pakistan as terrorism
sponsored country. Furthermore, media, particularly, social media is used against Pakistan.
Through its T V dramas and films, culture invasion is taking place and negative agenda setting
has been promoting against Pakistan. Myriad of web pages propagate against the soft image of
Pakistan. Apart from this, with the help of hackers India has tried to theft information and hack
institutional webpages of Pakistan. In 2013 Indian hackers defaced many Pakistani websites.
Recently according to the ISPR, during August 2020, many cyber-attacks of Indian intelligence
were identified targeting mobile phones, and gadgets of government officials and army
personnel. After the start of CPEC, Indian American nexus is fully investing its energies to
sabotage it. In this regard, Chinese Consulate in Karachi in 2018 was attacked by Indian
sponsored proxies and terrorists. The example of Indian Spy Kulbhoshan Jadheve is not far, who
was caught red_ handed and admitted to destabilize Pakistan and CPEC. India has her vested
interests in stagnating Pakistan’s economy. Hence, CPEC which will be a game and fate changer
for Pakistani economy, India is using its full energy to disrupt CPEC through its hybrid war
tactics. Furthermore, agriculture is the jugular vein of Pakistan economy. This sector is
dependent on the rivers which were given to Pakistan through Indus Water Treaty. India has
6
The British Academy
been building more than 70 Dams on many rivers which is the violation of the treaty. This tact is
the part of hybrid war so that to stagnant Pakistan’s economy. Though, conventional war and
military force remain a nifty tool for deterrence, the hybrid warfare as a means to bleed the rival
and vulnerable country like Pakistan, has been given huge propulsion in modern times warfare.
No country is perfect. Pakistan also has many fault lines. It is vulnerable to Indian hybrid
warfare. What is needed is a comprehensive strategy to defy Indian hybrid warfare. There is a
dire need of political stabilization, adoption of comprehensive policies to overcome the
grievances of the vulnerable, national economic puissance, coherent arrangement of expertise in
Cyber technology and establishing a hybrid defence system , creating awareness among the
layman and encountering Indian propaganda internally and externally by means of Media.
*******************************************************
Navigating the Middle East
Usman Shirazi (12 September, 2020)
The Middle Eastern region has enormous importance in Pakistan’s foreign policy. Due to its
geographical proximity and historical linkages, it has always been an area with paramount
importance for Pakistan’s national interests. Besides a political, economic, and strategic
convergence, this region offers cultural, religious, and historical theatres to determine Pakistan’s
foreign policy priorities.
Unfortunately, throughout history, this region has been a centre of big power proxies exploiting
its heterogeneous population by dividing them into tribes, sects, and religions. In the
contemporary geopolitical environment, KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)/Iran rivalry, intended
for regional dominance, has made this region tumultuous and left Pakistan with little space to
navigate. Pakistan shares strong bonds with both rivals and has its compulsions in dealing with
them.
Even before the inception of Pakistan, the Muslims of the subcontinent had historical relations
with all MENA (the Middle East and North Africa) countries. During the First World War, the
Muslims started the Caliph movement to save and restore the ailing Ottoman caliphate. The
MENA Region people also vehemently supported the Pakistan movement. The relations based
on brotherhood continued after the independence of Pakistan. KSA and Iran supported Pakistan
in times of every crisis whether these were wars with India or natural calamities.
In the contemporary setting, this region has bogged down in conflicts and chaos due to global
and regional power politics. Ever since the Islamic revolution took place in Iran, the fissures
between Iran and KSA have been widening. Now, this hostility came to a stage where a little
spark may be turned into a conflagration. Pakistan’s relations with both regional powers are of
paramount value. Iran shares a 959-kilometer border with Pakistan. Both countries are connected
through various economic, trade, energy, and security, cultural and religious engagements. The
recent Sino/Iran strategic deal would further create new avenues of cooperation. Iran is very
important for Pakistan’s internal security due to the tumultuous population along both sides of its
porous border.
On the other side, KSA also holds a special place in Pakistan’s foreign policy. Pakistan shares
deep-rooted cultural, religious, economic, and strategic ties with Riyadh. Following the Iranian
revolution and during the Afghan war, Pakistan’s relations with Tehran became sour which
brought Islamabad and Riyadh closer and their strategic partnership became deeper. Riyadh
played a key role in the economic development of Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan’s diaspora in
KSA and its allied GCC countries is a major source of foreign remittances. This shows that both
sides hold equal importance for Pakistan and tilting towards either side will alienate the other.
Hence, Pakistan cannot afford it due to its internal security problems and the dwindling
7
The British Academy
economy. In Pak/Iran and Pak/KSA relations, there exists a limited parity which demands a
neutral foreign policy towards both.
In the Yemen crisis, Pakistani parliament passed resolutions to stay neutral as both KSA and Iran
were involved in the conflict. The realist prism proposes that while choosing between two allies,
you must go for the one where approximate parity is tilted. However, in Pak/KSA and Pak/Iran,
there exists a similar parity. Hence, balancing does not work here.
Secondly, another alliance that makes the region volatile and compels Pakistan to navigate
smartly is the new alliance led by Turkey. Turkey besides its close economic and commercial
engagements is also a vocal supporter of Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir. However, it has
divergent and conflicting interests in Syria, Libya, and Egypt from Pakistan’s gulf partners.
Qatar’s closeness to Turkey and Iran made its relations rancorous with GCC countries. In the
Qatar blockade, Pakistan wisely maintained neutrality, however, this time; the mounting
conflicting dynamics are narrowing diplomatic space for Pakistan.
In managing its relations with new regional blocs, Pakistan should firstly prioritise its national
interest. Currently, in the backdrop of the August 5 move, the Kashmir issue has become the
lynchpin of Pakistan’s foreign policy. It has become an easy way to win Pakistan’s confidence.
So far Turkey and Malaysia have succeeded to win the hearts of the Pakistani people by their
vocal support. However, is Turkish and Malaysian support enough to pressurise Narendra Modi
to restore the Kashmir status? These countries do not have much political clout in New Delhi and
Washington as do Riyadh and its GCC partners. So far, Pakistan is disappointed by the response
of its gulf partners on Kashmir; however, in the long run, the simmering public pressure against
Modi atrocities could compel them to change their policies. Moreover, in the time of crisis,
Pakistan could use their clout in New Delhi and Washington to deescalate tensions as it did
successfully following the Balakot episode.
Navigating through this complex and sensitive region, Pakistan needs a dynamic and
multipronged foreign policy. Firstly, the civil/military leadership should prioritise its key
interests and then use different tools from its foreign policy kit for each partner in the region. The
current Sino/Iran strategic deal has further narrowed parity between Pak/Iran and Pak/KSA
relations. Secondly, despite a year after the altercation of Kashmir status, the Pakistani ruling
elite is still bewildered and unable to devise a vibrant policy on Kashmir. Choosing between the
economy and Kashmir, Pakistan is oscillating aimlessly. Without a strong economy, no one will
pay heed on what is happening in Kashmir. Hence, taking Kashmir and economy hand-in-hand,
Islamabad should devise a neutrality-cum-balancing strategy towards the Turkish-led bloc and
the KSA-led block. Thirdly, Pakistan needs to diversify its partnership to reduce reliance on
either side. This would give Pakistan enough space to manoeuvre. Moreover, Pakistan should
place its best diplomats in the MENA region who know the art of diplomacy. As Churchill said,
“Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they seek direction”.
*****************************************************
The UN’s unhappy birthday
By Richard Haass/New York
The United Nations turns 75 this autumn, and if this were a normal year, many of the world’s
leaders would gather in New York City to celebrate this milestone and open the annual meeting
of the General Assembly.
But this year is anything but normal. There will be no gathering because of Covid-19 – and even
if there were, there would be little grounds for celebration. The United Nations has fallen far
short of its goals to “maintain international peace and security,” “develop friendly relations
8
The British Academy
among nations’’ and “achieve international co-operation in solving international problems.”
The pandemic helps illustrate why. The UN Security Council, the most important component of
the UN system, has made itself largely irrelevant. China has blocked any significant role for the
UN’s executive body lest it be criticised for its initial mishandling of the outbreak and be held
responsible for the consequences. Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation deferred to China
early on and has been further weakened by the United States’ decision to withdraw from it. The
result is that the major powers get the UN they want, not the one the world needs.
None of this is new. During the four decades of the Cold War, the UN became a venue for US-
Soviet rivalry. The fact that the Cold War did not turn hot (as great power competition had twice
before in the twentieth century) was due less to what happened at the UN than to nuclear
deterrence and a balance of power that compelled significant caution in US and Soviet
behaviour. The principal occasion when the UN intervened to maintain international peace –
committing an international force to reverse North Korean aggression against South Korea – it
could do so only because the Soviet Union was boycotting it.
There were widespread hopes that the UN could play a larger role in the Cold War’s aftermath.
Optimists appeared to be vindicated in 1990 when countries of the world came together through
the UN to oppose and ultimately reverse Saddam Hussein’s conquest of Kuwait.
Alas, the Gulf War proved to be the exception. The Cold War had just ended, and relations
between the US and both China and the Soviet Union were relatively good. There was little love
for Iraq’s dictator, whose aggression violated the fundamental international norm that borders
ought not be changed through force.
And the goal of the UN-blessed, US-led coalition was limited and conservative: to evict Iraqi
forces and restore the status quo in Kuwait, not change the regime in Iraq.
Such conditions could not easily be replicated. Major power relations deteriorated significantly,
and the UN became increasingly irrelevant. Russia (which inherited the Soviet Union’s seat on
the Security Council) prevented unified action to stop the bloodshed in the Balkans. A lack of
international support motivated President George W Bush’s administration to bypass the UN
when it went to war with Iraq in 2003. Russian opposition precluded any UN action when Russia
illegally annexed Crimea in 2014.
The UN also failed to head off the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. A decade later the General
Assembly, vowing never to let this happen again, declared the world had the “Responsibility to
Protect,” or intervene, when a government was unable or unwilling to protect its citizens from
large-scale violence.
The doctrine has mostly been ignored. The world has sat on its collective hands amid terrible
conflicts that have caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to die in Syria and Yemen. The one
instance when the doctrine was invoked, in 2011 in Libya, it was discredited because the Nato-
led coalition acting in its name went further than the doctrine called for by removing the existing
government and then failed to follow up, creating a power vacuum that continues to plague the
country.
This is not to suggest the UN is without value. It provides a useful venue for governments to talk,
be it to avert or calm a crisis. UN agencies have promoted economic and social development and
facilitated arrangements ranging from telecommunications to monitoring of nuclear facilities.
Peacekeeping missions have helped to maintain order in many countries.
But overall the UN has disappointed, owing to great power rivalries and member countries’
reluctance to cede freedom of action. The organisation’s own shortcomings haven’t helped: a
spoils system that puts too many people in important positions for reasons other than
competence, lack of accountability, and hypocrisy (such as when countries that ignore human
rights sit on a UN body meant to uphold them).
9
The British Academy
Significant reform of the UN is not a realistic option, as potential changes, such as altering the
composition of the Security Council to reflect the distribution of power in today’s world, would
favour some countries and disadvantage others. Not surprisingly, those who stand to lose can and
do block any such change.
Meanwhile, the General Assembly, the most “democratic” and representative of the UN’s
structures, lacks teeth and is rendered ineffectual insofar as every country has one vote,
regardless of its size, population, wealth, or military might.
What makes this a crisis is that the need for international cooperation is great. We face not only
the revival of great power rivalry but also multiple global challenges, from pandemics and
climate change to nuclear proliferation and terrorism, for which there are no unilateral answers.
The good news is that countries can create alternatives – such as the G7 and G20 – when the UN
falls short. Coalitions of the relevant, willing, and able can come together to tackle specific
regional and global challenges. We are seeing versions of this in trade policy and arms control,
and might well see it in climate action and in establishing norms for behavior in cyberspace. The
case for multilateralism and global governance is stronger than ever.
But, for better or worse, it will have to take place largely outside the UN. – Project Syndicate
Richard Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The World: A
Brief Introduction
***************************************************
UAE-Israel Relations The Frontier Post / September 10, 2020 Naeem Kandwal
The UAE’s recognition of Israel is nothing new. Egypt and Jordan have already recognized
Israel. Although the UAE has just formally announced its relations with Israel, in reality the
relations of the Arab countries with Israel are very old. Israeli officials themselves have
acknowledged this.
On August 13, 2020, the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Anwar Gargash, announced
the UAE’s agreement to normalize relations with Israel saying that his country wanted to deal
with the threats facing the two-state solution, specifically annexation of the Palestinian
territories, and urging the Palestinians and Israelis to return to the negotiating table. He indicated
that he did not think that there will be any embassy in Jerusalem until after there is a final
agreement between the Palestin-ians and the Israelis.
According to US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
“Israel and the United Arab Emirates will fully normalize their diplomatic relations. They will
exchange embassies and ambassadors and begin cooperation across the board and on a broad
range of areas including tourism, education, healthcare, trade and security.”
A joint statement issued by Trump, Netanyahu, and Zayed, read: “This historic diplomatic
breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold
diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel
to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region.” The UAE said it would
continue to support the Palestinian people and that the agreement would maintain the prospect of
a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. Despite the agreement however, Netanyahu
stated that Israel’s sovereignty claim to the Jordan Valley was still on the agenda and only frozen
for the time being. Zayed tweeted that the “UAE and Israel also agreed to cooperation and
setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship.”
There are two reasons why Arab countries have relations with Israel. According to the saying of
Hazrat Ali “Your friends are three and your enemies are three. Your friends are: your friend, the
friend of your friend, and the enemy of your enemy. Your enemies are: your enemy, the enemy
10
The British Academy
of your friend, and the friend of your enemy.” Iran is a common enemy of the United States,
Israel and some arab countries. Arab countries, the United States and Israel, are troubled by
Iran’s growing extraordinary influence. The balance of power is shifting from west to east, with
China and Iran playing key roles. If we talk about Israel, the 1982 Lebanon war and then the
2006 Israeli Hezbollah war is a wake-up call for Israel. The way the Iranian-backed militant
group Hezbollah defeated Israel in the 2006 war can be described as an eternal threat to Israel.
Speaking of the United States, the situation in the Middle East has not been in America’s favor
for some years. America’s future in the Middle East looks bleak. Whether it’s Syria or Iraq,
Lebanon or Yemen, the way Iran has troubled the United States and its allies is significant. In
Syria, Iran and Russia have darkened America’s future in the Middle East by defeating a 70-
nation US alliance that included world powers such as Britain, France and the United States. The
situation is similar in Iraq. Unexpectedly, after the martyrdom of Iranian General Qasim
Salmani, the world’s only superpower, the United States, has to withdraw from Iraq contrary to
its plan. Rockets are being fired daily at US forces and embassies in Iraq.
On the other hand, the Arab countries are also afraid of Iran’s growing extraordinary influence.
The balance of power in the Middle East is entirely in Iran’s favor. Iran is winning the strategic
struggle for influence in the Middle East against its rival, Saudi Arabia, according to a study by
the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Iran’s regional rivals have
spent billions of dollars on Western weaponry, much of it from the UK.
Yet for a fraction of that cost, sanctions-bound Iran has been able to successfully embed itself
across the region into a position of strategic advantage. It has a major influence – verging on a
controlling influence in some cases – over the affairs of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. Even
the powerful Arab country of Qatar has strong ties with Iran. Some Arab countries are facing the
threat of uprisings. Protests and revolutionary movements against monarchies, especially in
Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, are a major threat to these countries. Arab countries blame Iran for
these uprisings and revolutionary movements. There is no doubt that Iran has made tremendous
progress in all fields since the Revolution. The situation in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen is
clear evidence of this. In the war in Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi fighters have put Saudi
Arabia in trouble. As a result of the war, Saudi Arabia’s economy is in dire straits. The biggest
proof of this is that not a single project of Muhammad bin Salman’s vision 2030 has been started
yet.
The second reason for the UAE-Israel relationship is the political interests of Trump and
Netanyahu. Trump needed the deal to win the presidential election. Apart from this agreement,
Trump has no significant success inside or outside the United States that can satisfy the
American people. Trump’s popularity has plummeted due to a spate of racist incidents. On the
other hand, the power of Israeli Prime Minister Net-anyahu is also in danger. P-rotests against
him are int-ensifying over allegations of bribery and corruption. This proves that the two le-aders
have made this agreement for political gain.
I don’t think this agreement will last long. This is an agreement full of political interests. The
deal will certainly benefit Trump and Netanyahu, but not the Arab countries. The Western policy
of dividing the Muslim Ummah seems to be succeeding to some extent.
***********************************************
11
The British Academy
Modi Accelerated the ‘Balkanization’ of India
The Frontier Post / September 13, 2020 by Sajjad Shaukat
According to Britannica, the term, “Balkanization is used to refer to ethnic conflict within
multiethnic states…coined at the end of World War I to describe the ethnic and political
fragmentation that followed the breakup of the the Ottoman Empire, particularly in the Balkans.
The term is today invoked to explain the disintegration of some multiethnic states and their
devolution into dictatorship, ethnic cleansing [religious divisions] and civil war. In the early
1990s the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the emergence
of several new states—many of which were unstable and ethnically mixed”.
However, especially the former Soviet Union which had subjugated the minorities and ethnic
groups in various provinces and regions through its military, disintegrated in 1991. Even its
nuclear weapons could not save its collapse. Major cause of the disintegration of the former
Russian Empire was that its greater defence expenditure exceeded to the maximum, resulting
into economic crises inside the country. About a prolonged war in Afghanistan, former President
of the Soviet Union Gorbachev had declared it as the “bleeding wound.”
In this regard, Indian extremist rulers’ various moves such as abrogation of the special status of
the Jummu and Kashmir by revoking articles 35A and 370 of the Constitution on August 5, 2019
to turn Muslim majority into minority in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), continued
lockdown in the IOK, issuance of domicile certificates to 40000 non-Kashmiris to bring
demographic changes in the Muslim-majority area, martyrdom of thousands of the Kashmiris
there etc. are notable.
Acting upon the August 5 announcement, Indian central government issued a notorious map on
October 31, last year. In accordance with it, Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two union
territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Apart from Pakistan, China also rejected Indian map and bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into
two union territories as “unlawful and void”, and against the UNO resolutions. Despite the new
agreement, border dispute between New Delhi and Beijing, which still remains unsettled, has
increased tension between the two countries.
Notably, Modi has also accelerated war-hysteria against Pakistan and instructed Indian forces to
continue shelling across the Line of Control (LoC), which has killed many innocent civilians
inside Pakistani side of Kashmir.
And Indian extremist rulers have continued military clampdown in the Indian Held Kashmir
where Indian military and paramilitary troopers have broken all previous records of gross human
rights abuses by martyring tens of thousands of the Kashmiris through brutal tactics, pallet-guns
and various kinds of torture. But, Kashmiris are still violating the lockdown by protesting against
Indian illegal actions.
In fact, since Modi became the Indian Prime Minister, he started implementing ideology of
Hindutva ((Hindu Nationalism). Under his regime, persecution of religious minorities such as
Dalits, Sikhs, Christians and particularly Muslims, including even of lower cast-Hindus has been
intensified.
In this respect, the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA), passed by the Indian
Parliament further exposed the discriminatory policies of the Modi government. The CAA
coupled with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is mainly against the Muslim immigrants
especially from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
Since last year, daily mass protests continued across every state in India against the CAA and the
NRC. Despite criticism of the rights groups, foreign leaders, the UNO and moderate Hindus in
12
The British Academy
wake of violent protests which killed and injured hundreds of persons—mostly Muslims by the
police and prejudiced Hindus, Modi’s government has not withdrawn the CAA/NRC.
In this context, a government-appointed-the Delhi Minorities Commission said in its report on
July 16, 2020: “At least 53 people, mostly Muslims, were killed and more than 200 were injured
in the worst communal violence in the Indian capital Delhi…against a new citizenship law
[CAA] in February, this year…laying out the path to citizenship for six religious groups from
neighbouring countries except Muslims. Critics said the law was discriminatory and flouted
India’s secular constitution…Muslim homes, shops and vehicles…mosques were selectively
targeted during the rioting…broke out across the country…Seemingly, to crush the protests, with
support of the administration and police, a retaliatory plan of pro-CAA protesters was worked
out to trigger violence at a large scale…Some senior BJP leaders like former member of Delhi
legislative assembly Kapil Mishra of fuelling the Feb 23 violence”.
In its recently released annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom (USCIRF) recommended that the State Department should designate India as Country
of Particular Concern—pushed for imposing targeted sanctions on Indian government agencies
and officials responsible for severe violations of religious freedom by freezing those individuals’
assets and/or barring their entry into the US und-er human rights-related fin-ancial and visa
authorities.
In the recent years, Maoist accelerated their struggle by attacking official installments. In this
context, Indian media admitted that Maoists have entered the cities, expanding their activities
against the Indian union. On 22-23 April 2018, at least 39 Maoists were killed in an alleged
encounter with Indian security forces in district Gadchiroli. Maoist uprising is second major
freedom movement after that of the Occupied Kashmir. Indian former Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh had called Maoist insurrection, “the single biggest internal-security
challenge”, whereas, Home Secretary G.K Pillai had reiterated the magnitude of this threat by
saying that the Maoists want to completely overthrow the Indian state by 2050. The Naxalite-
Maoists, as they call themselves, are the liberators, representing landless farmers and the
downtrodden masses who have been entangled into vicious circle of poverty, misery and
deprivation.
Nonetheless, India, dominated by politicians from the Hindi heartland—Hindutva have been
using brutal force ruthlessly against Assam, Kashmir, Khalistan, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tamil
Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura. These states which are ethnically
and linguistically different from rest of the country are rocked by a large number of armed and
violent rebellions, some seeking separate states, some fighting for autonomy and others
demanding complete independence.
Instead of redressing the grievances of the people by eliminating injustices against them, Modi-
led regime is depending upon state terrorism to crush these extremist and secessionist
movements. But, India’s unrealistic counterinsurgency strategy has badly failed. It is notable that
by ignoring the modern global trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes
and economic development, India has accelerated alarming arms race in South Asia.
In its report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has revealed on
February 17, 2020 that in 2019, total global military expenditure rose to $1917 billion in 2019. It
said that the five largest spenders in 2019 accounted for 62 percent of expenditure. India is
among the world’s largest recipient of arms.
It is mentionable that India test-fired its longest range surface-to-surface nuclear ballistic missile
Agni-5 on December 26, 2017, which is capable of striking a target of more than 5,000 km away.
It can carry a nuclear warhead of more than one tone. It can target almost all of Asia, including
13
The British Academy
Pakistan, China and Europe. While, the Agni-6 is reported to be in early stages of development
and the most advanced version, with a strike-range of 8,000-10,000 km.
Meanwhile, America set aside the Indian poor record regarding the safety of nuclear weapons
and materials. Despite, Indian refusal to sign various international agreements—non-
proliferation treaties such as NPT and CTBT and Additional Protocol with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the US signed a pact of nuclear civil technology with New
Delhi in 2008.
During American President Barack Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and
India announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply
New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.
On November 2, 2010, the US agreed to sell India the new F-35 fighter jets, including US F-16
and F-18 fighters, C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons etc. Besides
acquisition of arms and weapons from other western countries—especially Israel, America is a
potential military supplier to India. US also pressurized IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group
to grant a waiver to India for obtaining civil nuclear trade on larger scale.
While, French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation has handed over four Rafale multirole fighter
aircraft to the Indian Air Force in May, 2020. Delivery of all 36 aircraft is expected to be
completed by April 2022.
It is noteworthy that Indian ex-Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor had said on December 29,
2010 that the Indian army “is now revising its five-year old doctrine” and is preparing for a
“possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.”
Particularly, fast growing economic power of China coupled with her rising strategic relationship
with Russia, the Third World and especially Pakistan—after signing of the agreement China-
Pakistan Economic Corridor has irked the eyes of Americans, Indians and Israelis. Owing to
jealousy, America desires to make India a major power to counterbalance China in Asia.
Indian defense analyst Ravinder Pal Singh, while indicating New Delhi’s unending defense
expenditures at the cost of poverty-alleviation, calls it guns-versus-butter question.
Showing realistic approach, Indian Minister of External affairs Jaswant Singh who served the
BJP for 30 years was expelled from the party for praising Mohammad Ali Jinnah [Founder of
Pakistan] and echoing the pain of the Indian Muslims in his book, “Jinnah: India, Partition,
Independence”.
Pointing out the BJP’s attitude towards the minorities, Singh wrote: “Every Muslim that lives in
India is a loyal Indian…look into the eyes of Indian Muslims and see the pain.” He warned in his
book, if such a policy continued, “India could have third partition.”
Undoubtedly, Modi has accelerated the ‘Balkanization’ of India and Kashmir which has become
special target of India’s perennial state terrorism is giving impetus to other movements of
separation and insurgency in the country in wake of financial crises, acute poverty and rapidly-
spread of coronavirus pandemic.
******************************************
What the new Iran-China partnership means for the region

