Shifting Middle Eastern sands

THE unexpected thaw between Saudi Arabia and Iran is a major

diplomatic triumph for China. In a rapprochement mediated by Beijing,
the two archrivals, which had been engaged in a bitter proxy war in the
Middle East for the past several years, have agreed to re-establish
diplomatic relations and ease tensions.

The agreement demonstrates the growing assertion of China’s clout in one of the
world’s most volatile regions. It also highlights the changing global order, with China
playing a bigger role on the world stage.

The détente comes at a time of increasing rivalry between the two superpowers
America and China, which threatens to push the world towards a new Cold War.
Many analysts describe the agreement signed by the two sides in Beijing last week as
an indication of waning US influence in the region. The deal may not bring an end to
the deep-rooted rivalry between the two regional powers but it can certainly end
discord and open the way for a peaceful resolution of conflicts in the region.

The two countries have agreed to re-establish diplomatic ties and reopen their
respective missions within two months. The agreement also affirmed “the respect for
the sovereignty of states and the non-interference in internal affairs of states”.
Significantly, the trilateral statement released in Beijing last week has also
mentioned the 2001 security agreement and the broader 1998 cooperation
agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Tehran and Riyadh have been locked in a fierce battle for supremacy in the Middle
East region for decades. The two have been fighting proxy wars in Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon and Yemen. But the intensification of the civil war in Yemen turned into a
flashpoint over the last few years, threatening a wider regional conflagration.

The Saudi-Iran détente comes at a time of increasing rivalry between America and
China.

While Saudi Arabia has supported Yemen’s government forces, the Houthi rebels
have been backed by Iran. The Yemeni civil war spilled over into Saudi Arabia, with
rebel forces targeting oil facilities inside the kingdom. The two countries severed
diplomatic ties in 2016 after Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Shia cleric, leading
a mob in Iran to ransack the Saudi embassy there in protest. That also ended
cooperation between the two countries in various fields.

Iran’s nuclear programme has also been a major Saudi security concern, intensifying
the rivalry between the two Gulf countries. Their anti-Iran positions had also
brought Saudi Arabia and Israel closer. Not surprisingly, both welcomed the decision
of the Trump administration to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal.
1
Over the past few years, Riyadh has been sending out signals that it was ready for
greater cooperation with Israel. The kingdom tacitly supported the recognition of
Israel by the UAE and some other Gulf countries. But the fear of a backlash from
extremist elements stopped Riyadh from openly establishing official relations with
Tel Aviv.

Saudi Arabia has long been America’s staunchest Middle East ally. Though the
kingdom has remained dependent on Washington for its security, ties between the
two cooled under the Biden administration. The frosty reception given to President
Joe Biden during his visit to Riyadh last year was a clear message from the de facto
Saudi ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that it would not be business as
usual.

This was in part a reaction to strong criticism by President Biden regarding the
alleged role of the crown prince in the murder of Saudi journalist and US resident
Jamal Khashoggi. In contrast, President Xi Jinping of China was accorded a red
carpet welcome when he visited Riyadh last December. The growing Beijing-Riyadh
ties are also dictated by bilateral economic interests. China is Saudi Arabia’s largest
trading partner, with the kingdom being a major supplier of oil to the former.

Riyadh’s move towards reconciliation with Iran is also driven by the crown prince’s
Vision 2030 that envisages the diversification of the kingdom’s oil-dependent
economy by attracting foreign investments. It also calls for cultural openness of the
conservative society.

Meanwhile, there has been a strengthening of bilateral relations between Beijing and
Tehran in the past years, with the tightening of US sanctions against the Islamic
Republic. China considers Iran strategically important in the changing politics of the
region. In 2021, China signed an agreement for an investment of more than $40
billion in infrastructure development in exchange for oil. The Iranian president was
given a rousing reception when he visited Beijing earlier this year.

These developments gave China huge diplomatic clout and it played a mediating role
between the two bitter rivals. Last week’s agreement was reached after days of secret
parleys between Saudi and Iranian officials, facilitated by Beijing. The landmark deal
reflects the shifting sands of regional geopolitics. It is also a personal triumph for
Chinese President Xi.

The dramatic diplomatic breakthrough came as he was elected for his third term.
Being president, party leader and chairman of the Chinese military makes President
Xi the most powerful leader in China’s recent history. It gives him absolute power to
determine the future course of the country. Under him, there has been significant
projection of Chinese power. Internationally, China is now playing a more proactive
role. Washington’s move to contain China has further hardened Beijing’s stance.
Relations between the US and China have worsened in recent times.

2
China is now not only challenging US economic leadership far more intensely than
before but is also asserting itself more forcefully on the global stage. Its growing
economic and political power is seen as a threat to American domination.

President Xi’s ambition of propelling China to centre stage of the global power game
represents a sharp departure from the approach of previous Chinese leaders who
strictly adhered to the policy of not taking the lead in global conflicts. Focusing its
energies on development helped the country become an economic superpower. But
now, China is also taking a lead in global affairs. The latest deal between Saudi
Arabia and Iran indicates China’s growing assertiveness on the global stage. Beijing’s
increasingly proactive role is likely to alter the existing world order.

A wake-up call
IT is nothing less than a strong critique of the chief justice by his fellow
judges as the long-simmering friction within the top judiciary finally
comes out into the open. The dissenting judges have challenged what
they call “the solitary decision of one man” and they want the “unbridled
power enjoyed by the chief justice” to be restrained.

It may not be unusual for judges to have differences of opinion, but

the remarks made by Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan
Mandokhail in their detailed dissenting note on the court’s ruling on elections for the
KP and Punjab assemblies go beyond the norm. They have not only disputed the
validity of the ruling but have also questioned the chief justice’s discretion to
reconstitute the bench.

According to them, last month’s proceedings, following the suo motu notice taken by
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on the delay in elections, stood rejected by a
majority of 4-3, contrary to the 3-2 judgement announced by the reconstituted five-
member bench.

The release of the detailed dissenting note on the eve of the hearing of the petition
against the postponement of polls by the ECP, in violation of court orders, has
turned the entire case upside down, worsening the existing state of anarchy.

Many legal experts may not concur with the two judges — that the suo motu action
was rejected by the majority — but questions about the chief justice’s power to
constitute benches at will appear valid. What is also being debated is the validity of
his decision to take suo motu notice on the election issue.

The dissenting note also brings into question the exercise of absolute power by the
CJ.

3
The controversy started after Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Minallah were
not included in the reconstituted bench following their objections over the notice.
The ruling itself did not come as a surprise, as the reconstituted bench changed the
balance of opinion. Given that two other judges had recused themselves, the
argument that four out of the remaining seven judges had rejected the suo motu
action has some rationale.

Notwithstanding the validity of the majority ruling by the reconstituted five-member

bench, the chief justice’s decision not to go for a full court on critical constitutional
issues has created doubts in the minds of many over the impartiality of the top judge
and widened the cleavage within the institution.

It is not for the first time that the process of the formation of benches and the
absolute power exercised by the top judge have been questioned, but the remarks of
Justices Shah and Mandokhail show a breakdown in institutional working.

