CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024

Global power dynamics; International relations
Monday, 2 October 2023 2:29 pm
''The whole so-called Western bloc formed by the US in its own image and likeness is the'' empire
of lies''
Vladimir Putin
Pres. Of Russia
Global power dynamics

• refer to the distribution and exercise of power among countries and other international actors
on the world stage.
• These dynamics are shaped by a complex interplay of political, economic, military, cultural,
and social factors.
• Understanding global power dynamics requires examining the roles
• and relationships of key players and the trends that influence the global order.
1. Superpowers and Great Powers:
○ Historically, superpowers like the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold
War and great powers like China, Russia, and the European Union have played central
roles in shaping global politics.
○ The relative power and influence of these entities have shifted over time.
2. Emerging Powers:
○ Countries like China, India, Brazil, and Turkey are often referred to as emerging powers.
○ These nations have rapidly growing economies and increasing political influence,
challenging the traditional dominance of Western powers.
3. Economic Power:
○ Economic strength is a crucial component of global power.
○ The rise of multinational corporations, international trade, and global financial systems
▪ has made economic factors more influential in global politics.
4. Military Power:
○ Military capabilities, including nuclear arsenals and conventional forces,
○ continue to be important in global power dynamics.
○ Countries with significant military power can influence regional and international
security.
5. Alliances and Multilateral Organizations:
○ International organizations like the United Nations, NATO, the G7, G20, and regional
alliances play a role in shaping global power dynamics.
○ They provide platforms for diplomacy, conflict resolution, and cooperation among
nations.
6. Cultural and Soft Power:
○ Cultural influence, including media, entertainment, and soft power initiatives, can shape
perceptions and relationships between countries.
○ Countries like the United States have wielded significant soft power through their
cultural exports.
7. Technology and Information:
○ The digital age has brought new dimensions to global power dynamics.
○ Access to technology, control of information, and cybersecurity have become critical
aspects of international competition.
8. Climate Change and Environmental Issues:
○ Environmental challenges, including climate change, resource scarcity, and biodiversity
loss, have gained prominence in global politics.
○ These issues can affect global power dynamics as countries seek to address or exploit
environmental concerns.
9. Geopolitical Hotspots:
Conflicts and tensions in specific regions, such as the South China Sea, the Middle East,
CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 1

○ Conflicts and tensions in specific regions, such as the South China Sea, the Middle East,
and Eastern Europe,
○ can have ripple effects on global power dynamics as major powers become involved in
regional disputes.
10. Global Challenges:
○ Shared global challenges, such as pandemics, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation,
○ require international cooperation and can reshape power dynamics by necessitating
collective responses.
11. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy:
○ The strategies and foreign policies pursued by nations can influence their standing in the
world and their relationships with other countries.
○ Diplomacy plays a central role in managing global power dynamics.
12. Economic Interdependence:
○ The interconnectedness of the global economy means that actions taken by one country
can have far-reaching consequences.
○ Economic interdependence can both constrain and empower nations in the
international arena.
Global power dynamics are fluid and subject to change, often reflecting the shifting fortunes and
strategies of nations. It's essential to monitor these dynamics closely to understand how they impact
global stability, cooperation, and conflicts. Additionally, the emergence of new challenges, such as
cybersecurity and space exploration, continues to shape the evolving landscape of global power.
ROLE OF PAKISTAN
Global power dynamics are complex and constantly evolving, influenced by a variety of factors
including economic, political, military, and cultural elements. The role of Pakistan in these
global power dynamics is significant due to its strategic location, nuclear capabilities, and its
history of involvement in regional and international affairs. Here, we will discuss some key
aspects of Pakistan's role in global power dynamics:
1. Strategic Location:
○ Pakistan's geographical location places it at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia,
and the Middle East.
○ It shares borders with key countries like India, China, Afghanistan, and Iran.
○ This strategic location makes Pakistan a vital player in regional geopolitics
○ and an important partner for global powers seeking to exert influence in the region.
2. Nuclear Capabilities:
○ Pakistan is one of the world's nuclear-armed states.
○ Its nuclear weapons program has added a layer of complexity to global security
dynamics.
○ Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is seen as a deterrent against potential adversaries
○ and has implications for regional stability, especially in its rivalry with India.
3. Counterterrorism and Afghanistan:
○ Pakistan has played a pivotal role in the U.S.-led war on terror, particularly in the conflict
in Afghanistan.
○ It has served as both an ally and a target of criticism from Western powers
○ due to concerns about its support for certain militant groups.
○ The outcome of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 has further shifted the
dynamics in the region,
○ with Pakistan seeking to ensure stability and influence in its western neighbor.
4. China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC):
○ Pakistan's deepening economic and strategic partnership with China through the (CPEC)
○ has added a new dimension to its role in global power dynamics.
○ CPEC is part of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and
○ aims to connect Gwadar Port in Pakistan to China's northwestern region through a
network of highways, railways, and pipelines.
○ This project has implications for regional trade and security dynamics and has drawn
attention from global powers.