Al Jazeera Abdul Basit
This new realignment in Asia provides new opportunities not only for China and Iran, but also
for Pakistan
In early July, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced that Tehran is close to
entering into a long-term strategic partnership agreement with Beijing. A few weeks later, Indian
media reported that Tehran has “dropped New Delhi” from a key rail project along its border
14
The British Academy
with Afghanistan after “it showed reluctance in investing fearing American sanctions”.
Despite occupying headlines around the same time, the news of Iran’s newly formed strategic
alliance with China and its alleged cold-shouldering of India were not directly related.
Nevertheless, viewed together in the context of the growing tensions between the US and China
and the Himalayan border dispute between China and India, these two developments provide
valuable insights into the new geopolitical realignments in Asia. It seems the Trump
administration’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran has pushed the country into the arms of
China and caused a significant strategic disadvantage to its long-term ally India.
According to a July 11 report by the New York Times, the not yet finalised agreement between
Beijing and Tehran will see China invest a total of $400bn in banking, transport and
development sectors in Iran. In exchange, Beijing expects to receive a regular, and heavily
discounted, supply of Iranian oil over the next 25 years. The deal is part of Chinese President Xi
Jinping’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that aims to extend his country’s economic
and strategic influence across Eurasia.
Just a few days after the details of the proposed China-Iran deal were made public, on July 14,
Indian daily The Hindu reported that Iran decided to exclude India from an extensive rail project
that will connect the Iranian port city of Chabahar to Zahedan, a city near its border with
Afghanistan. Indian consultancy IRCON had pledged to provide all services and funding for the
project, estimated at about $1.6bn, according to The Hindu report.
The Iranian government swiftly denied the Indian newspaper’s report, claiming it did not drop
New Delhi from the project, as it had “not inked any deal with India regarding the Zahedan-
Chabahar railway” in the first place.
Despite Tehran’s denial, however, many viewed India’s apparent removal from the railway
project – which will eventually stretch to Zaranj on the Afghan side of the border – as a major
setback to its plans to create an alternative trade route to Afghanistan and Central Asia that
bypasses Pakistan’s Chinese-operated Gwadar port.
Chabahar is pivotal to the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-
kilometre (4,473-mile) freight route connecting Mumbai to Moscow. For years, India had been
enthusiastically promoting the project, which aims to increase connectivity in Eurasia, partially
because it believed it could help keep Iran outside China’s BRI, and cool down any cooperation
attempts between Tehran and its primary regional rival, Islamabad.
Over the past 20 years, Iran had been supportive of India’s plans to establish new trade routes
and signed several deals to advance these initiatives. Last year, however, as New Delhi stopped
purchasing oil from Iran to please Washington and further strengthened its military-strategic ties
with its arch foe, Israel, Tehran’s attitude towards New Delhi’s regional connectivity project
started to change. The news of New Delhi’s interest in participating in the Israeli-led “Trans-
Arabian Corridor” (TAP), which aims to connect India to Eurasia through Israel and several
Arab states hostile to Iran, further encouraged Tehran to seek other regional alliances.
Iran’s new partnership deal with China is indicative of its drift away from India. And this
budding partnership between the two countries is likely to have significant consequences for
New Delhi.
The new deal between Beijing and Tehran includes plans for China to develop several ports in
Iran, such as the Bandar-e-Jask port which is strategically situated to the east of the Strait of
Hormoz. This is significant as it gives Beijing control over one of the seven key maritime
chokepoints in the world. This can potentially undermine the US naval dominance in the Middle
East, as having a foothold in Bandar-e-Jask would not only allow China to monitor the US
Navy’s Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, but together with a presence in Gwadar and Djibouti ports,
it would also augment Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean Region. All this could cause India
15
The British Academy
to lose the leverage its close ties to the US provides against China.
Iran’s inclusion into the BRI framework is also likely to cause India to lose ground against China
in Afghanistan. After 9/11, Indian political and economic influence grew in Afghanistan under
the US security umbrella. Since the February deal between the US and the Taliban in Doha,
however, India’s influence over the country has been shrinking. India was neither part of the US-
Taliban deal, nor it has any significant role in the intra-Afghan peace process. After the US
withdrawal, India’s influence over the country will minimise further.
Despite Washington’s prodding, New Delhi has been ambivalent about entering into dialogue
with the Taliban. China, on the other hand, has long been engaging both with the Kabul
government and the Taliban in an effort to not only secure its economic investments and interests
in Afghanistan in the aftermath of US withdrawal, but also undercut those of India. This also
gives China an edge to potentially connect the post-US Afghanistan in the BRI framework.
China’s growing ties to Iran – a country that has significant clout over and ties with Afghanistan
– is likely to help it achieve this goal.
This new realignment in Asia provides new opportunities not only for China, but also for
Pakistan. First, China’s involvement in Iran would weaken Pakistan’s main rival India, and open
up strategic space for Islamabad to efficiently deal with political and security threats it is
currently facing. Second, after fully integrating Iran into the BRI framework, Beijing could help
Islamabad improve its relations with Tehran and assist the two countries in pacifying the ethno-
separatist armed uprising in Balochistan. Third, Chinese presence in Iran would mean the Iranian
port city of Chabahar would not compete with Pakistan’s Gwadar, whose port is operated by
China. Finally, India’s ouster from Iran would mean the transit trade from Afghanistan and
Central Asia would continue through Pakistani ports.
However, Pakistan will have to overcome its internal governance and security challenges to
benefit from what is appearing to be a new, more favourable geopolitical environment.
***********************************************
Analysis of juvenile justice system of Pakistan