Concerns that there is a deliberate move to keep out the senior-most judges, and that
critical constitutional cases are assigned to a particular set of judges have
contributed to making verdicts controversial. It has been asked why Justice Qazi
Faez Isa, the senior puisne judge who will be chief justice in a matter of months, has
not been included on these benches.

An outspoken judge known for some landmark judgements, Justice Isa has been a
strong critic of the arbitrary process of constituting benches. It is perceived that he
has paid the price for his convictions, but that has not deterred him from speaking
out. His exclusion from the bench in such a case is a sad reflection on an institution
that is expected to set the highest moral and ethical standards.

The dissenting note also brings into question the exercise of absolute power by the
chief justice. The concentration of authority in the office of the chief justice has
created distortions and raised doubts about the fairness of the judicial system. The
increasing tendency of taking suo motu notice of political issues has drawn criticism
from both judges and lawyers.

As the judges asserted, “the court cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of
one man, the chief justice… “. They said, “The power of doing a ‘one-man show’ is
not only anachronistic, outdated and obsolete but also is antithetical to good
governance and incompatible [with] modern democratic norms.”

Some recent suo motu actions taken by the chief justice have indeed pushed the apex
court into political controversy, leading to questions about institutional impartiality.
It is not a good omen for the rule of law. Certain decisions have been seen as an
attempt to rewrite the Constitution.

4
Indeed, the collapsing democratic process and growing political confrontation have
made the court a battleground for the two major rival parties. That has also drawn
the court into political controversy, with each party expecting a ruling in its favour. It
is then not surprising to see the judges become targets of criticism by those who
disagree with their verdict.

Most of the criticism may be unfair, but the current political polarisation also
requires the judiciary not to extend its mandate or play the role of arbiter in the
power game. Unfortunately, some recent suo motu actions have done the opposite.
This happens when the powers of decision-making are concentrated in the hands of
one person.

The growing divisions within the court are alarming and there is an urgent need to
reform the system and establish a collective decision-making process, particularly
when it comes to suo motu actions and taking up cases that should be decided in
political forums.

Power vested in a single person has other perils, as we have seen in the past when
some chief justices acted more like autocrats encroaching on the domain of other
institutions. Some turned to populism for self-projection.

All this has tarnished the image of the apex judiciary and affected public trust and
confidence in the judicial process. The criticism from within must serve as a wake-up
call for the institution to reform the system. The dissenting note may well reflect the
sentiments of other fellow judges too. The chaos and the problems within the system
highlighted by the two judges must be taken seriously to restore confidence in the
legal system.

On a collision course Zahid Hussain

PREDICTABLY, the three-member Supreme Court bench headed

by the chief justice ruled on Tuesday that the decision by the
Election Commission of Pakistan to postpone elections to the
Punjab Assembly was unconstitutional. The court announced May
14 as the new polling date.

It ordered the government to provide the required funds to the ECP and
ensure security for the exercise. These two issues had been cited by the ECP as
the reason for its decision to postpone elections.

Last month, the Supreme Court had ordered the ECP to hold elections to the
KP and Punjab assemblies, dissolved earlier this year, within the stipulated
time frame of 90 days. The voting date for the Punjab Assembly was initially
supposed to be April 30 but was abruptly changed to Oct 8.
5
It was clear that the ruling alliance was not ready to hold elections. Lack of
funds and the worsening security situation were cited as the reason for the
delay. Now the government is bound to comply with the court order. But the
game is certainly not over as the ruling coalition has rejected the order.

The judgement has changed the country’s political landscape. While it has
come as a huge setback to the ruling coalition, the opposition PTI is
celebrating the decision as a vindication of its position.

In a hard-hitting statement, the federal government has challenged the

validity of the ruling by the three-member bench, and has reiterated its
demand that the case should have been heard by the full court. The federal law
minister has warned that the verdict would aggravate the current political
crisis.

Non-compliance with the court’s orders will cause matters to spin out of
everyone’s control.

The ruling coalition is on a defiant path. It has made it clear that it won’t
comply with the court’s order that it describes as ‘minority’ and ‘partisan’.
Some ministers have not even ruled out the possibility of declaring a state of
emergency.

But such a move would be seen as a virtual declaration of war against the top
court, and pit the two institutions of state against each other, with disastrous
consequences. Going against the order would intensify the clash of institutions
and deepen the constitutional crisis, bringing the country closer to a systemic
collapse.

There is a fear that the crisis could also suck the security establishment more
deeply into the political fray. Notwithstanding its claims of neutrality, the
military is not totally out of the game.

There are strong indications that the military leadership is not in favour of
early or scattered elections, with the defence ministry asserting that the armed
forces would not be available for poll security duties because of the security
situation.

Unlike in the recent past, when the judiciary was seen to go along with the
security establishment, its latest position on polls in Punjab and KP indicates a
divergence of views within. Among other factors, the fear of the PTI sweeping
the polls has brought the establishment closer to the government’s position.

6
But non-compliance and its consequences will cause matters to completely
spin out of everyone’s control. And a move to get the army directly involved in
emergency rule could spell disaster for both the country and its institutions.

With the political process hitting a dead end, the battleground has long been
shifted to the highest court. Caught in the middle of a reckless power game
that has divided the country, it was hardly possible for the Supreme Court to
stay clear of controversy when it took up the petition against the
postponement of elections in Punjab and KP.

The court was already seen as divided on the issue of suo motu action taken
earlier by the chief justice on setting an election date for the two dissolved
assemblies. But the composition of the bench that was hearing the petition
apparently intensified the war within.

Split down the middle, the apex court is now fighting a desperate battle to
maintain its sanctity. The authority of the chief justice is seen as being
challenged by the ruling coalition and some of his fellow judges.

In fact, many among the 15 members of the apex court appear to have
reservations regarding the chief justice’s powers, demanding that the absolute
authority of his position to constitute benches be curtailed. The conflict has
taken a more ominous turn as the disagreements have come out into the open.

Observers have said that the situation is reminiscent of the judges’ revolt
against then chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah in 1997, that ultimately led to the
ouster of the latter. While one cannot predict a similar fate for the current
chief justice, many opine that the split has weakened his position in the run-
up to his retirement in a few months. Unfortunately, the division has rendered
the court’s ruling controversial. It is a huge blow to the rule of law.

The view that the concentration of powers in the office of the chief justice
raises questions about the impartiality of the judicial system — and
underscores the need for reform — is not without substance. But the move to
change the rules through an act of parliament has reinforced suspicions about
the government trying to exploit the judicial divide for its own political ends.
Many legal experts maintain that the change in rules should have been left to
the Supreme Court itself.

Meanwhile, the clash of institutions and ongoing frictions have eroded the writ
of the state. With the country in the midst of an economic meltdown and with

7
the democratic political process on very shaky ground, any deviation from the
Constitution will further weaken an already fragile polity.

There is still time for the rival political forces to step back from their hard-line
positions and come to the negotiating table — in an atmosphere of
confrontation, it will not be possible to hold free and fair elections. By
undermining the authority of the Supreme Court, the politicians will only
strengthen the forces of Bonapartism.