attention from global powers.
5. Regional Conflicts and Relationships:
○ Pakistan has historically been involved in regional conflicts,
○ especially in its relationship with India over the Kashmir dispute.
○ Its role in mediating or exacerbating conflicts in neighboring Afghanistan has also been a
matter of global interest.
6. Energy Security:
○ Pakistan's energy needs and its quest for energy security are also significant in global
power dynamics.
○ The country's growing energy demand has led to partnerships and agreements with
various countries for the supply of energy resources.
7. Diplomacy and Alliances:
○ Pakistan maintains diplomatic relations with various global powers,
○ including the United States, China, Russia, and the Middle Eastern countries.
○ Its foreign policy decisions and alliances can impact regional and global dynamics.
8. Role in International Organizations:
○ Pakistan is a member of various international organizations,
○ including the United Nations, and it participates in peacekeeping missions around the
world.
○ Its role in international organizations can shape its stance on global issues
○ and contribute to its influence on the world stage.
In summary, Pakistan's role in global power dynamics is multifaceted, influenced by its strategic
location, nuclear capabilities, regional conflicts, economic partnerships, and diplomatic relationships.
Pakistan's actions and policies continue to have ripple effects in the broader context of international
relations, making it a country of significant importance in shaping global affairs.
Global power politics

1. U.S.-China Rivalry:
• Trade Disputes:
○ The US and China were engaged in a trade dispute
○ characterized by tariffs and counter-tariffs on each other's goods.
○ This trade war had significant economic implications,
○ affecting global supply chains and economic growth.
• Technology Competition:
○ Both countries were vying for technological dominance,
○ particularly in areas like 5G, artificial intelligence, and semiconductor manufacturing.
○ The U.S. was taking steps to restrict Chinese access to advanced technology.
2. Multipolar World:
• China's Ascendancy:
○ China's eco growth and increasing military capabilities were shifting the global balance
of power.
○ Its (BRI) was extending its influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe,
○ leading to concerns about debt diplomacy and strategic influence.
• Russia's Role:
○ Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, was pursuing assertive foreign policies,
○ including military interventions in Ukraine and Syria.
○ It sought to maintain its status as a global power, despite economic sanctions.
3. Global Response to COVID-19:
• Vaccine Diplomacy:
○ The race to develop and distribute COVID-19 vaccines became a key geopolitical issue.
○ Some countries engaged in vaccine diplomacy,
○ using vaccine exports to enhance their global influence.
• Supply Chain Disruptions:
○ The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains,
○ prompting discussions about diversification and reshoring of critical industries.
4. Climate Change:
• U.S. Rejoins Paris Agreement:

• U.S. Rejoins Paris Agreement:
○ The Biden administration's decision to rejoin the Paris Agreement signaled a renewed
commitment to addressing climate change at the global level.
○ The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) was highly anticipated.
5. Middle East Dynamics:
• Abraham Accords:
○ The normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states were seen as a
significant development.
○ They reshaped alliances in the Middle East and aimed to improve regional stability and
cooperation.
• Iran Nuclear Deal:
○ Negotiations to revive the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or
JCPOA) were ongoing.
○ The outcome of these talks had implications for regional stability.
6. Russia's Influence:
• Ukraine Conflict:
○ The conflict in Eastern Ukraine persisted, with Russia supporting separatist forces.
○ Sanctions against Russia remained in place, and tensions with NATO member countries
continued.
• Cybersecurity:
○ Cybersecurity concerns were prominent,
○ with allegations of Russian involvement in cyberattacks against Western targets.
7. Geopolitical Hotspots:
• South China Sea:
○ Tensions continued to escalate in the South China Sea
○ due to territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries.
○ The U.S. conducted freedom of navigation operations in the area to challenge China's
claims.
• Korean Peninsula:
○ The situation on the Korean Peninsula remained uncertain,
○ with diplomatic efforts to denuclearize North Korea ongoing.
8. Cybersecurity and Technology:
• Cyberattacks:
○ Cybersecurity threats and cyberattacks, including ransomware attacks, were a major
concern.
○ Governments and businesses were taking steps to bolster cybersecurity defenses.
• Emerging Technologies:
○ Developments in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and 5G networks
○ raised questions about their implications for national security and global
competitiveness.
9. Human Rights and Democracy:
• China's Human Rights Record:
○ China faced criticism over its human rights abuses,
○ particularly in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
○ The U.S. and other Western nations imposed sanctions in response.
• Democracy Promotion:
○ The promotion of democracy and human rights was a point of contention in U.S. foreign
policy,
○ with differing approaches to addressing authoritarian regimes.
10. Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements:
• Trade Agreements:
○ The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
was
○ signed by several countries as a regional trade agreement.
○ The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was also formed among
Asian nations.
These are some of the key developments and trends in global power politics as of 2021. Keep in

These are some of the key developments and trends in global power politics as of 2021. Keep in
mind that the global political landscape is subject to rapid change, and events and shifts in power
dynamics continue to shape international relations. To stay informed about current developments,
it's important to follow up-to-date news sources and expert analysis.
Compare Iraq with Ukraine.
It’s clear the era of US global supremacy is over
This article is more than 6 months old
The Guardian
Jonathan Steele
It’s a useful coincidence that the 20th anniversary of George W Bush and Tony Blair’s illegal attack
on Iraq falls only a matter of weeks after the anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s illegal attack on Ukraine.
Neither war was authorised by the UN. Both are marked by massive destruction and huge loss of life.
The Bush/Blair invasion and occupation of Iraq, and its chaotic consequences, have taken the lives of
more than a million Iraqi civilians, according to one survey. US forces committed innumerable war
crimes, not least the torture of captured soldiers. At the Abu Ghraib detention centre near Baghdad,
US officers humiliated Iraqi prisoners in violation of the Geneva conventions. The invasion provoked
widespread resistance, but US counter-insurgency tactics involved raids on villages that led
to massacres of unarmed civilians.
The world reacted to the Bush/Blair war with disapproval, but almost no action was taken against
them. There were no state-imposed sanctions on the US or Britain. No investigators from the
international criminal court took evidence to substantiate prosecutions for war crimes. A few
individuals and some human rights organisations called for Blair to be indicted on the charge
of committing the crime of aggression, but no government approached the UN with a resolution to
open a criminal case against them.
Now consider the very different reaction to Vladimir Putin’s illegal war on Ukraine. Virtually every
western government, following the US’s lead, has slapped sanctions on Russia’s exports. Russia’s
financial holdings in US banks have been frozen. Putin’s friends have had their yachts and other
property impounded – and then a few days ago the international criminal court issued an arrest
warrant for Putin for war crimes involving the illegal deportation of children from Ukraine.
The contrast in the global reaction to the two wars is instructive. Nothing better illustrates the
differential between Russia’s meagre international authority and that of the US. For Putin it is
humiliating. He may like to think of his country as a superpower, but in reality, beyond holding a
massive nuclear arsenal, Russia has little global clout and few foreign friends. Putin is widely
criticised for trying to recreate an old-fashioned empire by seizing land and intimidating states on
Russia’s western and southern borders.
The US, for its part, runs a new style of non-territorial empire with great success. It enjoys enormous
political and economic influence on every continent, dominates the international financial system,
and operates 750 military bases in more than 80 countries. Most of the world dare not oppose
Washington’s writ.
Some analysts argue that if Russia is defeated in its current war on Ukraine, Europe will be able to
enjoy a post-imperial system of peaceful relations and autonomy on the continent for the first time
in history. They forget Nato. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization began in 1949 and still
continues in part as an instrument for US hegemony in Europe. Allies may decline to participate in
US military operations, as France and Germany boldly did over Iraq in 2003, but they do not publicly
denounce them as illegal or call for sanctions.
Europeans and some Americans, including past and present senior officials, who argued against the
expansion of Nato after the demise of the Soviet Union – or even advocated the alliance’s
dissolution now that the enemy was gone – were never going to achieve their goals. The Baltic states
and Poland craved the protection of the imperial American umbrella, which the US military-
industrial complex was not going to give up in any case.