September 13, 2020 Sarmad Ali Advocate
JUVENILE Justice System Act 2018 repealed Juvenile Justice Ordinance 2000, and prior to
JJSO 2000 Pakistan had four major laws for dealing with child delinquents, i.e. Reformatory
Schools Act 1897, The Punjab Borstal Act 1926, The Sindh Children Act 1955 and The
Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960. All these laws have been in place since their
promulgation but found to be dormant for all practical purposes. Apart from these codified laws
Section 399 of Pakistan Criminal Code 1898 provided for the confinement of a child delinquent
sentenced to imprisonment below the age of 15-year to reformatory school established by the
provincial government concerned. Until 1974 all these special codified laws remained dormant
and neglected. However, in 1974 some efforts appeared to have been made to implement them
across Pakistan to the reason that a few notifications had been floated across authorities at
provincial and federal levels.
In year 2000 introduction of JJSO 2000 in Pakistan viewed as a milestone achievement by local
stakeholders and rights groups’. It viewed as implementation of UN Convention of Rights of
Children to which Pakistan effected signatures in 1990 two years prior to India. Thereafter,
retired General Pervez Musharraf issued a presidential notification No. F.8/41/2001-Ptns
granting remission in sentences of juveniles found to be below the age of 18-year. Introduction
of JJSO 2000 and the Presidential Notification meant for safe guarding juvenile delinquents
those who found themselves in conflict with law however, all such efforts met with no result
16
The British Academy
rather wasted efforts.
The criminal justice system of Juvenile Justice Ordinance 2000 miserably failed in safeguarding
child delinquents to the reason that child delinquents directed to serve barbaric and medieval
time punishments ie case of Sher Ali 2001, moreover, Mohammad Nadeem in 2000 sentenced by
an Additional Sessions Court in Lahore to 273 years’ imprisonment and co accused Sabir was
sentenced to 63 years’ imprisonment in the same case. The slowness in implementation of
juvenile ordinance 2000 created huge and unrecoverable losses to the whole idea of developing a
juvenile justice system to the reason that many juveniles subjected to barbaric punishments
and/or hanged. The purpose of developing a juvenile justice system got lost due to reluctance of
the authorities upon implementation of JJSO 2000.
The authorities and folks instead of making efforts of implementing it across Pakistan decided to
repeal it with a view of promulgating a new law ie JJSA 2018 in order to avoiding their
responsibilities and duties rising under the law. It is in writer’s view that juvenile justice system
can only flourish across Pakistan, if registration of birth of children be promoted through
NADRA making it mandatory upon parents to register births of their children within one month
from the date of birth. This logic of the writer is based upon its personal research that provided
him to state that 70% births do not get registered in Pakistan within first year of birth of a child.
To this reason, it is reasonable to suggest that juvenile justice system has inherent defects. It can
only be implemented, if we have age determination system in our judicial and democratic setup.
Under newly enacted law, the investigation officer by virtue of Section 8 (1) requires to inquire
into the age of the arrested person through medical testing with permission of the presiding court
and this has to be done in case no documentary evidence of age is adduced himself by the
arrested delinquent or not found by the officer himself during the course of investigation. At
glance, investigation officer has to have a documentary evidence of age and this is a point- where
issue arises giving discretionary power to the officer either to go for medical testing by virtue of
section 8 (2) and/or tentatively record age on police investigation file on ‘Saza Slip’ without
supporting it with evidence. It has been transpired in recent times in such like situations.
Officers’ do not wish to state age of arrested person below 18-year in order to avoid giving rise
to JJSA 2018 provisions.
In writer’s view JJSA 2018 can only rise, if and only if age is recorded in the police file below
18-year- otherwise not. Recording of age below 18-year giving rise to the role probation officer
under Section 5 of JJSA 2018 that provided officer in charge of investigation to inform probation
officer concerned about arrest of a juvenile within 24-hours of arrest. It is observed in Legal
Awareness Watch (LAW) reports that the Reclamation and Probation Department simply
negates rising of their duties under JJSA 2018 labelling ignorance and negligence falling on part
of the police by not informing concerned probation officer about arrest of a juvenile. In legal and
logical perspective reception of information about arrest of a juvenile may happen from any
source by virtue of section 5.Its hibernation adds fuel to the system- which is already burning for
many years.
In culmination it is submitted that Pakistan has been introducing laws after laws for protection of
children who found themselves in conflict with law. Above stated laws enacted during British-
India era for protecting of child delinquent but never received attention of authorities to
implement those in addition to JJSA 2018. Those four major laws should have been implemented
and promoted at all levels for betterment of juvenile justice system. A mere introducing of JJSA
2018 might not help our authorities to establish effective juvenile justice system. To the contrary,
sister jurisdiction India signed CRC two years later than Pakistan it started late but now has a
better and effective juvenile justice system.
Indian Act of 2014 is being followed by authorities and presiding officer/judicial officers in its
17
The British Academy
letter and spirit an example of effective implementation of their domestic law could be of
“Nirbhya” gang rape case-wherein a juvenile delinquent was only sentenced to serve five years
in prison and adults had been hanged in April this year despite immense international and
national pressure upon courts and authorities. It was believed that separate juvenile courts across
Pakistan at provincial level would establish within three months of promulgation of JJSA 2018
however no such court until this date has been established in Punjab and Sindh. Moreover, under
JJSA 2018 Juvenile Justice Committee had to be notified under Section 10 until today not a
single such Committee notified across Punjab. However, in Sindh such a Committee has been
notified in Shikarpur Division. JJSA 2018 shall be implemented in letter and in spirit if we have
just age determination system to the reason that every child matters.
—The writer is an advocate of High Court, based in Lahore.
******************************************
The world cannot forget the Rohingya
Al Jazeera Tun Khin
Abandoned by the international community, the Rohingya have only one glimmer of hope:
international justice
This week marks exactly three years since the Myanmar military poured into Rakhine State and
launched a vicious operation against the Rohingya people. Over the course of a few weeks,
thousands of women, men and children were killed, mutilated and raped, whole villages were
burned to the ground, and hundreds of thousands fled into neighbouring Bangladesh.
Even for us Rohingya, who have been oppressed and rendered stateless in our home country for
decades, the savagery of the violence in 2017 was unprecedented. Today, our plight has mostly
disappeared from the headlines in international media, but our people are still suffering. We need
the world’s help more than ever to end the genocide against us in Myanmar.
Close to a million Rohingya continue to live as refugees in Bangladesh, mainly in the
southeastern district of Cox’s Bazar. Bangladesh has generously welcomed and hosted people
who fled for their lives, but an overcrowded refugee camp is no place for a life of dignity. A
whole generation of Rohingya children is growing up in deplorable conditions, with little access
to education, or hope for the future.
What the refugees want the most is to return home to Myanmar, but that is simply not possible
today. The 600,000 Rohingya who remain in Rakhine State live in an open-air prison. Every
aspect of their lives is controlled by the state: To leave one’s village to attend school, to make a
living or to go to a hospital usually requires special permission or a well-placed bribe.
At the moment, Myanmar is gearing up to hold a general election on November 8. It is the first
vote since the historic election in 2015, when Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for
Democracy (NLD) won in a landslide, ending decades of direct military rule. Many Rohingya
supported the NLD at that time, but have since grown bitterly disillusioned with the party’s
policies. Aung San Suu Kyi and her civilian government have proven complicit in the genocide
against us by continuing to support the army’s actions and denying on international platforms
what is happening on the ground.
Although in the past, many Rohingya in Myanmar were able to vote and run in elections, today
they are being barred from both. In 2015, Myanmar abruptly withdrew temporary citizenship
cards from ethnic Rohingya, which had given them the right to vote. This year, the authorities
have also rejected members of the Rohingya community who have tried to register to run in the
elections, claiming their parents were not citizens and that they, therefore, did not meet the
criteria. This is despite the fact that some of these candidates have been allowed to run in
previous elections.
There still is a glimmer of hope for the Rohingya, however: the momentum behind the
18
The British Academy
international justice process. Last November, the Gambia filed a case against Myanmar in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing it of committing genocide against the Rohingya. A
few days later, the International Criminal Court announced that it was launching an investigation
into the Myanmar military for crimes against humanity.
In January this year, the ICJ ordered Myanmar to end genocidal practices against the Rohingya,
and to report regularly on how it complies with these orders. But even though the government
has claimed it was improving conditions in Rakhine State since, in reality, almost nothing has
changed. If anything, conditions have become even worse this year for the Rohingya, as fighting
between the military and armed groups has intensified while the pandemic has swept through the
region.
My own organisation, the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK, has also brought a case against
Aung San Suu Kyi, her government and the military before the Argentinian judiciary. It relies on
the principle of universal jurisdiction – the notion that some heinous crimes can be tried
anywhere, regardless of where they took place.
But for these efforts to be effective, we need the international community’s support. We have
spent the past three years telling the world about our plight and telling the same stories over and
over again. In return, we have received little more than sympathy and empty promises.
The world has failed to take concrete action to help the Rohingya. Despite the overwhelming
evidence against Myanmar of their crimes, our reality is the same – Rohingya are suffering,
whether in villages in Rakhine State or in refugee camps in Bangladesh.
The UN Security Council has remained paralysed for three years, failing to condemn Myanmar.
The US and the EU have imposed individual sanctions on members of the security forces, but
they do not go far enough in pressuring the military leadership. They have also refused to use the
term “genocide”, in part because that would bring with it some legal obligations to act. Rohingya
are only asking for an opportunity to live a life of dignity in our own country. The oppression
that has rendered us stateless and prisoners in our own homes must end immediately. Those
responsible for the violence against us must be held to account to prevent it from ever happening
again. These are big but far from impossible tasks – history shows that genocidal regimes do not
last long. One year from now, on the next anniversary, I hope we will have gotten closer to
making this a reality.
*******************************************
Post-August 2019 Developments: Kashmir, Hindutva and
Regional Security (Hilal Magazine)
On August 5, 2019, the Central Government of India changed the special status of Indian
Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K) by revoking Article 370 and 35A. This
unconstitutional and illegal move was outrightly rejected by Pakistan and the Kashmiris living
all over the world. The move ushered an unprecedented double lockdown for the Kashmiris;
curfew, blackout and cutting off internet by the Indian government, and outbreak of COVID-19,
forcing Kashmiris to suffer the worst kind of physical occupation and psychological distress.
Since then, the Kashmir issue has been highlighted more forcefully world over, putting the
international community to task, with the proactive moves, including the ‘full spectrum’ efforts
by Pakistan and highlighting how India’s actions are endangering the security environment of
South Asia. Therefore, this article looks into the post-August 2019 developments in Kashmir
through the prism of Hindutva ideology and its impact on the regional security milieu.
Post-August 19 Kashmir
Given the fact that Kashmir is a disputed territory in the annals of United Nations and the Indian
19
The British Academy
move was a clear violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it was all but natural
that the move was rejected by Kashmiris, the saner elements in India and the conscious segments
of international community. However, under the guise of COVID-19, India took unprecedented
actions to change the demographic and historic character of IIOJ&K. Half a million non-resident
Hindu and Sikh families have become residents, Pundits’ properties have been confiscated from
the Kashmiris who left the Valley after the outbreak of freedom struggle, higher education
institutions have been taken over by New Delhi to change the Kashmir-centric curricula,
thousands of acres of land has been marked for outside investors, large-scale postings of non-
local IAS officers on administrative duties have been made, and the services of thousands of
Kashmiri employees have been terminated citing them as ‘anti-national’.
According to the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries, the Valley has suffered
economic losses of $5.3 billion and half a million jobs have been lost (Al Jazeera, August 3,
2020), mainly in hoteling, tourism and perishable fruit gardens. Schools and colleges are closed,
forcing about 1.5 million students to waste their educational year. Hospitals are restricted and
medicine is short, which is causing enormous psychological distress. According to Médecins
Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), about 1.8 million adults have experienced mental
distress, 70 percent have witnessed violent death. Youth unemployment is steeply increasing to
70 percent, with few opportunities; militancy can be an attractive option for some young adults.
The journalists are the worst hit as no reporting is allowed and a news blackout is strictly
imposed.
Amnesty International describes the situation as ‘fear and chaos inside Kashmir’ leading to anger
and defiance by the Kashmiris. A report Jammu and Kashmir: The Impact of Lockdown on
Human Rights released by New Delhi based Forum for Human Rights states: “In this one year,
everything has become worse. The alienation is worse, anger is stronger, cynicism is more
pronounced and the sense that India wants to quash and humiliate Kashmiris is stronger.” The
report further reveals: “Frequent closures, harassment at barricades and checkpoints, and
restrictions on mobile telephony and internet connectivity has enormously impacted public
health, and caused trauma and stress among the people.” Two other reports released on the eve of
first anniversary of Indian moves in IIOJ&K have urged India and its allies to restore the pre-
August 2019 situation. The International Crisis Group (ICG) in its report Raising the Stakes in
Jammu and Kashmir released on August 5, 2020 has urged India’s allies to “strongly encourage
it to restore Kashmiri statehood, free detained politicians, and end security forces’ abuses against
civilians.” The report further says that Delhi’s ‘heavy-handed tactics’ in occupied valley
increases ‘homegrown militancy.’ The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) report ‘Towards a Kashmir
Endgame? How India and Pakistan Could Negotiate a Lasting Solution’ also released on August
5, 2020, has recommended that the U.S. policymakers should tell India, privately and publically,
of the potential consequences and complications of India’s political and security strategies in
Kashmir created for the U.S., because American interests could be affected in the face of India’s
Kashmir policy.
Therefore, the post-August 2019 Kashmir has been turned into a living hell for the people. With
the longest ever lockdown, internet closures, increasing unemployment and educational loss,
Kashmiris are compelled to finally resort to violence and militancy, and that can put the regional
peace in great danger.
The Hindutva Ideology
The mainstream Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was created in 1925 by Keshav
Baliram Hedgewar (1889-1940), who believed that “the Hindu culture is the life-breath of
Hindustan. It is therefore clear that if Hindustan is to be protected, we first nourish the Hindu
culture.” V. D. Savarkar (1883-1996) invented the word “Hindutva” to designate a blood-and-
20
The British Academy
soil cultural essence unique to India. However, the Indian National Congress and its leadership
purportedly established India on the basis of secular ideology to encompass all religious
segments. The difference between ‘Hindustan’ and India depicted the puritan Hindu ideology
that led to the establishment of Bharatiya Janata Party, a political wing of RSS, by A.B.
Vajpayee and L.K. Advani in 1980. Therefore, BJP is soft image of the RSS to get into the
power-corridors to fulfill the ‘Hindutva’ agenda in converting India into ‘Hindustan.’ RSS has
over 60,000 branches (or Shakhas as they call it) and scores of affiliates who are called as the
‘Sangh Parivar’ and RSS itself is ‘mata’ (mother). They have more than 4 million hardcore
volunteers all over India, who can be ‘called for duty.’
The ultra-rightest and fascist ideology of Hindutva is based on cultural nationalism which is
imbibed in Hindustan and no alien culture/religion (Islam and Christianity) has the essence of
Hindu culture. Thus, they believe that either they should be evicted like the Germans did to the
Jews, or they should be converted into Hindu culture in order to create a unified cultural identity.
Therefore, the selection of Narendra Modi by the BJP as the Prime Minister of India was a clear
message to the majoritarian Hindus that the Hindu cultural nationalism is in the offing. The
landslide victory of Modi led-BJP in Indian general elections of 2018, based on fundamental
objectives of Hindutva ideology manifested in its implementation through Citizenship
(Amendment) Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC) and revoking of Article 370
(special status of J&K) and Article 35A (state subject rule).
The CAA, described by Shashi Tharoor, former Indian state minister as ‘second partition of
India’ let lose a reign of terror by the RSS volunteers throughout India. It rendered millions of
Indians stateless and revocation of IIOJ&K’s special status gave Hindus the opportunity to buy
property, become permanent residents and start their businesses there through revoking State
Subject rule. Therefore, Indian move of unilaterally revoking special constitutional provisions
for IIOJ&K was the forceful conversion and to colonise the people into a Hindu State. On the
other hand, the Buddhist population of Kargil and Leh also realized that BJP’s Hindutva project
is not exclusively for the Muslims but they also have to safeguard their own identity.
International Response
Since August 2019, the UNSC has met three times behind closed doors to discuss the simmering
situation in Kashmir. The U.S. Congress has passed two resolutions on Kashmir condemning
New Delhi’s decision. In October 2019, the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Congress
held a briefing on Kashmir, which squarely criticized Indian move. In a bipartisan letter of
August 2020, the same committee states that “It is because of our support for the bilateral
relationship that we note with concern that conditions in Jammu and Kashmir have not
normalized one year after India’s repeal of Article 370 and the establishment of Jammu and
Kashmir as a Union Territory.” Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Presidential
Election 2020 in his election manifesto has stated that “In Kashmir, the Indian government
should take all necessary steps to restore rights for all the people of Kashmir. Restrictions on
dissent, such as preventing peaceful protests or shutting or slowing down the internet, weaken
democracy.” Likewise, the UK Labor Party reiterated its position on Kashmir that “our position
on Kashmir has not changed; we support and recognize previous United Nations’ resolutions on
the rights of Kashmiri people.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also called the situation
in Kashmir as “unsustainable.” The European Union was also ready to pass a resolution against
Indian actions in Kashmir. These developments depict wider discourse on Kashmir that has
resurfaced internationally after the Indian revocation of special status of J&K.
Regional Security Environment
India has intensified ceasefire violations across the Line of Control (LoC) all along the India-
Pakistan border in Kashmir in which several civilians have been killed and hundreds injured.
21
The British Academy
Pakistan has responded with resolute restraint but the situation is becoming out of control. Two
nuclear-armed neighbors have all the potential to escalate the crisis ladder beyond manageable
level. On the other hand, the Indian move has also unnerved China, which moved its forces into
the disputed territory over which both have fought a bloody war in 1962. India has not only built
a 250 km road but an air strip for landing of combat aircraft in the disputed area. China has vital
stakes in Ladakh and Tibet; therefore, Indian move has brought China into the J&K conflict and
it has assumed the role of a major player. Michael Kugelman of the U.S. Wilson Center believes
that “these moves will bring one more tension to an India-China relationship that is already
strained now than it has been for several decades.” Yet another South Asian state has been
affected by the Indian ideological aggression; Nepal, the only other state having Hindu majority
has approved a new map that includes the area disputed with India. India has built an 80 km road
connecting its Uttarakhand state with Tibet that passes through the disputed territory in Nepal.
Tibet is also a hotly contested issue between China and India. Moreover, Bangladesh, an
erstwhile regional ally of India got cold as Indian NRC, meant to verify the citizenship, ruled out
about 1.9 million people from Bangladesh as ‘illegal migrants’ and ‘infiltrators’ that infuriated
Bangladesh.
These regional misadventures by India, due to its Hindutva ideology and aggressive nationalistic
agenda, have created regional instability jeopardizing the peace and stability of an already fragile
and volatile South Asian regional security environment.
Conclusion
India has been unable to win the hearts and minds of Kashmiris even after 70 years and every
passing day is increasing this alienation. Pakistan, despite its limited capacity and multiple
challenges, has tried to withstand Indian bellicosity and transgression with utmost resilience. The
entire political leadership of Pakistan is united on the issue of Kashmir, which has made it
possible to take some proactive measures. Despite some reservations on the issuance of a new
map and renaming the highway, these do have symbolic values and convey a strong message. It
is gradually being concluded that the old dictum of ‘diplomatic, moral and political’ support may
not be enough; and Pakistan needs to take concrete and immediate measures to mitigate the
sufferings of Kashmiris, lest it is too late.
Indian illegal actions of August 2019 in IIOJ&K have severely jeopardized the delicate calm
among the Kashmiris as they have a history of resistance against occupation. Their ultimate goal
is the right to self-determination, a pledge given by the Indian leadership, the United Nations and
fundamentals of international law, and they would not rest until it is fully realized. Indian actions
have also created instability in the entire South Asian region undermining the regional security
environment. The world has to be cognizant of the two nuclear armed neighbors in the region
who are not at peace, and India is tempting the third one to join with unimaginable
consequences.
The writer is Director School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University,
Islamabad
E-mail: sheeshgar2021@gmail.com
Holding India accountable for war crimes