Making the Constitution work

WHAT could be more ironical than a country experiencing a
constitutional breakdown while ‘celebrating’ the golden jubilee of
its constitution? Speakers at a commemorative convention held at
Parliament House vowed, one after the other, to uphold the
sanctity of the document. But very few among them seemed to have
really understood its guiding principles and the spirit in which the
basic law of the country was framed.

Fifty years on, we are still struggling to establish a truly democratic order, in
accordance with the aspirations of the Constitution adopted on April 10, 1973.
While commemorating the historical event, it is also time to reflect on where
we have gone wrong in our constitutional journey.

Since its birth half a century ago, the Constitution has gone through phases of
suspension and attempts to change its core principles that ensure
fundamental human and democratic rights.

For a long period, the country was under direct military rule. For those
uniformed usurpers, the Constitution was ‘just a piece of paper’ that they
could tear up at any time. Gen Ziaul Haq, in particular, tried to reframe the
basic objectives of the Constitution that are based on the freedom of
expression and faith.

But it was not military rulers alone who tried to change the Constitution
according to their wishes. Soon after its enactment, an entire community was
assigned a minority status through an amendment in the Constitution in 1974.
It altered the nature of the state envisaged by the nation’s founding fathers.

Fifty years on, we are still struggling to establish a truly democratic order.

8
As it acquired the power to categorise people according to their beliefs, the
state got deeply involved in matters of religion, with long-term consequences
for society as well as democratic values. Gen Ziaul Haq who ruled the country
for more than a decade used the document to enforce his version of religion in
an attempt to turn Pakistan into a theocratic state.

He redefined the ideological contours of the state that strengthened religious

obscurantism. The rise of religious extremism and sectarianism largely owes
itself to the laws enforced by the military dictator. Pakistan has never been the
same again, with various insertions in the Constitution under the Zia regime.

His incorporation of the notorious Eighth Amendment in the Constitution had

long-term implications for the democratic process in the country. But one of
the most debated aspects was the change that made the Objectives Resolution,
that was formerly a preamble to the Constitution, a substantive part of the
document.

It has been argued that this provided impetus to the religious parties striving
to turn Pakistan into a hard-line theocratic state. It was all done to the nation’s
detriment. It could never be changed by subsequent elected governments out
of fear of a backlash by the religious groups.

Interestingly, some democratically elected leaders too tried to alter the

Constitution to strengthen their political powers. While the 13th Amendment
made during Nawaz Sharif’s second government abolished the Eighth
Amendment in a positive development, the 14th Amendment ensured that
there could be no dissent in any political party, and no defection from the
latter. It was passed by both houses on the same day that it was introduced.

Nawaz Sharif’s move to pass the 15th Amendment through which he hoped to
declare himself amir-ul-momineen was thwarted because of his failure to win
a two-thirds majority in the Senate. This episode reflected the mindset of our
political leaders desiring to accumulate absolute power. Such moves
undermined the democratic process.

Not surprisingly, the government of Gen Musharraf in 1999 reintroduced the

powers of the president that he came to enjoy under Article 58(2)(b) of the
Constitution. It was back to the days of despotism.

The Musharraf regime also introduced the 17th Amendment to the

Constitution in order to indemnify the actions of the military government. The

9
frequent disruption of the democratic process and prolonged military rule
have been a major reason for the distortions in the Constitution.

It is not only direct military rule but also the establishment’s deeply
entrenched power which has been a major reason for constitutional
democracy not taking firm root in the country. It may be true that the
Constitution is an organic document and there is always a need to make
changes in it as society and politics evolve, but they should be in conformity
with the basic democratic principles.

Undoubtedly, the passage of the 18th Amendment in 2010 by parliament, with

the consensus of all the main parties, was a landmark development in
Pakistan’s chequered political history. It overhauled almost a third of the
Constitution, abolishing many of the distortions created by the illegal actions
taken by military regimes. It removed Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution,
shifting the balance of power back to the prime minister and parliament. It
returned Pakistan to a truly parliamentary system, limiting the powers of the
president.

But the most significant part of the 18th Amendment has been the
strengthening of the federal structure of state. It has transformed centre-
province relations. The division of power between the state and its units has
been amongst the most contentious and recurring issues in Pakistan.

The devolution of power to the federating units removed the main source of
tension between the centre and the provinces. Yet another enduring impact of
the 18th Amendment is the recognition of children’s right to education and the
provision of free and compulsory education to all girls and boys up to the age
of 16 years.

Notwithstanding the positive side of the radical changes it introduced, the

18th Amendment left untouched some of Gen Zia’s regressive insertions that
have caused the rise of religious extremism. Besides, it did not do away with
the clause that bans non-Muslims from holding the office of president,
therefore strengthening the sense of exclusion among minority members of
society.

Surely, 50 years of our constitutional history calls for celebrations but what is
most important is to make the document actually work. Unfortunately, that
has not happened.

10
The country is still struggling to find a way forward. A reckless power struggle
has left the democratic process much weaker than before, raising fears of yet

The Dar disaster

WHILE boasting that the country has not defaulted, Finance
Minister Ishaq Dar revealed that the government was negotiating
the restructuring of external debts. This leaves us wondering about
his chest-thumping claim that Pakistan is not insolvent. As
expected, Dar’s budgetary speech was full of bluster. The country is
marching on the path of progress, he claimed. He presented a
populist budget during one of the most serious economic crises the
country has ever faced. The budget did not reflect the impending
economic collapse. In a post-budgetary TV interview, he attributed
the IMF’s tough stance to geopolitics. He is still not willing to admit
his own follies, which have widened the trust deficit with the
lending agency.

Most economists agree that the expansionary budget, with no indication of

tightening the belt, would make it much more difficult to get the IMF loan
released. It’s a budget presented by a government which has barely two
months of constitutional life left. But Dar is still living in cloud cuckoo land.
His belief in a voodoo economy seems unshakeable, pushing the country to the
brink.

He huffed and puffed over a recent remark made by renowned economist and
Princeton professor Atif Mian who compared the prevailing Pakistani
situation to that in Sri Lanka and Ghana, two countries that defaulted. One
wonders what the rescheduling of debt repayment really means. We may not
have formally defaulted but are certainly close to it. The real issue is whether
we are prepared to tackle the tough times ahead. It becomes harder when one
is not even willing to accept the reality.

We have several examples of countries which have faced similar or even worse
financial crises but were able to turn their predicament into an opportunity by
first accepting the reality and then taking tough reform measures to
completely turn around their faltering economies. For instance, India dealt
with a dire situation in 1991 when the country was only weeks away from
defaulting on its external balance-of-payments commitments, with its foreign
exchange reserves falling to less than $1.2 billion.

11
 We could have turned the present crisis into an opportunity. But it is not
going to happen.

Its plight worsened, with the IMF suspending its loan programme. The World
Bank also discontinued its assistance. To avoid defaulting, the government
took various steps, including pledging a substantial portion of its gold reserves
to the Bank of England and the Union Bank of Switzerland as collateral so that
it could secure foreign exchange to meet its debt obligations.