September 19, 2020 Shahidullah Shahid
IF the current world order, impartially and non selectively, pursued international rule of law,
instead of covert politics and vested interests, Indians responsible for crimes against humanity
would be in the dock in an international tribunal like the Nazi officials were after World War-II.
There is a long list of Indian crimes against humanity in occupied Jammu and Kashmir but the
22
The British Academy
most despicable and culpable amongst them are genocide, systemic ethnic cleansing, war crimes
against non-combatants and the use of excessive force without respecting the principles of
distinction, precaution and proportionality under the false pretext of fighting terrorism. Whatever
the Indian government has done to the Kashmiris especially in the past year (and before) is a
flagrant violation of international law, the fourth Geneva Convention, international humanitarian
law in general and the UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir in particular. All the
“lawless” laws applied in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and actions taken thereby India are
modelled on Nazism and fascism. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was not authorized to take
these illegal measures because the territory had been declared disputed decades ago by the
United Nations Security Council.
For India, Kashmir was and remains an alien territory whose population has never accepted
India’s illegal writ. On the other hand, the flame of their aspiration for affinity with Pakistan
continued to burn brighter each passing year. The violent extremist BJP-RSS regime felt that the
only option left for them was the invasion, occupation, annexation and colonization of the
occupied part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Around 900,000 Indian troops brazenly
invaded the territory and laid siege to it which was buttressed by a punitive security lock down, a
communication blockade and a massive use of brutality on the people. The Indian occupiers
knew that the population, despite such draconian measures, would not capitulate to foreign
occupation of their land. They knew that no matter how many people they killed, Kashmir would
remain a nursery for freedom. So they resorted to naked, blatant settler-colonialism.
Since the repeal of Articles 370 and 35-A, India has taken a series of steps to merge Jammu and
Kashmir into its federation. She first divided the occupied part of the state into Union territories
(federal/federally administered territories) -Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir- which would be
ruled directly by Delhi, without the consent of the people. Ladakh, in fact, will have no
legislature while occupied J&K will have a puppet assembly of handpicked henchmen. India
annexed the occupied territory with the Indian Union (their term for federation) and showed it as
its sovereign geographical territory. The fig leaf of the constitutional and juridical pretence was
removed. The promises made to Kashmiris, Pakistan and the United Nations were barefacedly
broken and the Hindutva zealots gloated over this breach. They did not stop at that. They had the
temerity to show Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir as part of India’s geographical
boundaries in the fake maps they issued last November.
While the world remains oblivious to the sufferings of the people of India- Occupied Jammu and
Kashmir (IO&JK), the Indian security forces fell free to kill, terrorize and brutalize them. Since
August 5, 2019 tension has been high in Kashmir valley where many businesses were shattered,
streets emptied and hopelessness morphed into severe psychological crisis. Likewise, more than
200 Kashmiris have been assassinated by extra judicial killing. A recent report in New York
Times dwelled on the state of affairs in the valley in these words: “Kashmir was cast into chaos
in August when the Indian government revoked the region’s partial autonomy”. Earlier it
reported: “Kashmir under siege and lockdown faces a mental health crisis”.Being the most
militarized zone in the world, Kashmir has witnessed killings, enforced disappearances, torture
cases, rapes and other brutalities by the Indian armed forces over the decades. As per reports
compiled by Amnesty International, more than 100,000 Kashmiris have been martyred since
1989; thousands of women have been raped besides enforced disappearances running into
thousands. As per revelations made by the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons
(APDP) more than 8000 families have lost their loved ones to enforced disappearance and are in
search of finding a clue to their whereabouts. In the light of foregoing, disappearance of the
Kashmiri youth in IO&JK constitute a crime against humanity.
The future of the disputed region is yet to be determined by the people of Jammu and Kashmir in
23
The British Academy
a UN supervised referendum. Although India has tried all the tricks in its repertoire to annex the
territory it has failed in its mission because till August 5, 2019, after the passage of 73 years of
independence of Pakistan and India, the vales and hills of Kashmir resounded with slogans of
Azadi (freedom) and self-determination. Notwithstanding the Indian atrocities inflicted in the
valley, the morale of the people of the state and freedom fighters is extremely high and they
continue to indomitably resist Indian security forces and their relentless oppression. It is high
time to hold India accountable for its outrageous war crimes in Jammu and Kashmir. It is the
obligation of the UNSC, ICJ, OIC, Amnesty International and the whole world community to
stop this genocide. Whether someone would undertake this Herculean task or turn a blind eye to
the status quo as usual. It is a million dollars question.
—The writer is an Assistant Commissioner serving in government of KP
****************************************************
Presidential or parliamentary government for Pakistan

Hafiz Muhammad Azeem
PAKISTAN needs what: A presidential or parliamentary form of government? This debate is not
a new one. But now, the debate has been reached in the premises of the Supreme Court of
Pakistan. As per facts, two petitions have been moved under Article 184(3) of the Constitution,
1973 for seeking directions for a referendum to adopting a presidential or parliamentary form of
government. The petition presents a deplorable state of conditions in Pakistan. The country has
become the sixth most populous country in the world with an estimated population of 212
million people and it may reach 403 million by 2050. With one of the world’s largest youth
population, as 64%, the country is ranked as 122nd out of 190 countries in the world in terms of
quality and accessibility of health-care. As 25% of Pakistan’s population lives below the poverty
line, the average human development index and the GDP are the lowest as compared to other
South Asian countries like India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan. And behind all
these, one of the chief reasons is Pakistan’s fragile political system.
Likewise, it also has been taken as a ground that “in our parliamentary system,Members of
Parliament are in the habit of changing loyalties and are out to blackmail and pressurize the
Government to promote their interests”. That is why the current government has to use the power
of the President to promulgate ordinance frequently. Premier has also highlighted the legislative
obstacles on FATF legislative issues in this regard. Moreover, with the adoption of the 18th
amendment, parochial and racial discrimination increases not decreases. But the time has come
that Pakistan must adopt the presidential system. The foremost reason is that in the presidential
system the head of state is usually elected through a direct election. So, the citizens would have a
much clear option to choose the one as their leader. As it can be observed that in our country,
voters have limited choices to choose.
They are bound due to feudal mind-set and undue-influence to not to vote as per their wishes,
since there is no option to ‘vote for prime minister’ like one can vote for ‘president’ under a
presidential system. Moreover, the stability of government is another advantage—and that
Pakistan needs the most. Because opposition parties would not be able to blackmail, like here, to
displace the government by hook or by crook, where unstable coalitions, demanding minority
parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, etc make the effective policy-making
and implementation near to impossible. And it is prima facie in our country that the Prime
Minister is being always tried to be contained in a continuous threat that he may lose his position
solely because his party may at any time lose requisite seats in Parliament, even though he may
still be popular nationally.
24
The British Academy
Furthermore, the presidential system will allow for the separation of powers in a true sense, as
the legislature will be a completely different structure and institution. And thereby, an effective
system of checks and balances will also be placed in governance. Besides, by adopting the
presidential system, the President will have more powers to work speedily and effectively;
thereby the uniform policy-making along with uniform policy-implementation will also bring
positive outcome to subdue the parochial and racial discrimination. And if citizens cloyed with
one person being their President, they may next time flatly refuse to vote him directly, instead of
being compelled to vote for their constituency only. And one President with having two-terms to
be elected consistently will add icing on the cake to utilize the fruits of democracy.
Although one may argue that there are a lot of drawbacks in the presidential system too: for
instance, the rhetoric of authoritarianism, deadlocks between executive and legislature, rigid
form of government, nepotism, and favouritism, etc but all these may not suffice to counter the
above-stated reason for the presidential system in Pakistan, because the disadvantages of the
parliamentary system in Pakistan, currently, have outweighed the disadvantages of the hopeful
presidential system. Besides, the fundamental disadvantage of a parliamentary system that the
Prime Minister is unable to be elected unless his party wins the whole country’s election, the
other disadvantage is that there is no independent body to oppose and veto legislation approved
by parliament, and thus there is a lack of cohesive check and balance system. Moreover, the
instability factor, in Pakistan—can never be removed—because whenever the minority parties
want, they through coalition, can bring down the majority party’s government.
Furthermore, there are other disadvantages of the parliamentary system in Pakistan which
include the unqualified legislators: to be appointed as an assistant, secretary, or even a clerk who
understands and runs the basic computer, qualification of Masters level with written test amongst
thousands of competitors, then psychological tests and interviews are required; and to be elected
as representative the only requirement is mone, a lot of money. Eventually, these unqualified
representatives placed more reliance on bureaucracy. Moreover, the Ministers or the executive
should be from the ruling party, and thus, unqualified replaces the qualified experts for the job.
As it has been held in recent judgment by Islamabad High Court, that Advisers to Prime Minister
are not Ministers. Last but not the least, it is also obvious, in Pakistan, that personal interests
outweigh national interests, and the only issues being mostly discussed in Parliament debates,
media channels, newspapers, and even in election campaigns, etc are these personal interests.
Since the majority of the developed states are being run through the presidential system, for
instance, the United States of America, Russia, China, France, Turkey, etc the parliamentary
system is mostly used in third world countries. This system is given to us by the English
coloniest rulers and this system has nothing to do with our religion, culture, or with our national
norms and behaviours. And forget that if this system is effective in England or Japan, then it will
be effective here too. As our citizens, cultures and norms can never be the same as theirs, so as
the system of government too. Therefore, it is high time that a referendum must be called in
Pakistan on the question of adoption of the presidential or parliamentary form of government and
let it be decided by the citizens.
—The writer is an advocate of the high court, an LLM and LL.B. (hons).
**************************************************
25
The British Academy
Turkey & Mediterranean’s energy politics
September 19, 2020 Dr Mehmood-ul-Hassan Khan (Pakistan observer)
ENERGY power politics is creating serious feuds in Eastern Mediterranean Sea (EMS) where,
several countries are now at eye-ball to eye-ball situation. Competition over gas discoveries in
the EMS has now provoked various bitter regional rivalries, especially between Greece and
Turkey. Among them, Turkey pursues energy exploration drills according to its international
right whereas, alliance of convenience “Greece, Egypt and Israel exploit the EMS’s deep waters
and shores to grab more and more energy resources for their economic diversification and
political clouts. The European Union (EU) especially France and Germany support Greece
because of personal displeasure and egocentric taboos against Turkey and its President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan. Rafael war jets have been dispatched to Greece to counter thundering resolve of
Turkey in the EMS. Unfortunately some Muslim countries also extended their military
cooperation to Greece against rightful Turkish endeavour. Tit for tat and war of words is
polluting the sands and shores of EMS and entire region is inching towards further chaos,
uncertainty and instability.
Most recently, Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu emphasized to find a win-win
formula instead of constant disputes because collective future is indissolubly tangled. It still
prefers diplomacy and dialogue over escalation aiming to achieve a sustainable resolution of the
pending issues pertaining to drilling rights, exploration boundaries and equitable sharing of the
gas & oil reservoirs in the EMS. Furthermore, Turkey advocates “obsession of periphery” should
not compromise the “caravans” of prosperity, productivity and progression because international
order demands “equitable” world to live in. It still follows foreign policy of “neutrality”, “non-
interference” and last but not the least, peace at home and peace in the world to contribute its
positive, productive, participatory and purposeful engagements in the region and beyond. Being
a peace loving country and “staunch” supporter of regional peace and harmony, Turkey respects
NATO’s initiative towards de-confliction and Germany’s initiative for de-escalation, hoping
revival of the already established bilateral mechanisms between Turkey and Greece which is
indeed, not any sign of weakness rather, Turkish inbuilt ability of superior conflict resolution to
achieve peaceful co-existence.
Most recently, Foreign Minister of Turkey of Mevlut Cavusoglu elaborated his country
principled stance of the EMS by stressing the need to have fair and equitable delimitation of
maritime boundaries, protection of continental shelf/drilling rights, protection of Turkish
Cypriots’ equal rights over the off-shore resources of the island by sharing equitable revenues,
creation of a genuine, inclusive, fair and equitable off-shore energy cooperation
mechanisms/apparatus and last but not least meaningful inclusion of all the main stakeholders
participation of all parties. Despite big claims of the EU, Turkey has every right to expedite its
efforts to explore more and deeper waters of the EMS in search of energy resources for further
diversification of its macro-economy and matching the increasing energy needs of its increasing
population. Contrary to ill-devised maritime policy of the EU mere justifying its self-defined
rights on EMS by bluntly ignoring Turkish longest interconnected coastline in the region from
the riches of its own neighbourhood are not realistic either.
Nevertheless, to offer any befitting response, Turkey has started joint military exercise with
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Moreover, its vibrant naval presence in the EMS
is the sign of deterrence not destruction which is custodian of its ongoing seismic research
activities within its own continental shelf which even supports by international law.
Unfortunately, Turkey and Greece have a long unresolved dispute over their maritime
boundaries. The Turkish coastline is situated near Greek islands that Athens believes empower
26
The British Academy
Greece with territorial rights. Turkey claims that islands should only have limited exclusive
economic zones (EEZs) which is based or derived from the previous international rulings that
confined the influence and utility of islands in determining maritime boundaries. Energy power
politics has already polluted sands, waters and shores of the EMS. It has forced the regional
countries to form alliances to gain more and more gas & oil resources. The EastMed Gas Forum,
“the OPEC of Mediterranean gas” was formally established in Cairo on 16 January 2020. It
consists of Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan Greece, Cyprus and Italy, aiming at
establishing the region as a major energy hub. Turkey has already described it unrealistic
formation. Rise to socio-economic, geopolitical and geostrategic vested interests have already
tangled vastness of EMS where proxies have been instigated. A series of civil wars have
morphed into proxies among main regional stakeholders in the region and international movers
& shakers. Libya, Syria, Yemen and TRNC would be in the limelight in the days to come.
On its part, NATO tries to reduce the risk of a military clash between its two members, Greece
and Turkey. The US has also called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis which has been largely
absent from efforts to prevent military confrontation between Greece and Turkey. Most of the
EU member states prefer diplomatic channels for dialogue and de-escalation with Turkey which
is an important economic partner in terms of migration and regional security. In this context
during last two months Germany initiated a mediation attempt between Athens and Ankara that
stalled when Greece signed a new maritime deal with Egypt, angering Turkey. But Greece and
Southern Cyprus have been pushing hard for the EU to take a tougher stance towards Turkey,
including further sanctions. France has now become “spoiler” to regional reconciliation process
because of its own disputes with Turkey, particularly over Libya. Emmanuel Macron, France’s
President unjustified assertiveness in term of military presence in the region with two fighter jets
and a pair of warships has derailed prospects of peace into deep waters of EMS which has further
worsened due to diplomatically indecent and personally provoking French tagging towards
President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Being prominent regional expert of Turkey, I uphold immediate de-escalation, respect of basic
principle of international law on maritime affairs/rights, dialogue and diplomacy instead of
provocations and martial gesturing/signalling. Explorations of energy resources should not be
any exploitation expedition. Search of untapped treasures of maritime should not be the cause of
any military misadventure. Only direct bilateral negotiations and belief in peaceful co-existence
may save humanity at large to sink in the deep waters of Mediterranean Sea (MS). Turkey’s
peaceful persuasions based on international law must be respected for achieving greater peace
and harmony in the region and beyond. Gas is not the reason for the dispute but the pretext. War
on this basis is futile. Dialogue holds the key of greater regional security and shunning of deadly
proxies because human prosperity is sacred and in its peaceful resolve Turkey is scared from
anybody.
—The writer is Director, Geopolitics/Economics Member Board of Experts, CGSS
Revocation of Article 370 – one year on

August 3, 2020 Nazia Nazar
In the first few days of August 2019, there were signs of something sinister afoot in Kashmir.
Tens of thousands of additional Indian troops were deployed, a major Hindu pilgrimage was
cancelled, schools and colleges were shut, tourists were ordered to leave, telephone and internet
services were suspended and regional political leaders were placed under house arrest. The
government then revoked Articles 370 and 35-A. The article 370 allowed the state a certain
amount of autonomy – its own constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws. Article
27
The British Academy
35A of the constitution allowed the Jammu and Kashmir state’s legislature to define the state’s
permanent residents and what distinguishes them. As a result, Jammu and Kashmir made its own
rules relating to permanent residency, ownership of property and fundamental rights, and barred
Indians from outside the state from purchasing property or settling there.
But why Article 370 has been scrapped? Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party had long opposed Article 370 and revoking it was in the
party’s 2019 election manifesto. They also wanted to integrate Kashmir with India and put it on
the same footing as the rest of India. After returning to power with a massive mandate in the
April-May general elections, the government lost no time in acting on its pledge. Violence and
discrimination targeting minorities based on religion and social status are among the significant
human rights facing India, an official US report claimed in March 2020. The United Nations
human rights office also voiced concern that the citizenship law was fundamentally
discriminatory in nature and called for to review it. In India, several thousand people had
gathered for a sit-in protest, whereas protest demonstrations were held in many states.
After revoking Articles 370 and 35-A of Indian Constitution that had given special status to
Jammu and Kashmir, the final Assam citizens’ list was released, leaving out more than 1.9
million Muslims. After the abolition of Article 370 of the Constitution, 10 other states Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura
and Uttarakhand that enjoy special category now distrust the Indian government because of
Modi’s actions. It has to be mentioned that special category status was granted to them by the
National Development Council on the recommendations of the Planning Commission to states
that needed special consideration. But Modi is playing with fire, as some of the significant
separatists movements in India include Naxalites or Maoists, which is second major freedom
movement after IOK in India. Maoists inhabit an area known as the ‘Red Corridor’ that stretches
from West Bengal to Karnataka state in the southwest.
Assam had large influxes from the times of British colonial rule, and then around Bangladesh´s
1971 civil war when millions fled into India. For decades this made Assam a hotbed of inter-
religious and ethnic tensions, adding to pressure for a lasting solution. Sporadic violence
included the 1983 massacre of around 2,000 people. Security was beefed up in Assam ahead of
the release of the NRC, with some 20,000 extra personnel brought in and gatherings banned in
some locations. Only those who can prove that they or their forbearers were in India before 1971
could be included in the list. But it seems impossible in a region of high illiteracy where many
lack documentation. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi´s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata
Party runs Assam, and critics are of the view that the NRC process reflects the BJP´s goal to
serve Hindus only.
On August 5, 2019, Indian Union Home Minister Amit Shah announced that the Government of
India revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Indian Government took away the special
status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) by modifying Article 370. Also, Rajya Sabha
passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill – aimed at bifurcation of the state into two
union territories – Jammu/Kashmir and Ladakh. Everyone was stunned by the Government’s
action over Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The question arises why India did this? It was
said to be a consequence of Bharatia Janata Party’s (BJP’s) failure in their attempts to crush the
freedom sentiment of Kashmiri people with the heavy armed presence of more than 700000
Indian troops.
The BJP government carried out its long-standing pledge, which it had reiterated in its campaign
of April-May 2019 General Elections. It was because of this promise that Modi Government
dealt the opposition, which could be seen from the simple majority it got this time as compared
to its previous coalition government. The BJP government wanted a strong united India
28
The British Academy
according to its “racist ideology.” BJP’s extremist ideology was explained by the US
Commission for International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) report which highlighted that the
members of BJP have affiliations with the extremist groups. Report also stated that they
instigated violence in the Indian Held Kashmir. Revocation of the major parts of Article 370 is
just another step towards extremist ideology of RSS, VHP and BJP, which has created unrest in
whole of India.
************************************************
Jadev’s case review

The Frontier Post / September 20, 2020
Pakistan rejected Indian plea for appointing, “Queen’s Council” by India to represent its spy, a
serving naval commander Kulboshan Jadev in a review petition against his death sentence, which
is pending in Islamabad high court. The response of Pakistan is strictly in accordance with the
due process of law as articulated by the foreign office spokesman, Zahid Hafeez Chaudry. He
said, “Allowing Queen’s council for Jadev is out of question as a lawyer with license to practice
in Pakistan can appear before the court”. The foreign office referred to Indian tactics of
consistently evading the Jadev case.
The Indian spy had been arrested by Pakistani security forces in the restive Balochistan province
on 11th March, 2016, which has been frequently hit by a terrorist attacks. A military court, which
was a part of Pakistan judicial system, passed on death sentence on him on the basis of his
confession and related evidence of his involvement in espionage. India took the case of its high
profile RAW agent to International Court of Justice (ICJ) in May, 2017. The court rejected
Indian appeal for Jadev’s release in its verdict on 17th July, 2019. However, direction was given
to Pakistan to suspend the execution process and review the entire process of the trial. ICJ ruled
for providing India with counselor access, which India availed, only once. This court also stated
that Jadev’s case is clearly state sponsored terrorism by India in Pakistan. The verdict made it
clear that the sentence given to Mr. Jadev is not a violation of Article 36 of the “Vienna
Convention”.
It is pertinent to mention that PTI government had appointed former CJP, Justice Tassadaq
Hussain Jilani as an adhoc judge of ICJ, the right which was deliberately neglected by the Nawaz
Sharif government. Justice Tasadaq Hussain wrote an incisive and comprehensive dissenting
note to the ICJ verdict. It stated that the Vienna Convention is not applicable to spies. The
makers of the convention would not have imagined that in a future, it would be extended to
spies, of which India is taking undue advantage.
Honoring the directions contained in the ICJ verdict, the government of Pakistan presented an
ordinance in the parliament, last month to allow the convicted Indian spy, Jadev to file a review
petition. The opposition opposed the “International Court of Justice (Review and
Reconsideration Ordinance).” It was mandatory to fulfill its obligation under ICJ ruling of July
2019 that ordered Pakistan to provide counselor access to Jadev and review his death sentence.
The government filed a petition at Islamabad High Court on July 22 to appoint on a lawyer to
represent Jadev for filling the review petition against his death sentence as the convicted spy has
refused to file the requisite petition. Meanwhile, Indian High Commission was repeatedly asked
in writing to file a petition at the Islamabad High Court and initiate the process for review and
reconsideration of Jadhav’s case sentence and conviction before the lapse of 60 days deadline,
expiring on July 19 but Indian government did not respond. While hearing the petition of on
29
The British Academy
August 3 Islamabad High Court ordered the government to give another chance to India for
appointing a lawyer. As per the law of the land, a lawyer with license to practice in Pakistan
should have been hired. On the contrary “Queens Council” was engaged. India has yet again
sunken into its filthy blame game by saying that Pakistan has not provided the related documents
and copy of the death sentence. This feat along with insistence on allowing the Queen’s Council
to represent Mr. Jadev is nothing, but a tool to delay the proceedings of review petition and avoid
further exposure of being involved in state sponsored terrorism.
**************************************
Dawn of ‘new Middle East’

September 21, 2020 M Omar Iftikhar
THE geopolitical affairs of the Middle East are changing swiftly. What was thought to be a
sinful deal has now been agreed upon by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as it forties its ties
with Israel. Bahrain is also a part of this equation. The UAE and Bahrain announced to normalize
their relations with Israel, creating confusion and apprehension in the Muslim world. It is no
surprise that the administration of US President Donald Trump played a major role in this regard.
“After decades of division and conflict we mark the dawn of a new Middle East.” These were the
words of US President Donald Trump as he spoke at the White House. He went on to say,
“We’re here this afternoon to change the course of history.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu said, “This day is a pivot of history; it heralds a new dawn of peace.” The deal was
officially signed and agreed upon at the White House amid the presence of US President Trump.
Also present were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, foreign ministers of the United
Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Since the founding of Israel in 1948, Muslim countries have
pursuing not to normalize their ties with Israel until the Palestine issue is resolved. UAE and
Bahrain’s inclination to come close to Israel brings to fore another story. It is indeed a fact that
the UAE and Bahrain have had secret ties with Israel and both countries are close to the US.
They both have a US military presence as well. According to reports, this deal will help the UAE
acquire F-35s from the US. The F-35s will give the UAE a competitive edge over the military of
the nations in the Middle East. Israel, however, already owns F-35s.
While speaking at the occasion, the Emirati foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed was
pleased to see that Israel has paused the planned annexation of Palestinian territories. He further
said, “it reinforces our shared will to achieve a better future for generations to come.” This deal
also hides Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s shortcomings that have emerged recently. These
include Israel going into a second lockdown as Covid-19 resurfaced, a ragged economy that is
facing an 18% unemployment, and Netanyahu’s corruption charges that may end his political
career. For US President Trump, this deal may give him some political stimulus as he enters the
2020 election campaign. However, political analysts must be wondering how US-Israel ties will
look if Joe Biden emerges as the next US President. This might change the fabric of the UAE-
Bahrain deal with Israel. The UAE and Bahrain have become the third and fourth countries
respectively to recognize Israel and normalize relations with Israel. Egypt, in 1978, was the first
Arab state to recognize Israel followed by Jordan in 1994. The focus is now on Saudi Arabia and
how will it move forward with maintaining ties with Israel. A social and religious ruckus will be
evident in Muslim counties once Riyadh edges closer to Israel. The White House is referring to
this deal as the Abraham Accords. This agreement calls to establish peace, diplomatic relations,
and normalization of bilateral ties. The three countries will also respect each other’s sovereignty
30
The British Academy
and will pursue the establishment of embassies. While maintaining harmony and balance is an
underlining point, the three countries party to Abraham Accords will also pursue and enhance
their cooperation in various sectors.
These include trade and economic relations, finance and investment, tourism, healthcare, science
and technology, education, maritime arrangements, education, environment, and
telecommunications among others. The UAE and Bahrain will also have the opportunity to
purchase Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system. Abraham Accords also entails a strategic
agenda for the Middle East. This will be done by pursuing regional economic opportunities and
promoting culture across the region. The UAE-Bahrain ties will also strengthen as they embark
on a journey of diplomatic and bilateral ties with Israel with Washington standing by them. In
this regard, Iran has presented its resentment over the deal. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said,
“How could you reach out your hands to Israel? And then you want to give them bases in the
region? All the severe consequences that would arise from this are on you.” He said that the
UAE and Bahrain would be responsible for any consequences that may come after the two
countries normalized relations with Israel. It is yet to be seen the future of the UAE-Bahrain-
Israel nexus. However, it has initiated the plan to create the new Middle East.
— The writer is a freelance columnist based in Karachi
*****************************************
Brexit still haunting Britain

Mahrukh A Mughal
September 21, 2020
THE Brexit process began on 23 June 2016 when the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. The
residents decided that the benefits of belonging to the unified monetary body no longer outweighed
the costs of free movement of immigrants. The vote was 17.4 million in favour of leaving versus 15.1
million who voted to remain. On 29 March 2017, former U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May
submitted the Article 50 withdrawal notification to the EU. On 24 July 2019, Boris Johnson replaced
Theresa May as the UK’s Prime Minister. Johnson’s Conservative party attained a majority during a
royally mandated general election on 12 Dec 2019. As a result, Brexit is committed to its withdrawal
Agreement.
On 23 Jan 2020, the Agreement Act received Royal Assent. This is the legislation that will
implement the withdrawal agreement negotiated by the UK and the EU. Johnson’s agreement is very
similar to the one negotiated by Theresa May. One main difference is that the UK would not be in a
“customs union” with the EU. That includes UK member Northern Ireland. But it allows Northern
Ireland to adopt EU customs rules in keeping with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member. This
avoids a hard border between the two. That means there will be a customs and regulatory border
between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Irish Sea. The EU and UK will negotiate a trade
agreement that will probably impose tariffs on each other’s imports. This won’t apply to goods
already purchased or in process.
The 3 million European nationals already living in the UK will continue to live and work in the
country without work visas. The 1.3 million UK citizens will continue to do the same in the EU. For
the future, the UK has proposed an immigration system based on workers’ skills. The UK must pay a
“divorce bill” of 33 billion pounds to fulfil any remaining financial commitments. The EU and the
UK must negotiate trade agreements by Nov. 26 for it to be approved by Parliament in 2020.
Otherwise, the UK must request an extension from the EU. If a trade deal or extension is not
completed in time, the UK will revert to the same tariffs with the EU as other World Trade
Organization members. The UK has already suffered from Brexit. The economy has slowed, and
31
The British Academy
many businesses have moved their headquarters to the EU. There will be impact on growth, trade and
jobs.
There would also be consequences specific to Ireland, London, and Scotland. Uncertainty over Brexit
slowed the UK’s growth from 2.4% in 2015 to 1.5% in 2018.The UK government estimated that
Brexit would lower the UK’s growth by 6.7% over 15 years. That’s if there is a trade agreement but
restrictions on immigration. The British pound fell from $1.48 on the day of the referendum to $1.36
the next day. That helps exports but increases the prices of imports. According to a report 3 trillion
pounds were taken out of Britain after the Brexit vote. Besides the Brexit has resulted in a diminished
role for London as the financial capital of the world.
International companies would no longer use London as their H/Q. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and
Morgan Stanly have already switched 10% of their clients. Bank of America has transferred 100
bankers to its Dublin office and 400 to Paris. In the Trade area, Britain would face duties on its
exports to EU countries thus affecting its exports and imports from EU countries would become more
expensive. The UK would lose the advantages of the EU’s state-of-the-art technologies, the EU
grants these to its members in environmental protection, research and development, and energy.
Northern Ireland would remain with the United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland, with which it
shares a border, would stay a part of the EU. Johnson’s plan avoided a customs border between the
two Irish countries. A customs border could have reignited the troubles. There was a 30-year conflict
in Northern Ireland between mainly Catholic Irish nationalists and pro-British Protestants. In 1998, it
ended with the promise of no border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. A customs border would
have forced 9,500 commuters to go through customs on their way to and from work and school.
Brexit would also affect the 2,100 workers who commute to Great Britain. Brexit vote has imposed
three hard choices on the U. K (i) Leave with no deal, known as “no-deal Brexit”. Without a trade
agreement, ports would be blocked and airlines grounded. In no time, imported food and drugs would
run short. (ii) Vote again on Brexit. Many argue that voters did not understand the economic
hardships that Brexit would impose. On December 10, 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that
the UK could unilaterally revoke its Brexit application to remain in the EU. (iii) Approve a
negotiated deal. The sticking point had been the nature of the border between the UK’s Northern
Ireland and the EU’s Republic of Ireland.
The Brexit vote has strengthened anti-immigration parties throughout Europe and given rise to
Xenophobia. If these parties gain enough ground in France and Germany, they could force an anti-
EU vote. If either of those countries left, the EU would lose its most robust economies and would
become weaker and may ultimately dissolve. On the other hand, new polls show that the majority of
EU citizens still strongly support the Union. Almost 75% say the EU promotes peace, and 55%
believe it supports prosperity. More than a third sees the role of the U.K. as diminishing. Some
political thinkers, analysts and economists are of the opinion that Brexit is a vote against
globalization. It takes the United Kingdom off the main stage of the financial world and creates
uncertainty throughout the UK as London desperately tries to keep its status as financial hub of
Europe to attract international clients.
But the latest debate on “overriding” the agreement, already reached regarding “customs union” and
Northern Ireland, is seriously jeopardizing the credibility of Britain and Prime Minister, Boris
Johnson. Johnson’s decision to ignore and override signed agreement with EU will have far reaching
legal implications and ramifications. It will most likely be challenged by EU leaders as their mood
indicates. They can also invoke WTO jurisdiction in this case and Britain will have no moral and
legal ground to justify it. The EU leaders have responded firmly and threatened legal action if Britain
goes back on its word. The next week is, therefore, going to be very eventful to see which way the
wind blows.
—The writer is an author of ‘2020 & Beyond’ and teaches International Political Affairs
32
The British Academy
SCENARIOS FOR POST-U.S. AFGHANISTAN
CHRISTOPHER MOTT, DEFENSE PRIORITIES SEPTEMBER 2020
KEY POINTS
1. U.S. military withdrawal may not further destabilize Afghanistan, as is sometimes
assumed. The balance of power among Afghan forces and the interests of outside powers
mean Afghanistan’s present circumstances may roughly endure.
2. No matter what Afghanistan’s eventual fate, the U.S. will remain fundamentally safe
following military withdrawal. Local forces can contain any terrorism originating there,
and the U.S. global capability to remotely monitor and strike terrorists will remain potent.
3. Powers nearby Afghanistan, with the partial exception of Pakistan, share a strong interest
in providing stability. Ending the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan—in addition to
conserving resources and eliminating risks to U.S. personnel—will shift that burden onto
those nations.
4. Full military withdrawal serves U.S. interests, reducing our burdens and therefore
pressuring nearby powers—some of them U.S. rivals—to invest more in Afghanistan’s
stability. Trouble there is a greater threat to them than to the United States.
EXITING AFGHANISTAN WILL SHIFT BURDENS TO OTHER NATIONS,
INCLUDING SOME U.S. RIVALS
On February 29, 2020, U.S. and Taliban negotiators announced an agreement that would
withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan within 14 months in exchange for the Taliban
renouncing Al-Qaeda and preventing any of its members from launching, or otherwise
cooperating to launch, anti-U.S. terror attacks from Afghan soil. In a nod to reality on the
ground, this deal does not address Taliban relations with the internationally recognized
government in Kabul beyond requiring a commencement of talks between the sides. 1 More than
six months later, these talks have yet to commence, but the U.S. is edging closer to ending its
participation in Afghanistan's civil war.
The White House recently announced the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will soon be
reduced to between 4,000 and 5,000, from a peak of 100,000 in 2011. 2 Given the costs of staying
and the failure of the occupation to achieve its ends, this drawdown should be quickly
completed—no later than the April 2021 deadline—without waiting for a negotiated peace
settlement in Afghanistan, which may never come. 3
Yet a number of obstacles could disrupt the plan and prevent the full U.S. withdrawal. One is the
tendency of U.S. analysts to conflate nation building with counterterrorism and to argue against
withdrawal on the grounds that terrorist safe havens will remain. 4 Another hurdle is that some
U.S. leaders might use the failure of the Afghan parties to cut a peace deal as a rationale for
keeping U.S. troops as leverage to induce one. 5 A third impediment is the fear that foreign
powers will keep chaos roiling Afghanistan without U.S. help, preventing the country from
stabilizing. This paper addresses that third worry, arguing that U.S. withdrawal will instead
likely encourage nearby powers to do more to limit violent chaos in Afghanistan. 6
There are two likely scenarios for Afghanistan after the U.S. withdraws:
1. stability through unification of the country under one power or through