It’s worth remembering the budget speech made by India’s then finance
minister Manmohan Singh in 1991: “I do not minimise the difficulties that lie
ahead in the long and arduous journey on which we have embarked. But as
Victor Hugo once said, ‘no power on earth can stop an idea whose time has
come’.”

While warning about the challenges ahead, he also sounded confident about
turning around the Indian economy with tough but necessary reform
measures. India never looked back from there and the reforms undertaken by
the then Indian government ultimately led to its emergence as the world’s
third largest economy. The continuity of policy, despite a change of
government, has also been critical to India’s march forward.

We, too, could have turned the present crisis into an opportunity. But it is not
going to happen. Unfortunately, the government neither has the will nor the
capacity to undertake the tough reform measures required to stabilise the
economy and prevent the country from defaulting. While India brought in a
renowned economist to steer the country out of crisis, we have an accountant
at the helm whose only credentials for the job is his being related to the
powerful ruling family.

The country must contend with stagflation, with a rapidly falling economic
growth rate and runaway inflation. Increasing unemployment has created very
serious economic and social problems. Taking hard decisions are avoided
because of political reasons, thus jeopardising the country’s future. Dar’s
boasting that the country has not defaulted exemplifies the farce that is being
played out in the name of economic management.

While Dar may not be entirely responsible for the current state of the
economy, his incompetent handling of the crisis has certainly contributed to
its decline. Atif Mian has warned that the Pakistani economy is in a “tailspin,
going from crisis to catastrophe and now the system is becoming unhinged”.

12
In a recent series of tweets, Atif Mian, who was ranked by the IMF as one of
the 25 top young economists in the world, aptly summed up the PDM
government’s mismanagement: “It removed CB [central bank] governor with
no plan in mind, started in-fighting against its own FM [finance minister], and
ultimately replaced him with a close relative of the PM — competence be
damned,” he wrote.

With the ongoing political chaos and reckless power game adding to the
economic instability, there is no logic to the budget’s taking a populist
approach. Moreover, there are also questions about the revenue targets set in
the budget. Most economists agree that the targets are unrealistic. The
juggling with figures, at which the finance minister is past master, will push
the country deeper into the crisis. The country needs bold decisions, and not
hollow rhetoric.

Dar says there is a Plan B ready to prevent default if the agreement with the
IMF doesn’t come through. Interestingly, no one even in government seems to
know about this secret plan. The finance minister is mistaken if he thinks that
he can get money from friendly countries. No country is willing to dole out
free money.

Even if it happens, it will give the country only brief respite and would not
resolve the basic structural problem needed to take the economy forward. It is
apparent the government and particularly its finance minister have no idea of
where the country is heading. People have lost confidence in the system and it
is hard to restore it with hollow promises. Time is running out.

Forced expulsion
THE arbitrariness of our policymaking process has been very
evident in our latest decision to expel hundreds of thousands of
Afghan migrants. For decades, we hosted millions of refugees who
were fleeing war and devastation. And now, suddenly, they are
being told to leave. Many of them were born and grew up in this
country and now have nowhere to go in their native land.

The draconian decision has already forced some 200,000 Afghans to leave,
while many more are being kept in holding camps near the Afghan border for
repatriation. Recent days have witnessed some harrowing scenes of Afghans
being hauled up by the security agencies after the expiry of the deadline for
undocumented Afghan nationals to leave voluntarily.

13
There are some 1.7m undocumented Afghans out of more than an estimated
3m living in this country. Many of them have been here for the past four
decades. There has been a constant inflow of refugees since the 1980s
following the Afghan war against the Soviet occupation. Porous borders
allowed the influx of refugees.

The policy of, first, supporting the American-backed mujahideen war in the
1980s and then aiding Taliban who were fighting the American forces
facilitated cross-border movement at the cost of the country’s own national
security. Being the front-line state during the two Afghan wars in the past four
decades made Pakistan the main destination of Afghans affected by the
fighting.

The scapegoating of Afghan migrants won’t cover up our policy flaws.

Another influx of refugees came after the end of the 20-year-long US-led war
in Afghanistan. Over half-a-million Afghans have crossed over to Pakistan
after the return of Taliban rule in 2021. While most of them are economic
migrants, there have been others fleeing the country to escape persecution by
the conservative regime. They include women and human rights activists.

Apparently, there were no restrictions on border crossings at that time,

allowing the free movement of refugees. They formed the bulk of the un-
documented Afghan refugee population. A large number of the new arrivals
were seeking asylum in Western countries. Their forced return to Taliban-
controlled Afghanistan may put their lives at risk.

Pakistan’s arbitrary policy decision has led to a very serious humanitarian

crisis. The forced repatriation of some 1.7m people to a food-insecure country
where poor living conditions have been exacerbated by floods and earthquakes
will make the lives of the returnees extremely perilous.

Women and young girls will be most affected by the Taliban regime’s
restrictions on female education and work. They will have no future living
under a harsh conservative regime.

In the past too, Pakistan has tried to repatriate undocumented Afghan

refugees but never on this scale. Interestingly, such a critical decision affecting
the country’s internal and external security has been taken by a caretaker
government, which is not constitutionally mandated to take long-term policy
decisions.

14
It should have been left to the future elected government and parliament to
make policy on such a sensitive issue, which has long-term national security
and foreign policy implications.

It is, however, obvious that such decisions cannot be made without the
approval of the security establishment. It is claimed that the mass expulsion of
non-documented refugees is being driven by national security concerns,
including the rising number of attacks by the TTP on Pakistani security
installations and forces.

Pakistani authorities have often alleged that the outlawed militants are
operating from across the Afghan border. The situation appears to have
worsened with the Afghan Taliban administration refusing to act against the
militant sanctuaries on their soil.

There have also been some reports of the involvement of Afghan Taliban
factions in some of the terrorist attacks. All that has strained Islamabad’s
relations with the regime in Kabul. But this does not provide a justification for
the reckless and thoughtless decision to expel the entire Afghan refugee
population. Even if we succeed in pushing all of them across the border, it will
not make Pakistan any safer as is being claimed. In fact, it will create more
problems.

Indeed, the TTP leadership is still based in Afghanistan but the spurt in
terrorist attacks is largely the result of our own flawed policy that allowed
thousands of armed militants to return under a deal brokered by the Afghan
Taliban. They may be getting help from across the border but the attacks are
being carried out by the militants based inside the country.

It is true that the increase in militancy poses a very serious security challenge
and must be dealt with sternly. But the scapegoating of Afghan migrants won’t
cover up our policy flaws. Expelling poor Afghan women and children will not
resolve the problem. Moreover, the country doesn’t have the administrative
capacity to expel such a large refugee population.

Pakistan insists that its action against undocumented migrants is not Afghan-
specific, is in accordance with international norms, and doesn’t affect refugees
living here legally. Islamabad insists that the decision applies to all illegal
immigrants. But it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of those affected by
it are Afghan nationals.