factionalism under a power-sharing arrangement, or
2. instability due to state failure and the collapse of any unified authority.
33
The British Academy
The first scenario includes several forms of peace—only the scenario of state failure and collapse
presents a net decline in stability for Afghanistan and potentially the surrounding region. None of
these likely outcomes would directly harm U.S. security, and thus should not deter a full U.S.
withdrawal from the country. As the U.S. steps back, regional powers such as Russia and
China—which would be more directly harmed by a collapse of order in Afghanistan—would
likely intervene diplomatically, and perhaps through military aid, to broker some form of
security equilibrium in Afghanistan.
Because the Afghan military depends heavily on U.S. assistance, withdrawal will likely
exacerbate Afghanistan’s turmoil. Afghanistan's future is unpredictable and tragic results are
likely in any event (even if the U.S. stays for two more decades). But even the worst-case
scenario will have little impact on U.S. security. It is worth remembering U.S. troop withdrawal
does not eliminate the U.S. military's ability to provide aid, gather intelligence, and launch
targeted strikes at specific anti-U.S. threats. The U.S. can achieve its counterterrorism objectives
under almost any circumstances.
TIMELINE OF U.S. MILITARY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN
Moreover, neighboring countries will, by necessity, do more to mitigate trouble when U.S. forces
leave. They have a greater interest than the U.S. in containing disruption created by ongoing
strife in Afghanistan, and they will help suppress it if necessary.
There is no regional actor, save perhaps Pakistan, that is content working with a major state
failure or an expansionist Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Most powers may be willing to
tolerate a range of outcomes, but safe havens for non-state militants are not on that list.
The U.S. presence is suppressing the efforts of local powers to work toward stability in
Afghanistan by dividing those who first want the U.S. out of the region from those willing to
work with anyone who holds the Taliban at bay. As an added benefit, the U.S. no longer doing
the heavy lifting means the burden will be transferred to other countries—including several U.S.
rivals.
HOW AFGHANS WILL RESPOND AFTER U.S. MILITARY WITHDRAWAL
Under no scenario after a U.S. withdrawal is Afghanistan likely to create a new "safe haven" to
terrorists.7
With its spy network, regional contacts, ability to trade information with other countries
concerned about Islamists militants, improved technical surveillance capability, and the striking
power of both special forces and drones, the U.S. retains the ability to disrupt operations by non-
state actors in Afghanistan without ground deployments. 8
A second reason is that the Taliban have strong reason to police against international terrorists.
True, the Taliban is decentralized, so enforcement of any deal’s anti-terrorism provisions may
prove uneven at best, with rogue commanders not necessarily following central direction. 9 But
the Taliban have a distinct self-interest to avoid provoking a return of U.S. forces after they
withdraw. Given the existing hostility between the Taliban and radical elements like ISIS-K, it is
unlikely such groups would thrive even if the Taliban were to dominate the country. The
mainline Taliban seems capable of enforcing its edicts on recalcitrant elements if sufficiently
motivated.
Third, after U.S. departure, whatever one fears of the Taliban, they are unlikely to take over the
country entirely. A U.S. withdrawal would weaken the Kabul government, but its collapse is
hardly guaranteed. It is certainly possible that the Afghan state will retain partial control over the
bulk of the country either in alliance with other non-state actors or as a result of patronage from
other regional states. Should this happen, the internationally recognized government will be the
34
The British Academy
primary recipient of foreign aid. With no more U.S. presence to complicate the calculations of
other powers, the odds of Kabul finding increased patronage from Beijing, Moscow, or both
increase dramatically. Due to geographic proximity alone, these countries would be invested in
the fate of a government that could show its continued survival, even if in a reduced territorial
capacity.10
AFGHAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES COMPARED WITH INSURGENT AND
TERRORIST FORCES
The government in Kabul has resources to vie for control after a U.S. withdrawal, including
active personnel in its police and army that far outnumber Taliban fighters and terrorist members
in ISIS-K and Al-Qaeda.
On the other hand, should Kabul fall, the resulting patchwork of forces—including internal
divisions in the Taliban itself—do not make the conquest of the entire country by the Taliban
inevitable. The Taliban are as likely to face regional warlords and rebellion as the Kabul
government has, especially in non-Pashtun areas. A power vacuum could also lead to a fracturing
of the dominant coalitions and the collapse of alliances only kept together by the existence of
U.S. forces, a common enemy.
A full takeover by the Taliban, while unifying the country, would likely prompt outside
containment. Neighboring powers would likely either support armed rivals to the Taliban to
extract concessions or use pan-regional diplomacy to curtail Islamist movements from spreading
further in Central Asia.11
Even the worst-case scenario—a complete state collapse—would not necessarily prompt a rise in
non-state extremists' ability to operate in Afghanistan. Anarchic environments often spur armed
groups to focus more on survival than on plotting sophisticated acts of terrorism, and subnational
authorities in Afghanistan are unlikely to find global jihad—or being on the receiving end of
American, Russian, or Chinese responses to it—a welcome addition to their autonomous
fiefdoms.12
Should the Taliban become the dominant actor among many in the country, their control will
likely be regionally limited and locally challenged, demanding an internal focus and leaving few
resources for broader aims. Any independent groups seeking to set up terrorist networks in this
environment would lack state sponsorship and thus defense from outside powers. 13
U.S. departure will change the Taliban's priorities. As the Taliban transitions from an insurgency
to a formal political movement, it would be able to access official revenue streams and outside
support to battle its more radical offshoots. Existing Taliban hostility to ISIS’s presence in the
country could increase. The two groups have already fought openly, and without the strain of
battling the U.S., the far larger Taliban is likely to eradicate the ISIS presence over time.
HOW OUTSIDE POWERS WILL RESPOND TO EVENTS INSIDE AFGHANISTAN
Following U.S. withdrawal, Afghanistan's neighbors are likely to coalesce around similar
strategies to deal with the aftermath. Their preferred outcomes are peace through unification or a
power-sharing arrangement.
A Taliban amenable to negotiation would also be an outcome that regional powers could adapt to
and contain. The least desirable path for the region is the total collapse of centralized authority in
the country or a Taliban unwilling to pursue normal relations and returning to its pre-9/11
international stance. As previously noted, this final outcome is unlikely because the Taliban
would not want to invite additional intervention by either the U.S. or other great powers.
35
The British Academy
SCENARIO 1: STABILITY THROUGH UNIFICATION OR POWER-SHARING
The best feasible outcome for the U.S. is the survival of the Kabul government in more or less its
present form. Most of Afghanistan's neighbors would agree. Diplomacy and business would
continue as normal and the country would enjoy some measure of security and international
support.
China, which is linked to Afghanistan not only by a short border, but also by its deep suspicion
of Islamist radicals, could well find it expedient to support the current government. Beijing's Belt
and Road Initiative (BRI)—which includes expanding infrastructure projects in Afghanistan—as
well as ongoing projects in Badakshan Province, give China an economic reason to avoid
political disruption. Beijing could well find itself backing and brokering any Kabul-Taliban
negotiations, especially following the U.S. departure—leaving would pressure China to take on
those burdens.14
MAP OF AFGHANISTAN’S NEIGHBORS AND REGIONAL POWERS
With the possible exception of Pakistan, which may find state failure acceptable, countries near
Afghanistan likely will seek to prevent it from degenerating into a more chaotic state that exports
trouble.
Only Pakistan, a key supporter of the Taliban, would likely welcome its victory. Should that fail
to materialize, however, Islamabad's past behavior implies it would likely seek to avoid a total
collapse of governance in Afghanistan, which would diminish its ability to influence events and
create a power vacuum that others might exploit. 15 Furthermore, Pakistan's dire financial
situation means that it is easily influenced by wealthier patrons, like China, which already
exercises a large degree of sway over Islamabad and has little interest in facilitating Islamist
militancy.16
China might apply pressure on Pakistan to either rein in the Taliban or aid negotiations between
the Taliban and Kabul. Should the Taliban take a more hostile approach, Beijing could pressure
the Pakistani government, leading it to make its Taliban clients more amenable to Beijing's
priorities.17 Chinese policymakers fear the consequences of an Islamist Afghanistan, which could
disrupt order in their restive Xinjiang province.
Additionally, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia recently managed to extract
concessions from Pakistan on Taliban-U.S. talks in exchange for loans. Because these countries
want Pakistan on their side as part of a containment strategy against Iran, it is likely they will
seek to reorient Pakistani policy away from Afghanistan as a primary focus. 18
Russia, while seeking to oust the U.S. from a region it considers its backyard, is also alarmed by
the spread of Islamist insurgencies in Central Asia, and it would welcome a stable government in
Afghanistan.19 Currently, Washington is serving Moscow's interests by expending its own
resources to battle radical insurgents in the region.
The U.S. and Afghan governments have both suggested that Moscow developed indirect ties to
the Taliban in order to sow division between that group and ISIS (as well as make the U.S.
position more difficult).20 Even if these suspicions are true, they will cease being relevant upon
U.S. departure from Afghanistan, as Russia's position toward Afghanistan will adapt to the new
reality.21 U.S. withdrawal would likely compel Moscow to play a more constructive role in the
country—Afghanistan's stability is more important to Russia's long-term interests than it is to the
U.S. This also comes with the added benefit of taking Russian resources away from potential
Moscow-directed meddling elsewhere in the world.
36
The British Academy
Should Kabul achieve stable governance, the post-Soviet Central Asian states will be the first to
seek more trade with their neighbor.22 Uzbekistan, as the most influential of these states, often
takes a quite independent line in the region and could be expected to want to play a major
diplomatic role in bringing Afghan factions together. 23 Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will utilize
as much diplomatic outreach as they can muster to support a peace considering their fear of
instability bleeding over the borders and into their own struggles with anti-government groups. A
Taliban takeover would be a massive danger worth balancing against in a regional coalition but
could also present an opportunity for negotiation. 24 Uzbekistan has cultivated informal relations
with the Taliban just in case this scenario comes to pass.25
In Afghanistan, the U.S. is fighting Iran's enemy for them. Iran and the Taliban were foes in the
1990s, then gradually became very reluctant associates against a common enemy as the U.S.
occupation dragged on and U.S.-Iran relations worsened.26 But the expediency of this
relationship would not continue at the same level upon U.S. departure. 27
Tehran's goals are to maintain security for its porous eastern border and prevent Sunni extremists
from operating in its territory. It would likely work with any non-Taliban government that is
divorced from U.S. support. Taliban takeover is Tehran's worst-case scenario, even though
Iranian-Taliban relations have improved in recent years as a partnership of convenience to thwart
U.S. goals in Afghanistan.
Iranian interests are more focused on its proxy conflicts in Iraq and Syria, so Tehran’s primary
goal is simply a stable border region free of a U.S. presence or militant Sunni Islamists.
Therefore, Tehran could either leverage the goodwill it gained with the Taliban to help restrain
them, or, should these relationships break down, act as another anti-Taliban containment force
via logistical support of proxies in the region, as it has done in Iraq and Yemen.
New Delhi has become Afghanistan's most consistent supporter, though to limited effect. 28 India
has committed $3 billion of developmental assistance to Kabul over the years to promote
stability, but its ability to mold events on the ground is limited due to a lack of ability to project
hard power.29 A stronger, more stable Afghanistan under the present Kabul government or a
coalition arrangement is the best outcome for India. A relative peace holding between different
autonomous factions is also acceptable to India, as it diminishes Pakistan’s influence and
guarantees India could still invest and play some role in Afghanistan's future. A Taliban
takeover, on the other hand, is undesirable to New Delhi. But it still presents potential
opportunities should the new government seek to distance itself from Pakistan.
In the best-case scenario, a U.S. withdrawal would spur regional powers to engage in
constructive diplomatic engagement with whatever government is dominant in Afghanistan.
China, wanting to achieve the most favorable conditions for BRI, would facilitate the diplomatic
normalization of any dominant government in Afghanistan. Russia most likely would be far
more reticent but would want to follow a course that maximizes its influence with its smaller
Central Asian partners.
No matter which faction comes out on top, however, a dominant domestic power in the country
of any type, even the Taliban, is an outcome that could be tolerated by the U.S. Achieving
minimal counterterrorism goals and letting neighbors do more will allow the U.S. to leave and
focus on more rewarding endeavors.
SCENARIO 2: STATE FAILURE AND COLLAPSE
In Afghanistan, Pakistan is a possible wrench in a sustainable peace under either one controlling
power or a stable factionalism. Pakistani intelligence's longstanding links with the Taliban are
coupled with a fear of any kind of strong state on their northern border which is not ruled by the
Taliban. Islamabad's first concern is that such a state would correctly regard Pakistan as its
37
The British Academy
primary foreign security threat and reach out to India for warmer relations. 30 Fearing
encirclement and an increase in Indian influence near its borders, Pakistan likely regards both
Taliban takeover and utter state failure in Afghanistan as acceptable options, unlike other nearby
powers, even if state collapse could harm Islamabad. 31 This is, however, an outlier position in the
international community.
Overwhelmingly, the consensus in the region is that state collapse is both a possibility and a
negative outcome. This implies that neighboring states would take action to either contain chaos
in Afghanistan through regional security measures, and erect hard borders around the country,
back more moderate factions to battle the radicals, and potentially directly employ forces to
counter non-state actors through joint actions.
Afghanistan's neighbors would have a slew of options for dealing with non-state and rogue
actors that are not presently available with the current U.S. presence. Russian special forces
teams operating out of their bases in Tajikistan would be able to gather intelligence and launch
targeted missions against radical groups deemed threatening. Chinese and perhaps even Indian
financial contacts could be set up with specific warlords and autonomous regions in order to
pursue localized development projects and combat opium production.
NUMBER OF WEAPONS RELEASED BY U.S. AIRCRAFT IN AFGHANISTAN
U.S. air operations in Afghanistan have increased in recent years, even as the number of U.S.
troops has fallen, indicating that the ability of the U.S. to strike is not a direct function of the
number of personnel garrisoned in the country.
All of this could increase the odds of regional foreign investment in Afghanistan on a time scale
that the distant and overextended U.S. never could. While foreign spending is no more likely to
ameliorate Afghanistan’s political strife than U.S. spending, it can at least help prop up the
national or local authorities. Should this not work out, a worst-case scenario where the
neighboring Central Asian countries could coordinate a common containment policy in
partnership with Russia and China is feasible. No power in Afghanistan would be strong enough
to meaningfully object.
While this worst-case scenario brings together many U.S. rivals, it does so in a way that
minimizes the potential negative fallout of U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Yet even if regional powers and their proxies in Afghanistan compete rather than cooperate, that
competition would keep them fixated on nearby goals, not the distant target of the U.S. For
instance, Iranian backing of a potential warlord running afoul of a Russian backed faction simply
means more difficulty for Tehran and Moscow, more regional problems for Afghan actors, and
no negative security result for the U.S.
CONCLUSION
The end of direct U.S. involvement in Afghanistan does not guarantee a long-term decline in
regional stability. It does, however, guarantee a shift in U.S. attention away from unwinnable
conflicts and increased efforts by local powers to stabilize Afghanistan.
Most regional powers must in some way deal with the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal, whether
through diplomacy, military containment, or some combination. The U.S. presence in
Afghanistan distorts regional dynamics between Afghanistan and its neighbors. Though short-
term instability will likely rise after withdrawal, the interests of neighboring states, some of them
U.S. strategic competitors, ensure they will work to restore some sort of balance to Afghanistan's
affairs. The region may end up looking similar to its geopolitical equilibrium prior to the U.S.
invasion—but with regional states having increased interests to deal with terrorist organizations.
38
The British Academy
This also means that the nearby countries are not likely to object to the U.S. retaining some
ability to strike at non-state actors through indirect methods and proxies in the region should the
need arise. Or—to keep the U.S. out—other countries may volunteer to do these operations
themselves.
Almost all of Afghanistan's neighbors have an interest in preventing regional chaos. Only
Pakistan seems a likely dissenter. This puts Islamabad in an unenviable position vis-à-vis its
relationships with the Central Asian republics, Russia, and, above all its unofficial patron, China.
Though Pakistan's ability to influence the situation on the ground remains unrivaled due to its
geographic location and 1,659-mile shared border with Afghanistan, the harder it pushes to help
the Taliban, the more pushback it will receive in turn from almost every other significant nation
concerned with Afghanistan's future. This is a dynamic aided by the removal of all U.S. forces in
the Afghanistan.
Outside of Islamabad, the consensus is a peace that retains a non-Taliban government is the best
option and the one most amenable to trade, diplomacy, and working on cross-border extremism
problems endemic to the region. However, nearly all powers have retained a large degree of
flexibility regarding the possibility of a Taliban takeover.
The instinct of these societies to balance threats to their sovereignty and support of China and
Russia for the smaller states of the region could modify Taliban behavior. A Taliban that
restrains itself and respects the sovereignty of its neighbors could find that surrounding countries
are willing to do business just as they are with the current government in Kabul.
Whatever differences divide Russia, China, the Central Asian republics, and Iran, all share one
vital interest: countering a hotbed of expansionist extremism on their borders. Knowing this, the
Taliban would be wise to work to avoid being the target of yet another international coalition.
This is one reason why even a full Taliban victory need not meaningfully harm U.S. security.
Withdrawal yields substantial benefits for the U.S. A localized future for Afghanistan should be
welcomed by U.S. strategists and decision makers, as it removes U.S. reliance on cordial
relations with increasingly dysfunctional Pakistan and frees up U.S. policymakers to pursue a
more flexible stance towards Southern Asia and India in particular. No longer burdened with
sustaining a permanent force in landlocked and remote Afghanistan, the U.S. could pursue more
important, and fruitful, goals elsewhere.
********************************************
India, China and the Addis Papers