15
Rights organisations dispute the government’s decision, pointing out the
harsh economic and human rights prevailing in Afghanistan under the Taliban
administration. There have even been reports of the harassment of
documented refugees by the security agencies.

There can be no two opinions that Pakistan needs secure borders and should
stop undocumented entries. But over the past several decades, we have left our
borders wide open because of geopolitical reasons. Now we have taken an
abrupt decision to throw out all undocumented migrants. Not only will this be
near impossible to implement, it will also create serious problems for our
internal and external security.

The political fallout of this flawed decision is already apparent in the public
protests against the action in KP and parts of Balochistan. Meanwhile, the
move is bound to further strain our ties with Afghanistan. There is still time to
correct the missteps before the situation goes out of control.

Misplaced optimism?
Muhammad Amir Rana

PAKISTAN can take comfort in the decision taken by Iran and

Saudi Arabia, after mediation by China, to restore diplomatic ties.
Pakistan has long been struggling to maintain a balance in its ties
with the two states, although it has always maintained a clear tilt
towards Riyadh because of its constant financial and political
support. Pakistan has not fully exploited the potential of its
economic and trade engagement with Iran evidently on the pretext
of factors concerning Saudi Arabia and the US.

It is too early to predict whether the restoration of Saudi-Iranian ties will put
an end to their politico-ideological rivalry; it is also too simplistic to assume
that it will resolve sectarian tensions in Pakistan, which have largely been
abetted by the Saudis and Iranians in the past.

Many in Islamabad also describe the development as a game changer for

Pakistan based on the perception that normalcy between the two archrivals in
the Middle East will ease some economic difficulties. Pakistan needs to review
its relationship with both countries; it may discover that the restoration of
diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia cannot change much for
Pakistan as the problem lies in its own (bilateral) relations with each of the
two countries.
16
Some optimistic analysts in the Middle East and China have portrayed the
development as a major shift in the global and regional political landscape and
have hinted at the formation of a new power bloc. Others see this as part of the
larger Saudi effort to diversify its strategic, economic and political options,
change its global image, and decrease dependency on traditional strategic
allies, including Pakistan, which maintain a position of neutrality when it
needs help. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is the architect
of the ongoing transformation of the ideological state, may have learned this
‘lesson’ when Pakistan decided to stay neutral during the Yemen war.

The Saudi-Iran peace deal may not change things for Pakistan.

Iran is also looking for avenues to reduce international pressure and

expanding economic cooperation with the Gulf states. It faces constant
impediments in expanding ties with its neighbours, including Pakistan and
Afghanistan which limits it potential to build a solid export base.

Pakistan needs to realise that Saudi Arabia broke off relations with Iran in
2016, while Pakistan already had a problematic relationship with it. It never
capitalised on the economic cooperation with its northwestern neighbour and
maintained a vague position on the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project.

The 25-year contract to export Iran’s natural gas through a pipeline to

Pakistan was signed by the two countries in 2009 when the PPP was in power.
It was supposed to be implemented by 2015. Now Tehran is demanding that
Islamabad construct its portion of the pipeline by March 2024 or pay a penalty
of $18 billion. Many in Islamabad blamed former president Asif Zardari and
his government for signing the deal for political reasons, as the PPP
government was not very popular in Riyadh. The subsequent PML-N
government averted the commitment, citing reasons of international
sanctions. However, the government did not want to annoy Riyadh, and the
then prime minister Nawaz Sharif received a red carpet reception on his visit
to the Saudi kingdom.

The restoration of diplomatic ties has brought Iran and Saudi Arabia to the
2016 position. This was the year when the Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm
against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels had entered its second year.
Pakistan had maintained a position of neutrality in this war for multiple
internal and external reasons, which annoyed the Saudi rulers, who saw
Pakistan’s neutrality as non-cooperation. Pakistan had tried to pacify Saudi
anger, allowing retired army chief Gen Raheel Sharif to lead the 41-nation
armed coalition. The Saudis hoped it might lead to Pakistani military

17
assistance in Yemen. However, the PML-N government maintained that the
alliance would not participate in unrelated military operations.

The Yemen issue has greatly disappointed the Saudi crown prince as most
Saudi allies, who received oil and financial assistance from the kingdom, have
not extended the anticipated military support. During the process of
introducing changes in internal power structures and testing relations with
Saudi allies, he became adept at walking on a tightrope. Some analysts believe
he is testing the political and diplomatic strength of the kingdom and that the
restoration of diplomatic ties with Iran is part of that strategy.

Renewed relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia may have many
implications for the Middle East. However, as mentioned earlier, it may hardly
change things for Pakistan. For Saudis, defence cooperation has been an issue,
and for Iran, border security and acts of terrorism are among the major
irritants in its bilateral relations with Pakistan, which has similar and genuine
concerns about Iran as the Baloch insurgents now use its territory to launch
operations against Pakistani security forces.

Regarding the impact of Iran-Saudi relations on sectarian harmony in

Pakistan, efforts were already underway in the country by the state, religious
communities and civil society to evolve harmony; however, the impact of these
efforts has not been measured yet. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is on the
way to ideological transformation, creating a dilemma for Pakistani religious
scholars. This factor may have contributed to the recent decline of sectarian
violence in Pakistan, but concrete evidence of this is still missing. However,
one thing is certain: the primary factor responsible for sectarian tension and
violence lies in state policies, and state institutions have continued to
habitually use militant and sectarian outfits for political purposes. While
giving space to the radical religious groups in the country, state institutions
also encouraged them to develop their relationship with the Gulf countries.
Iran and the Saudis always took this as an opportunity to expand their
ideological influence in Pakistan and create sectarian proxies.

The solution to all Pakistan’s problems lies in correcting its policies rather
than building false hopes on political developments elsewhere.

Afghan isolation
Rustam Shah Mohmand

18
THE conference on Afghanistan convened by the UN secretary
general in Doha has ended. The initiative was launched to explore
possibilities of a constructive engagement with Afghan Taliban
leaders in order to ensure that women’s and minorities’ rights are
protected and militant groups dealt with severely. The Taliban
were not invited but envoys from 25 different countries attended
and international organisations were represented.

Before the conference, there were some rumours about formal recognition for
the Taliban government being considered by the participants, and hints from
the UN deputy secretary general that the meeting could take “baby steps”
towards such recognition if conditions for it were met. This provoked a sharp
reaction from the US that firmly rejected any possibility of a discussion on the
recognition of the Taliban government. Later, the secretary general also
announced that this was not the right time for formal diplomatic ties with
Kabul.

The conference was intended to break new ground by ending the long
stalemate in Afghanistan’s relations with the world. Afghanistan’s isolation
has raised astounding problems with regard to the worsening economic
situation, crippling poverty, unemployment and hunger affecting millions in
the country. The UN calls it one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.

Once the issue of recognition was off the table, the discussions were not
making any tangible progress because the debate appeared to have lost its
direction and the discussion was more ‘routine’ with no objective to be
pursued. The two-day moot ended without producing any consensus on issues
including recognition and the release of frozen Afghan assets held in foreign
banks mostly in the US.