Ali JaffrySeptember 21, 2020
On June 15, 2020, the world watched with bated breath an armed clash that broke out between
the troops of China and India in Galwan Valley. The vociferous Indian media was up in arms
instantly — as usual — in an attempt to whip up a frenzy of rhetoric. The loss of life, though
regrettable, certainly leads one to seek answers as to why such conflict, between two nuclear-
armed giants, should break out, in the first place.
JM Addis, a British diplomat, unearthed the truth about the India-China border question as far
back as in 1962-63. The little known “Addis Papers” by this equitable diplomat, explicitly
reveal the historic perspective of the Sino-India border question from its origin to its current
state. It candidly expounds the sincere and concerted efforts by the Chinese government to
resolve all border issues cordially, as per historically proven facts, and also highlights constant
denial by India which dragged matters to the worst, ultimately bringing historic humiliation to
India in 1962. This essay is based on facts gleaned from the seminal work of JM Addis.
39
The British Academy
As per Addis, the British had tried to dupe Tibet and/or China into ceding a major chunk of
territory to India, in its north-east, during the Simla Conference in 1914. The details of the
forgery and the identity of the forger-in-chief, Olaf Caroe, were revealed later by Alastair
Lamb and an Indian scholar Karunakar Gupta.
As this forgery suited independent India’s expansionist designs, she not only insisted on the
validity of the McMahon Line, but also claimed that all borders with China were indisputable
and non-negotiable international borders. The Addis Papers, based on documentary evidence,
were so incriminating that Neville Maxwell concluded, “the papers, if published then, would
have been explosive.” Addis was hushed by London after Delhi’s complaints of “anti-Indian
activities”.
The Sino-Indian border is divided into western, middle and eastern sectors. The dispute in the
western sector refers to the Johnson Line of 1862, which shows Aksai Chin as part of the state
of Kashmir. To this day, India considers the Johnson Line as the authority for her claim,
whereas the Chinese do not recognise the Line, and claim that the area has been a part of Tibet,
which has always been under Chinese influence. The middle sector has no serious disputes,
while the border dispute in the eastern sector pertains to the McMahon Line whose legality was
never accepted by the Chinese. Until 1960, the Chinese controlled the western sector while the
Indians held areas up to the McMahon Line in the east. An in-depth study of the Addis Papers
substantiates the veracity of Chinese claims, and the outright mendacity of Indian assertions.
With the Chinese advance into Tibet, the Indian government, concerned at its implications,
decided to extend their hold on the border areas and occupied all of the North-Eastern Frontier
Agency (NEFA). The Indians began aggressively establishing check posts in the frontier zone,
particularly in the eastern sector. In the western sector, the Chinese had built a road through
Aksai Chin by 1957. The Tibetan revolt precipitated a further advance by both countries into
the frontier areas.
The Chinese, over the years, made repeated and concerted attempts to settle the border disputes
through negotiations; which only fell on deaf Indian ears. After numerous attempts by the
Chinese, the two premiers finally met in Delhi in April 1960. However, this meeting proved
futile due to Indian intransigence over their fabricated claims. Even the “Report of Officials”
that followed in June 1960 could not prove helpful. Continued attempts by the Chinese were in
vain in the face of Indian aggressive forward posturing in disputed areas; as per Nehru’s
famous Forward Policy.
The Sino-India war broke out on October 20, 1962. Chinese troops routed the Indian army
from illegally occupied forward posts. The Chinese premier once again offered resumption of
talks, suggesting the status quo as of November 7, 1959, but the Indians insisted that the
Chinese should return to status quo ante September 8, 1962 line (as it would permit the Indians
to retain the illegally occupied areas). After inflicting a humiliating defeat upon the Indian
army, the Chinese withdrew 20 kilometres behind the Line of Actual Control after declaring
unilateral ceasefire.
From Nehru onwards, successive Indian governments, less Vajpayee’s, have always pursued
the ‘provocative forward policy’ of fabricated territorial claims. Even after seven decades of
existence as an independent state, India still has unresolved border disputes with almost all its
neighbours, i.e. Bhutan, Myanmar, Pakistan and China, leading into military confrontations.
Most recently, resurfacing of a border dispute with Nepal has again exposed India’s eternal
longing for usurping the territory of its neighbours. The latest standoff in Ladakh speaks
volumes of Indian obduracy in settling border disputes. India has never been able to reconcile
with the idea of evacuating illegally occupied territories (as in the cases of Kashmir,
Hyderabad, Junagarh, Goa, etc.)
40
The British Academy
Unfortunately, many in the West still dance to the sensational tunes of Indian media, without
realising the consequences of a military confrontation. The world must realise that the Indian
expansionist quest has not only endangered the regional peace in the past, but has the potential
of escalating the current standoff to unprecedented complexities which may also drag extra-
regional powers into play — a sure recipe to imperil the regional and global peace.
May better sense prevail!
Published in The Express Tribune, September 22 nd, 2020.
Acquisition of Rafael by India

September 22, 2020 Malik M Ashraf
IN the backdrop of the failure of the Indian adventure at Balakot, downing of two Indian planes
and capture of one Indian pilot, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed” The events of
last week, which saw skirmishes between the Indian and Pakistani air forces and an Indian pilot
being captured and returned, would have turned out differently if India already had Rafale fighter
jets in its arsenal. Today, the lack of Rafale is being felt. The country is saying in one voice that
had we had the Rafale fighter jets now, what all could have happened? Putting self-interest and
politics before Rafale has seriously hurt the nation.”
He was lamenting inordinate delay in the acquisition of high precision French made Rafael
planes as well the stiff resistance by the opposition to the revised deal that he had signed.
Congress government had initiated the process to acquire the fighter jets in 2007 when it sent out
initial tender in this regard but it could not finalize the deal by 2014, when Modi came to power.
In 2015 he signed a new deal with France to buy 36 Rafale jets under completely different terms,
rather than 126 that the tender in 2007 had envisioned. The first batch of the planes as per the
deal was supposed to be delivered to India by the end of 2015 but the process was delayed
because the opposition kept questioning the terms of his highly unusual deal—which involved
repudiating the manner in which the Indian government was trying to acquire them.
Nevertheless all the obstacles have been cleared and finally India has got the first batch of five
Rafael jets which were inducted in the Indian air force at Ambala airport on September 10. What
the Indian Defence Minister Raj said on the occasion is indeed worrying for the countries of the
region, particularly Pakistan. Speaking on the occasion Raj Nath said “Rafael aircraft was very
significant given the security situation at India’s borders. In addition to stand off at Ladakh
region, Indian troops regularly clash with Pakistani soldiers along the line of control.”
Indian desire to establish her hegemony in the region is a well established fact. It is corroborated
by the fact that it has disputes with almost all its neighbours. It had a military confrontation with
China in 1962 and currently again is involved in a military stand-off at Ladakh. It supported
Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka and has territorial disputes with Nepal. It has fought three wars
with Pakistan and currently is pursuing a path of confrontation with her by keeping the LoC hot
on a daily basis. Sending her planes to attack the imaginary terrorist camp at Balakot also
indicated its aggressive streak which backfired because of the restraint shown by Pakistan and
the befitting answer to the aggression in the shape of downing two Indian planes and capture of
one of the pilots. To fulfil her hegemonic ambitions Indian not only went nuclear but also has
been piling up arms to increase the threat level to her neighbours, particularly Pakistan.
According to a report published by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute India was
the second largest importer of major arms between 2014 and 2018 which accounted for 9.5% of
the global total.
It is regrettable that the trio of USA, France and UK are helping and encouraging India to fulfil
her hegemonic designs in return for the role that the latter is playing in achieving objectives of ‘
41
The British Academy
contain China’ policy as their strategic partner. Actually it was due to their support and nod that
Modi scrapped Article 370 of the Indian Constitution ending special status of the State and
followed by its annexation to the Indian Union as well as the promulgation of the new domicile
law to change the demographic realities in the State. According to a report published in the Los
Angeles Times the Indian government did take President Trump into confidence before going
ahead with its move to scrap Article 370 and its annexation to the Indian Union.
Their strategic partnership is very ominous for Pakistan as well as the greatest hurdle in the
resolution of the Kashmir issue in the foreseeable future. Their lukewarm response to the illegal
Indian actions in India-occupied Jammu & Kashmir in violation of UNSC resolutions and the
persecution of Kashmiris is enough to corroborate and reinforce this view. Signing of civil
nuclear technology deal by US with India in violation of NPT and the efforts to make her
permanent member of UNSC, also provide ranting testimony to their hypocrisy. UNSC in spite
of acknowledging the need for resolution of the Kashmir issue in conformity with principles of
the UN Charter and the relevant resolution is also helpless in regards to having its resolutions
implemented. India and USA are also trying to sabotage CPEC and they mince no words about
it.
It is indeed a very worrying and frustrating situation for Pakistan. However, it is satisfying to
note that by acquiring nuclear capability and effective response to Indian ‘ cold start’ doctrine
and maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent Pakistan has eliminated the chances of India ever
daring to attack her or engage her in a full-fledged war. Our battled hardened armed forces are
prepared and ready to thwart aggressive designs of the enemy, which they proved in February
2019 and continue to do so in response to Indian firing along the LoC. Pakistan is indeed
confronted with grave challenges. Besides her preparedness to ward off these challenges
militarily it also needs strong economy and an impregnable national unity. Therefore all
stakeholders need to give serious thought to this proposition. Country needs stability. Politicking
can wait for better times.
— The writer is freelance columnist based in Islamabad.
********************************
Pakistan & World Maritime Day

September 24, 2020 Reema Shaukat
PLANET earth comprises 70% of water and 30% dry land and it is inquisitive nature of human
which leads to explore ways on utilizing all channels and ways of communication. In the Holy
Quran, the word ‘Bahr’ has been used 41 times in 39 verses, giving inspiration to mankind to
find its food, skill and new venues to gain opulence. Prophet Noah was the first man who is
regarded as the founder of maritime industry, who himself built a ship and his Ark is considered
as the first passenger. History suggests that prior to land routes, man travelled on sea routes to
explore world and reconnoitred how maritime or sea related activities can be fruitful for humans.
Certainly with the passage of time, when the territorial waters were identified and sea routes to
many states were explored, it generated clashes and disputes among the distribution of resources
and thirst to control each other. In modern times history, Alfred Thayer Mahan, US Naval
Strategist suggested that “Whoever rules the waves, rules the world”, thus highlighting the
importance of sea power and maritime domain more clearly after World Wars.
Every year on 24th of September, World Maritime Day is observed with an objective to highlight
the crucial role of maritime industry and to underline the importance of maritime security,
environment, safety and shipping.” Sustainable shipping for a sustainable planet” is the World
42
The British Academy
Maritime theme for 2020. According to UN, this will provide an opportunity to raise awareness
of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and showcase the work that the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its Member States are undertaking to achieve the
targets. International Maritime Organization has devised a strategy and regulatory framework to
give boost to shipping industry and have sustainable future. In this regard, IMO has adopted and
will continue to develop measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce the sulphur content of
ships’ fuel oil, implement the Ballast Water Management Convention, protect the polar regions,
reduce marine litter, improve the efficiency of shipping through the electronic exchange of
information, meet the challenges of the digitalization of shipping and enhance the participation
of women in the maritime community.
Maritime industry has many extensive domains which give support to any country’s financial
pillars thus it is often coined with the term “Blue Economy”. The concept of Blue Economy
exemplifies industries like ports, shipping companies, energy and renewable energy sector,
fisheries, maritime transportation, tourism, climate change, waste management to name a few in
lthe ist. Considering the importance of maritime industry, Government of Pakistan declared year
2020 as the year of Blue Economy, so Pakistan can make best use of maritime potential laying in
its more than 1000 kilometres long coast alongside Arabian Sea. In the past few years, Pakistan
through CPEC venture is having rapid development in terms of infrastructure and many projects
can work out in domain of maritime like marine food processing chain, exploring Exclusive
Economic Zones, LPG & LNG terminals, coastal development plans and shipping industry.
Maritime transport is considered as the cheapest method of moving cargo in bulk, especially in
developing countries, low cost with efficient maritime transport helps in sustainable
development. Shipping industry in Pakistan is quite reviving with Pakistan National Shipping
Corporation as national fleet carrier. Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works is Pakistan’s
largest ship building, ship repair and heavy engineering which also contributed in groundwork of
submarines in Pakistan. Presence of operational ports at Karachi, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim,
Pasni harbour, Ormara Port and now Gwadar Port enhance Pakistan’s maritime assets.
Generally speaking, maritime is often confused with Navy. Maritime is a comprehensive domain
which involves all elements of sea power including ports, harbours, ocean’s economic resources
and maritime military forces. However, Navy is one defence force which is to ensure safety and
security against any kind of military aggression in one’s territorial waters. Pakistan has
outstanding naval force which is reflected by their fearlessness, commitment to profession,
exceptional training, professional competence and valour whenever required. Pakistan Navy has
gone beyond in its role of defending sea frontiers and always led from front in any kind of
disaster relief activities, health camps, educational facilities, vocational training and
humanitarian assistance.
No doubt, oceans have always played an important role in shaping geopolitics of any region.
Apart from economic benefits, oceans are critical for sustainability of littoral states and in
present times where oil is used as weapon in international politics, importance of oceans and
maintaining balance of power in any particular expanse cannot be ruled out. The Indian Ocean is
the 3rd largest ocean having energy rich littoral states but this region has become militarized
more with the presence of great powers and also nuclearized with Indian hegemonic designs and
naval military build-up in Indian Ocean Region. Undoubtedly, such militarization changes the
maritime environment and dynamics of security, economy and climate are also affected. Pakistan
while understanding its pivotal role in IOR presented “Maritime Doctrine of Pakistan-Preserving
Freedom of Seas” in 2018 whose purpose is to provide understanding to all stakeholders on the
distinctive attributes of national maritime sector and the role of Pakistan Navy in national
security.
43
The British Academy
It addresses both military and non-military attributes of Pakistan’s maritime region and offers
areas of awareness, research, development and cooperation in maritime and with friendly navies.
Pakistan being a gateway to Central Asian Republics and having moderate temperature of water
in its seas, makes it accessible over the year to landlocked countries. Ministry of Maritime
Affairs and other maritime-related organizations like National Maritime Affairs Coordination
Committee, National Institute of Oceanography, Pakistan Maritime Security Agency, Pakistan
Coast Guard and other think-tanks are working in their respective research and operational
domains to overcome aspect of sea-blindness in Pakistan. With the changing global scenario and
political intrusions, maritime realm faces a lot of challenges yet it is a thriving force for countries
leading to stability and affluence. Militarization, piracy, climate change, terrorism, drug
trafficking, human smuggling, illegal movements are some factors which can be controlled by
countries to enhance economy, tourism, and industrial resources in maritime.
— The writer works for Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies, a think-tank based in
Islamabad
******************************************************
Nineteen years of 9/11

From the beginning of 2001, Osama bin Laden and his close aides had been talking about the
'Planes Operation' and the coming of the 'big day'. Abu Hafs al-Masri – Osama’s deputy and
close friend – told Al Jazeera journalist Ahmad Zaidan in January 2001 during the wedding of
Osama’s son in Kandahar that “the United States is going to be forced to invade Afghanistan and
we are preparing for that. We want them to come”. However, Mullah Mohammad Omar –
Afghanistan's ruler and Amir-ul-Momineen – had no idea what Osama was going to do right
under his nose.
Adam Yahya Gadahn aka 'Azzam the American' – Al-Qaeda's audio and video lead – stated in a
video that Osama bin Laden had kept the plan secret but shortly before 9/11 had informed his
close aides in Kandahar that he was thinking of taking such action against the US which would
force the latter to invade Afghanistan. Osama knew that his dangerous plan would change the
world.
At last, the 'big day' arrived on September 11, 2001 when Al-Qaeda hijackers brought down the
twin towers of the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon with hijacked planes. This fateful
day changed the world and led to the US invading Afghanistan – as predicted by Bin Laden and
wished by Al-Masri. The US invasion of Afghanistan brought drastic consequences for both
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In 2001, the US seemed to have been moving towards becoming a strategic ally of India but the
9/11 incident and the strategic location of Pakistan forced Washington to engage Islamabad and
give it the status of a major non-Nato ally. However, instead of Pakistan, General Pervez
Musharraf became the main beneficiary of the forced alliance and got a strong lifeline for his
rule. Consequently, Pakistan lost more than 70,000 precious lives and faced billions of dollars in
economic losses. Though Musharraf sided with the US by angering the local jihadi and
extremists' organizations, he still failed to win the trust of the US and of Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the Americans invaded Iraq without consolidating and stabilizing Afghanistan. The
Iraq invasion caused a sense of insecurity in Iran. In addition, the US also started giving space
and role to India in Afghanistan despite Pakistan's strong reservations. As a result, Gen
Musharraf changed his Afghan Taliban policy. The US started blaming Pakistan for playing a
44
The British Academy
double game. In addition, the dramatic killing of Osama bin Laden on Pakistan’s soil also
damaged the country's credibility.
However, the main brunt of war was borne by Afghanistan which was already devastated by
decades-long chaos and instability brought by the Russian invasion and internal civil wars. The
19-year-long 'war on terror' played havoc with the lives and economy of Afghanistan.
After 19 years of bloodshed, the US and Taliban came on the negotiation table and signed a
peace deal. Though both sides claim victory, in reality there is no winner. Victory comes when
you win what you had intended to win. But here both sides have retreated from what they had
wanted.
The US had earlier been reluctant to negotiate and had vowed to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat"
the Taliban. However, now after 19 years of killing hundreds of thousands of people and
spending billions of dollars, the Americans have come to the negotiation table with the Afghan
Taliban. Similarly, the Taliban were at one time not ready to sever ties with Al-Qaeda. But now
they have given a written assurance to the US that they will not keep any relations with Al-
Qaeda.
Though the US and Taliban have signed a deal, peace in Afghanistan is still a distant dream. The
war between the US and the Taliban is over, but the war between the Afghan government and the
Afghan Taliban continues.
The ongoing negotiation in Qatar between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban is a
good omen and a little ray of hope for durable peace in Afghanistan. But still, there are huge
differences between both sides. The Taliban insist on the restoration of their Islamic Emirate in
which they will accommodate the current political figures of the Afghan government. On the
contrary, the Afghan government wants the Taliban to accept Afghanistan’s constitution and
become part of the current political system.
Moreover, the Afghan government is not happy with the deal between the US and the Taliban,
but they cannot oppose it openly due to American pressure. Some elements in the Afghan
government do not want reconciliation with the Taliban due to the fear that the Taliban will
replace them in the new setup. These elements are also convinced that the US’s exit plan could
change if Trump loses the presidential election. In fact, these are those troublemakers who used
delaying tactics in the commencement of the intra-Afghan negotiations. But now once the
negotiations have started in Qatar, there is a possibility that these elements will try to sabotage
the process by bringing such conditions that will not be acceptable to the Afghan Taliban.
On the other hand, the Taliban also seem to not be in a hurry about the success of the
negotiation. They think that the Ashraf Ghani government is getting weaker with each passing
day and that they can at some point soon capture Kabul and establish their rule with impunity.
However, both sides harbour wishful thinking and misunderstanding which will bring no good to
the future of Afghanistan. For the sake of Afghanistan's stability, both sides should find a middle
way of reconciliation.
However, at this important stage, when the Afghan government and Taliban negotiate for a
political solution, Pakistan also needs to give serious consideration to the threat of the TTP.
Different factions of the TTP have reunited and they have pledged allegiance to its head – Mufti
Noorwali. Their attacks in different parts of the country, especially in Waziristan, are also on the
rise.
Though Pakistan is playing a decisive role in the intra-Afghan reconciliation process,
unfortunately, it seems indifferent towards finding any political solution to the TTP problem at
home. It is high time Pakistan found a political solution to the TTP and other extremist groups in
the country. If a political solution is not possible, then Pakistan should ask the Afghan
45
The British Academy
government and the Afghan Taliban to cooperate on the issue of the TTP. Though Pakistan
believes that the TTP is receiving support from the Afghan government, it is also a fact that the
Afghan Taliban do not consider the TTP as their enemy. Ideologically, the TTP seems almost
like a franchise of the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan should continue its role in the Afghan
reconciliation process but at the same time it should find a solution to the TTP problem with the
help of the Afghan government and Afghan Taliban.
The writer works for Geo TV.
***************************************
Brexit in focus again

September 25, 2020 Rashid A Mughal
FUTURE historians will probably remember 2020 as the year when an enfeebled and vulnerable
Europe chose to make itself feebler and more vulnerable. The task for its leaders now is to avoid
making matters even worse. Nothing can be taken for granted in the United Kingdom these days,
but it is now very likely that 2020 will be the year when Brexit finally happens. A majority of
UK citizens will probably be relieved to bring this seemingly endless agony to a close, while
most European leaders are likely to be glad not to have to argue over another postponement. But
questions will remain.
To the question – “Who lost Britain? The answer must be, first and foremost, Britain itself.
Whatever mistakes the European Union’s other 27 members may have made, they cannot be held
responsible for extraordinary behaviour of UK’s three equally amateurish governments of the
last five years. Yet, there are deeper lessons to be drawn from what happened in Britain. The
first, as Wolfgang Münchau pointed out in Financial Times, is that the battle in UK over EU
membership was lost long before it was fought. Since the 1990s, leading pundits and media
outlets have routinely portrayed EU as a stifling bureaucracy obsessed with expanding its own
power; a few senior politicians have dared to confront such prejudices.
Despite having her negotiated EU withdrawal deal soundly rejected in the House of Commons,
the then British Prime Minister, Theresa May remained in charge of the Brexit process. To avert
a disastrous “no-deal” scenario, the Bloc’s leaders continued to work with May on a compromise
solution. After 31 months of the United Kingdom and the European Union arguing over Brexit,
the truth is that neither side knew what it wanted. This sad reality is most obvious in the case of
the UK, whose ruling Conservative Party has consistently been at war with itself over the actual
meaning of the June 2016 Brexit referendum. After a series of strategic mishaps and tactical
blunders by PM Theresa May, the Tory infighting came to ahead in mid-Jan 2018, when
Parliament voted down her negotiated exit agreement. It made clear that May lacks support
within her own party for a realistic compromise with EU.
At the same time, a majority of MPs and British voters opposed the “no-deal” exit advocated by
hard line Tory Euro skeptics. That scenario put the UK in breach of legally binding international
commitments, jeopardize the 1998 agreement that ended violent sectarian conflict in Northern
Ireland, and resulted in immediate economic costs and job losses. At a time when US President
Donald Trump is hastening the demise of the post-war global order, it is frankly stunning that
Brexiteers still believe in the fantasy of a thriving, free-trading Global Britain.
The fact is that Britain mismanaged the issue by unwise policies. 2016 referendum was a split
decision (49 vs 51). At that time the tempers were high due to wave after wave of migrants from
46
The British Academy
war-torn areas in the Middle East who were looking for a safe abode. They were crossing
English Channel in thousands every day and were looking for jobs and assistance from the
government. In addition, since there was free movement of EU nationals into UK, people from
less-affluent European countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungry swarmed to UK where
they found jobs easily. This created a sense of fear among the local residents that their jobs will
be at stake if the migration continues unchecked as EU nationals enjoy free movement to enter
UK. The Brexit referendum was thus a ideal platform for them to express their will and they
voted for it, mainly for above reasons.
The purpose of referendum was to elicit people’s opinion and the government was duty bound to
implement it. But here is where the diplomacy and skill of negotiating ideal deal come in.
Theresa May and her team could not get the trade and economic concessions UK needed from
EU after Brexit. The deal or no-deal debate went on for a year or more. The financial and trade
agreements signed by UK are now subject of urgent attention as UK has indicated that it might
override it and the EU leaders have threatened legal action according to international law, if that
happens. It comes as the PM is set to push through a bill that would rip up parts of his own
Brexit agreement, which the government has admitted could break international law. Johnson is
facing mounting cross-party criticism and a Tory rebellion over his plans, which would ‘row
back’ on parts of the deal relating to Northern Ireland. Shadow Justice Secretary Lord Falconer
warned: ‘A future where (the) UK breaks its international law obligations, and opts out of human
rights protections is a very bad future.’ The PM has warned that Brussels could ‘carve up our
country’ without his new Bill. Former Prime Ministers, Sir John Major and Tony Blair, united to
urge MPs to reject the legislation, saying “it imperils the Irish peace process, trade negotiations
and the UK’s integrity. They wrote: ‘We both opposed Brexit. We both accept it is now
happening. But this way of negotiating, with reason cast aside in pursuit of ideology and cavalier
bombast posing as serious diplomacy, is irresponsible, wrong in principle and dangerous in
practice. ‘It raises questions that go far beyond the impact on Ireland, the peace process and
negotiations for a trade deal – crucial though they are. It questions the very integrity of our
nation.” Conservative rebels now want former Prime Minister Theresa May to lead an in-party
uprising against Boris Johnson’s plan to break international law and dismantle his Brexit deal
with the EU.
According to reports in Business Insider a growing number of MPs are set to vote against the
government in parliament next week, with people involved in drafting an amendment saying they
feel it has “a good chance of significant support.” The rebels are seeking to enlist Johnson’s
predecessor to front the campaign against his plan after she spoke out against the moves last
week. May is one of four former leaders to have attacked Johnson’s moves, with Michael
Howard, Tony Blair and John Major, warning “it could damage our reputation for probity and
respect for the rule of law”. According to a recent survey carried out in UK, 86% people expect
Britain’s economy to be worse off after leaving the EU (compared with 77% pre-Brexit), with a
German fund stating that “Britain will lose access to one of its major trade partners”. Britain
could suffer in the long term as it will face difficulty in trade agreements with EU countries;
resulting in diminished trade flows with EU and weaker political influence; currency
depreciation; and difficulty in reaching trade agreements with non-EU countries. The chief
investment officer of a UK fund says simply: “There is nothing positive about Brexit.” Brexit
will have a negative impact on London’s position as a global financial centre.
— The writer is former DG (Emigration) and consultant ILO, IOM.
47
The British Academy
For CSS and PMS Notes
Like, follow, and become member of
https://www.facebook.com/thebritishlanguageacademy/
The British Academy
Contact # 0342-2857057
Gmail: ikonsoft057@gmail.com
48

CSS Articles Collections Final PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSS Articles Collections Final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The British Academy

For CSS/PMS notes join

What the new Iran-China partnership means for the region

Analysis of juvenile justice system of Pakistan

Holding India accountable for war crimes

Presidential or parliamentary government for Pakistan

Revocation of Article 370 – one year on

Jadev’s case review

Dawn of ‘new Middle East’

Brexit still haunting Britain

1. stability through unification of the country under one power or through

India, China and the Addis Papers

Acquisition of Rafael by India

Pakistan & World Maritime Day

Nineteen years of 9/11

Brexit in focus again

For CSS and PMS Notes

Like, follow, and become member of

The British Academy

You might also like