The failure to find a workable solution will have serious ramifications.

The failure of the conference to produce any workable solution to the Afghan
conundrum will have serious ramifications for Afghanistan and its extended
neighbourhood. Talk of ending the isolation of Afghanistan would no longer
be an issue of immediate concern. That would induce more indifference
towards the international community, creating more despair and frustration.
Problems like hunger and unemployment would exacerbate, leading to
heightened fears of starvation in the country. In such a grim situation, dangers
would arise for peace and security.

19
One notable achievement of the Taliban administration so far has been the
establishment of peace in the country amidst daunting challenges. The
economy is fragile and hunger is taking a toll. But after many years, peace has
finally returned to a population that was sick of unending conflicts causing
death and destruction. That peace would be in peril if the system breaks down
and anarchy spreads.

In the face of such grim prospects, it will be unfair if the international

community were to disengage with the current rulers, prolonging the country’s
isolation. There is certainly a need for a purpose-oriented and well-thought-
out engagement with the Taliban administration. Such institutionalised
contacts could help create an environment for the establishment of formal
contacts with the government in Kabul. The issues of women’s right to work
and girls’ education could be taken up more vigorously and determinedly with
the Taliban administration. Once a certain amount of trust has been
established, the Taliban would be more willing to discuss issues that come in
the way of ending the current isolation. That climate of trust does not exist at
the moment.

One has to remember how the Taliban government was dismantled and how
the prisoners were treated in the wake of the US occupation of the country in
2001. Afghanistan has to enter a new era of peace and progress for its 38
million people. The Taliban have to learn to live alongside the international
community and get the benefits of investment, of new avenues for trade, of
benefiting from a treasure trove of hidden mineral wealth estimated to be
worth $1.5 trillion!

There are many powerful commanders in the Taliban movement who are
eager to get women’s rights restored and who are willing to encourage higher
education for girls. These leaders have to play a role in ending the ban on girls’
higher education. They have to use their influence to bring women back into
the workforce. But this would require prudent and cautious steps. There
would be voices for ending the isolation of the country and affording
opportunities for girls to acquire higher education from within the Taliban
hierarchy. Such leaders with a liberal approach have to be encouraged to play
a role.

That can be accomplished not by dictating policies but by creating more trust
and continuing contacts with the world at all levels. Only such an approach
can deliver the goal of a peaceful, progressive Afghanistan that would
transform millions of lives.

20
Growing challenge
Javid Husain

A NEW Cold War is on with the US and China as the protagonists.

The seeds were sown by the US determination to maintain its
global hegemony in the aftermath of the disintegration of the
Soviet Union and the challenge posed to the US domination by
China’s dramatic rise. In 1992, the US through a leaked Pentagon
planning document stressed that its overarching strategic goal, “is
to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival … that poses a threat on
the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. … Our
strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any
potential future global competitor.” However, China’s meteoric
rise in due course upset America’s long-term strategic planning.

Following the policies of economic reforms and opening to the outside world
introduced by Deng Xiaoping, China’s economy took off. From 1978 to 2011,
China maintained an average annual growth rate of nearly 10 per cent, thus,
doubling its GDP after every seven years. By 2014, China’s GDP in purchasing
power parity terms had surpassed that of the US. China’s rapid economic
growth has also provided it with the resources to build up its military power at
a fast pace.

China’s fast-developing economic and trade links worldwide have enabled it to

increase its economic and political clout in Asia, the Persian Gulf region,
Africa and Latin America. The conciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia
brokered by China is the latest example of its growing diplomatic footprint in
the Persian Gulf region. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, which was launched
in 2013, aims at enhancing China’s economic and commercial links with
Eurasian and African countries, including Pakistan, through trade and
investment.

America, in the face of the challenge posed by a rapidly rising China, has
employed all levers of hard and soft power at its disposal to slow down China’s
progress and check the expansion of its power and influence, especially in the
Indo-Pacific region. In a major departure from its slogans of free trade and
economic competition, Washington has imposed far-reaching economic,
commercial and technological sanctions to slow down China’s economic
growth and technological development. It has beefed up its military presence
in the Indo-Pacific region and encircled China through a string of alliances or

21
strategic partnerships with such countries as South Korea, Japan, the
Philippines, India and Australia in pursuance of its policy of containment of
China. It has revived or put in place new strategic arrangements such as Quad
and AUKUS for the same purpose. Washington is also seen as pursuing
policies to destabilise China internally, especially in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong
Kong.

The US is trying its best to slow down China’s progress.

China and the US are caught in Thucydides’s trap, popularised by Graham

Allison through his book, Destined for War, in which an emerging power
challenges the domination of an existing hegemon making the war between
them almost inevitable because of the resultant structural stresses. America
insists that China must fall in line with the rules-based order established by
the US-led West after World War II to perpetuate its global domination. China
wants the prevailing world order to be modified to accommodate its legitimate
interests. Going by America’s anti-China policies of the past few years, a
prolonged period of confrontation rather than conciliation is more likely. This
confrontation can manifest itself in tensions, political strife, and localised
proxy conflicts on such issues as Taiwan and territorial disputes in the South
China and East China Seas. Predictably, China has tilted in favour of Russia on
the Ukraine war issue. Despite its painful implications, there may also be some
decoupling of the economies of the two sides because of the hard American
sanctions against China. However, a full-fledged war between the nuclear-
armed US and China can be safely ruled out because of its extensive
destructive consequences.

The world because of the new Cold War is in search of a new equilibrium. It is
gradually sliding towards a highly inhospitable environment marked by the
domination of power politics over international law, diminished authority of
the UN over strategic security issues, and shifting alliances. The ultimate
guarantee of security in such a disorderly world would be the power of states
and their allies. Pakistan, therefore, must build up its own national power with
a special focus on political stability and economic and technological strength
while developing strategic cooperation with China and other friendly countries
to enhance its security and economic prosperity.

Sino-US competition
Muhammad Amir Rana

22
THE US is cautiously rebuilding its relationship with Pakistan,
focusing on critical areas and communities considered vulnerable.
The recent visit by US Ambassador Donald Blome to Gwadar is an
indication of how the US is strategically approaching its ties with
Pakistan. This development is likely to raise concerns in Beijing,
which has significant regional economic and strategic investments.

If this visit is part of a broader US regional strategy, it could foster mistrust in

Beijing regarding Pakistan’s state institutions. When Saudi Arabia revealed its
plans to construct an oil refinery near Gwadar, Chinese analysts viewed it as a
US manoeuvre to gain a strategic foothold in the area through one of its
reliable Gulf partners, thereby countering China’s initiatives.

In October last year, the US ambassador visited Azad Jammu and Kashmir,
which stirred concerns in India. His recent trip to Gwadar is also likely to have
caught Beijing’s attention. According to a press release from the US embassy
in Islamabad, the Gwadar visit aimed to explore trade and development
opportunities. During his meeting with the Gwadar Chamber of Commerce,
Ambassador Blome discussed the potential for US trade and investment in
various sectors. The statement emphasised America’s long-standing
partnership with Balochistan, including providing aid during the floods that
occurred last year.

The US embassy further highlighted its comprehensive assistance to Pakistan

— from restoring cultural heritage sites and providing humanitarian relief
after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake to most recently offering “over $66 million
in cash, food, and health assistance” as devastating floods swept through the
country.

It is essential for Pakistan to balance its relations with both the US and
China.

Many see these developments in the context of PTI head Imran Khan’s
exploitation of the cipher saga; however, the US strategy in the region was
crafted long before. The US is also investing in cultural and educational
initiatives, ranging from Muzaffarabad to Gwadar as the US presser says that
in the educational sector, American support is bolstering programmes at the
Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and
Management Sciences and the Sardar Bahadur Khan Women’s University.
Additionally, the US empowers the next generation by developing literacy and
educational materials in Balochi and various local languages.

23
Nations in crises often become sensitive about their identity and culture,
adopting a mindset of victimhood. They may feel oppressed due to their
religious, cultural, racial or linguistic identity. US diplomacy and aid appear to
be focused on these sensitivities, targeting specific areas and communities for
engagement. In contrast, China’s approach is centred mainly on development,
opting to collaborate primarily with secure sectors and with public sector
involvement.

China has constructed schools in Gwadar and initiated several other welfare
projects. However, US development efforts tend to receive more attention due
to their extensive partnerships with NGOs. This is a weak point in China’s
development model, one from which they could learn from both the US and
European nations, although such engagement would likely entail higher costs.

The US appears to be effectively intervening and enhancing its reputation in

areas where China faces security challenges and a negative public perception.
This suggests that the geopolitical competition between the two nations will
likely intensify in the coming months and years. Amid this unfolding dynamic,
two critical points must be addressed concerning the impact and role of state
institutions.

Pakistan faces a complex set of economic and strategic challenges, making it

essential for the country to balance its relations with both the US and China.
However, state institutions must carefully assess and evaluate the risks
associated with failing to maintain this equilibrium.

Pakistan has long been concerned about America’s strategic and geo-economic
partnership with India. It aims for a moderate level of engagement with the
US, largely because of its dependence on defence and textile exports, but also
because of the need for geopolitical balance. While Islamabad’s policymakers
generally favour closer ties with the US, this preference raises concerns for
China. Nonetheless, the partnership between the US and Pakistan is mutually
beneficial and entails minimal costs — financial, trade-related, strategic or
political.

Pakistan seeks to avoid an armed conflict with India, a stance that aligns well
with US interests. The US has often played a role in defusing tensions between
the two nations, leading Pakistan to trust America’s capacity for diplomatic
intervention in complex issues with India more than it trusts any other
country. While China has been a mediator in other regional tensions, such as
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, its ability to act impartially in the intricate
relationship between Pakistan and India is questionable.

24
There may be legitimate concerns about US neutrality, but Washington
derives significant leverage from its political optics. For example, its
involvement in Azad Jammu and Kashmir pleased Rawalpindi, while its visit
to Gwadar was well-received in India. Such diplomatic manoeuvres highlight
perceived weaknesses in Pakistan’s state institutions.

The relationship between the US and Pakistan is so critical for Pakistan that it
has granted access to American aid agencies to operate in sensitive areas.
High-level military communication between the two countries remains intact
and fully operational. In addition to ongoing counterterrorism discussions,
Pakistan’s federal cabinet, under the PDM government, quietly approved the
signing of a security pact with the US. The Communication Interoperability
and Security Memorandum of Agreement has the potential to strengthen
defence ties and could pave the way for Pakistan to acquire military hardware
from Washington. This development comes after the expiration of a previous
agreement, which was signed in 2005 and that lapsed in 2020.

Although America’s strategic interests are increasingly aligning with India’s,

many observers in New Delhi view Washington’s partnership with Pakistan
not only through a historical lens but also as a strategic move to
counterbalance India. Concurrently, CPEC has altered the dynamics of the
Sino-Pakistan relationship, significantly influencing bilateral US-Pakistan ties.
The US is trying to create a balance by investing more in public diplomacy,
which is impacting China’s image in Pakistan. Finally, the Chinese
ambassador in town may have brought a new strategy for public diplomacy.

The Arab inaction ZAHID HUSSAIN

WITH the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people in the Gaza
Strip, public opinion around the world is turning against the Israeli
invasion. While protest rallies are sweeping across the globe,
Western countries have remained steadfast in their backing for
Israel’s war crimes.

Ignoring calls to obey the laws of war, Israeli jets hit the Jabalia refugee
camp on Tuesday, massacring dozens of civilians sheltered there. The
relentless Israeli bombings have killed over 8,000 Palestinians, mostly women
and children, but the US and some of its Western allies are still not willing to
call for a ceasefire.

Now, with the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza underway, an already

catastrophic situation in the occupied territory is worsening. It is not just an
25
unfolding humanitarian crisis; the use of brutal military power, in fact,
threatens the entire region.

The theatre of conflict is expanding with the Israeli bombing of Lebanon and
Syria and the extension of military action to the West Bank.

Despite incessant Israeli bombing over the last few weeks, which has reduced
a large part of Gaza to rubble, the Palestinian resistance has not been crushed.
The Israeli prime minister has warned that the war in Gaza will be a
protracted one.

It is already perhaps the longest war Israel has fought since it became a state.
It has also exposed the vulnerability of the Zionist state, notwithstanding its
massive military power. Even the complete destruction of the Gaza Strip
would not make this colonial power secure.

Meanwhile, the US has increased its military presence in the region,

heightening the danger of an American-backed Israeli invasion turning into a
wider conflagration. That will not only have implications for the Middle East,
it will also impact global geopolitics.

The ongoing Israeli war in Gaza has compounded the predicament of the
Arab countries.

The ongoing Israeli war has compounded the predicament of the Arab
countries, some of whom had made peace with Israel. Initially, the response of
most of these countries was guarded, and they avoided direct condemnation of
the Israeli aggression.

It was not surprising, given their receding support for the Palestinian struggle
against occupation and their move to normalise relations with the Zionist state
despite its policy of expansionism and apartheid.

But with public outrage at the massacre of the Palestinian population rising at
home, these governments have come under intense pressure, causing some
tangible shift in stance. The Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza, which killed
hundreds of people, has particularly heightened tensions, forcing Arab states
to cancel their summit meeting with President Joe Biden in Amman.

The American president was then visiting Israel to show solidarity with its
leaders over the Oct 7 attack by Hamas that killed hundreds of Israeli soldiers

26
and civilians. There, he justified Israel’s massive military response as the
country’s ‘right to defend itself’.

No step has been taken by Israel thus far to stop its invasion. There is not even
any move by the Arab countries to suspend diplomatic relations with Israel,
which is the least they could have done to increase the pressure on that
country.

The Arab League meeting in Cairo on Oct 11 condemned the killing and
targeting of civilians “on both sides”, equating the occupied and the
occupation force. The Arab foreign ministers, who attended the meeting,
vaguely talked about the need for peace, even as Israel relentlessly bombed the
occupied territory in an action that has no parallel in recent years.

There was no mention of Israel’s long blockade of the enclave, which is home
to over two million Palestinians, and the virtual ethnic cleansing that led to
the Oct 7 incident. Surely, the killing of Israeli civilians cannot be condoned;
but equating it with the ongoing massacre in Gaza is sheer hypocrisy. The
response of the OIC countries has been equally feeble and flimsy.

But the widespread public protests triggered by the attack on the hospital have
compelled the Arab states to play a more proactive role. Recently, Arab foreign
ministers succeeded in lobbying UN member states to pass a UN General
Assembly resolution condemning both the Oct 7 attacks and Israel’s atrocities,
and calling for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce
leading to a cessation of hostilities”.

The watered-down, non-binding resolution was passed by the UNGA by an

overwhelming majority, demonstrating Israel’s growing isolation in the
international community.

Along with Israel, the US voted against the resolution, rejecting any restraint
in the use of military power. Soon after the resolution, Israel launched the
ground invasion of Gaza, cutting off all communication lines. Hundreds more
children have been killed in Gaza since then.

What has provided Israel complete impunity is the increasing indifference of

Arab countries towards the Palestinian right to a state. Several Arab countries
have recognised Israel under the US-sponsored Abraham Accords of 2020,
including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.

27
The name of the Abraham Accords is meant to reflect the shared belief of the
Abrahamic faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, regarding the
role of Abraham as spiritual patriarch.

The UAE and other Gulf countries saw commercial and other benefits in the
field of technology in the agreement, which is also envisaged as an anti-Iran
front. Interestingly, Sudan agreed to join the accord on the American
assurance that the country would be removed from the list of states promoting
terrorism.

Huge financial benefits were also promised to the impoverished nation.

Similarly, Morocco signed the normalisation agreement with Israel in
exchange for US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over disputed Western
Sahara.

Although Saudi Arabia didn’t sign the accord, it gave its tacit approval to the
deal. The kingdom, however, had come close to recognising the Zionist state
just before the start of the latest Israeli war on Gaza.

The accord certainly helped Israel ease its isolation and there was nothing in
the deal about Palestinian rights and the end of Israeli expansionism. Israel
even continued to build settlements on the occupied land with no end in sight
to the apartheid.

The so-called peace agreement is one-sided. In fact, it allows Israel to further

suppress the Palestinian population. Now, coming under growing public
pressure, some Arab leaders are condemning the Israeli aggression but are not
ready to go beyond that. In fact, they don’t mean what they say.

Born in Pakistan Madeeha Ansari

AS part of a global research project on forced migration, I was able

to listen closely to the stories of children who had perhaps one,
perhaps two parents of Afghan origin, and whose only memories
were of life in Pakistan. The most powerful, common motif
reverberating through their experiences was: ‘I was born here’.

In September 2023, an announcement was made giving undocumented

families and individuals of Afghan origin a deadline of Nov 1 to exit the
country. This impacts an estimated 1.7 million people, and includes
communities that have experienced protracted displacement since the 1980s.
For many, a second and often a third generation of children has grown up in

28
Pakistan. However, without pathways to citizenship, their position has
remained insecure — even for registered refugees, Proof of Registration (PoR)
or Afghan Citizen cards have been subject to renewal after a certain time
period.

What, then, is identity? If identity is a document, then it could be a valuable

key opening doors to education, livelihoods, the dream of a future different
from that of an uprooted generation. The PoR or Afghan Citizen card fit into
some doors, enabling bright-eyed young people to enter formal schools and
build, brick by brick, those imagined futures. But identity as a document can
be a vanishing key, as many now fear deportation in the second phase of the
plan as currently shared.

The fear of repatriation was one reason why some of the most vulnerable
communities — often in informal, urban contexts — chose to remain invisible,
even if that meant giving up even the most basic rights. There was nothing
promised to them, yet they fought to stay — moving multiple times, even from
the rubble of bulldozed settlements. Perhaps, then, identity is more than a
piece of paper, and has something to do with homes built and rebuilt,
relationships forged, children born and raised.

Identity as a document can be a vanishing key, as many now fear

deportation.

They were born here. When embracing friends, saying goodbye, tearing up at
the border while facing uncertainty ahead, a voice somewhere whispers: they
belong here.

In a parallel reality, children born in Pakistan would have had access to the
same kind of birthright citizenship, according to the 1951 Citizenship Act, as
those who came as refugees to the country in 1947. They would be able to open
bank accounts, own property, enrol in schools with the confidence that comes
from a secure national identity. In this alternative vision, they would have the
responsibilities that come with citizenship rights, part of a social contract and
contributing to a shared and harmonious future.

But our reality is less than utopian, with a crippling economic crisis and
worsening security conditions driving both public and policy reactions. One
question is whether the sudden exodus of Afghan communities will truly
impact, for the better, the fuel prices having a paralytic effect on families in
Pakistan — or the rising threat of violence from angered Taliban neighbours.

29
For the children and families now being sent to holding centres or across the
border, the signs are pointing to a humanitarian and “human rights
catastrophe”, according to the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency. It will be the
latest wave of disruption and displacement, this time to a barely post-war
pariah country with little international support, and few or no remaining
personal networks to moor them. The likely scenario will be the setting up of
yet more camps during a harsh winter, with little time to prepare for their
arrival and basic survival in terms of food and shelter, let alone livelihoods
and education. The journey itself is fraught with physical protection risks for
women and children, who are ever the most vulnerable in a crisis. Once there,
unless there are provisions for protection, sanitation and hygiene in camp
conditions, there will once more not only be risks in terms of disease but also
physical and sexual violence.

They were refugees here. And if they go ‘back’ to Afghanistan in this way, they
will be refugees there. In the medium term, there are big question marks
surrounding livelihoods and education, and whether Afghanistan has the
capacity to absorb such a large number of people. For children, sudden and
involuntary migration can have a deeply traumatic impact for which there are
unlikely to be psychosocial support mechanisms, or the provision of safe and
child-friendly spaces that can provide stability. In fact, there is a high
likelihood of families relying on negative coping strategies such as early
marriage and child labour to survive. Girls are expressing terror at the
prospect of losing their chance to go to school, in the only country where
female education is banned.

As of Nov 5, an estimated 128,000 people have left via Torkham. While this is
a fraction of the intended numbers, there are reports of minors being
separated from caregivers, and of Pakistani Pakhtun minors being mistakenly
sent across the border. If anything, all this indicates that an undertaking of
this magnitude needs more time, careful planning and communication across
stakeholders — including governments, UN agencies, civil society and
individuals at risk — to ensure that any return is truly what we as a country
have for decades promised it will be: voluntary, safe and dignified.

Identity is a tangled mesh of past and present. For third-generation children,

growing up in a ‘host’ country means their identities are informed by
transmitted memories and culture — but also very much by their lives and
experiences in the only home they have known. We owe it to them to consider
them, their protection and rights in any next steps, so they can say with pride
that they were born in Pakistan.

30
31