industrial complex was not going to give up in any case.
Equally unattainable was the proposal that NATO should invite the Russian Federation to join,
thereby promoting post-cold war reconciliation. It was not to be. Even though Russian leaders, both
Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, were keen to end the division of Europe, Washington would
not open the alliance to a new member who could match the US’s nuclear potential and might
question its political priorities.
Now, 30 years after the demise of the Soviet Union, there are signs that the unipolar world of US
dominance may be coming to an end. The main challenger is not Putin’s Russia, but an increasingly
confident China. Leaders in the global south are also stirring. In the first flush of shock over Russia’s
aggression against Ukraine in February last year, more than 140 UN states voted to condemn it. But
only around 40 countries in total have joined the US in imposing sanctions on Russia. As the west
floods Ukraine with military hardware, the notion that it is merely helping to defend Ukraine looks
questionable to many Asian, African and Latin American states who suspect the end goal to be
regime change in the Kremlin.
A survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) reveals a significant shift in public
opinion in several key countries. People want to see a quick end to the war in Ukraine, even if it
means Ukraine giving up western-supported aspirations to victory and accepting the temporary loss
of some territory. It is not only citizens of authoritarian China who think this way. So do citizens in
India and Turkey.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, told the Munich Security Conference last month: “I see
how powerful the Russian narrative is, its accusations of double standards.” France’s Emmanuel
Macron said he was “shocked by how much credibility we are losing in the global south”.
Some fear a new cold war, this time between the west and China. Looking 10 years ahead, others
expect to see a multipolar world in which states will not be pressured to align themselves with one
side or the other. Either way, in spite of the resurgence of US power in Europe as a result of the war
in Ukraine, the era of US supremacy in the rest of the world may soon be over.
Jonathan Steele is a former chief foreign correspondent for the Guardian and the author of Defeat:
Why They Lost Iraq
Thank you for joining us from Pakistan.

What happens now? Further threats to Vladimir Putin’s rule? More signs of the Ukraine war spilling
across the border into Russia? Mounting instability in the world’s foremost nuclear power?
Whatever happens, we’ll be there, covering every minute of this war and its consequences, as we
have since day one. Our reporters on the ground have endured personal risk to produce thousands
of articles, films and podcasts.
We know it’s crucial that we stay until the end - and beyond. There is no substitute for being there,
as we did during the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991 and the first Russo-Ukrainian conflict in 2014. We have an illustrious, 200-year
history of reporting throughout Europe in times of upheaval, peace and everything in between. We
won’t let up now. Will you make a difference and support us too?
Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s fearless journalism since we started
publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. We’d
like to invite you to join more than 1.5 million supporters from 180 countries who now power us
financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.
Unlike many others, the Guardian has no shareholders and no billionaire owner. Just the
determination and passion to deliver high-impact global reporting, always free from commercial or
political influence. Reporting like this is vital to establish the facts: who is lying and who is telling the
truth.
And we provide all this for free, for everyone to read. We do this because we believe in information
equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of the events shaping our world, understand
their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action. Millions

their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action. Millions
can benefit from open access to quality, truthful news, regardless of their ability to pay for it.
Whether you give a little or a lot, your funding will power our reporting for the years to come. If you
can, please support us on a monthly basis from just $2. It takes less than a minute to set up, and
you can rest assured that you’re making a big impact every single month in support of open,
independent journalism. Thank you.

SUDAN CONFLICT 2021
• The Sudan conflict is a complex and long-standing series of conflicts that have afflicted the region for decades.
• The conflicts in Sudan have involved various armed groups, ethnic and religious divisions, and political rivalries.
Historical Background:
1. North-South Sudan Conflict:
○ One of the most significant aspects of Sudan's conflict history was the prolonged civil war
i. between the northern and southern regions.
○ This war, which began in the mid-20th century, had its roots in ethnic, religious, and economic differences.
○ It resulted in millions of deaths and widespread displacement.
2. Darfur Conflict:
○ Another major conflict in Sudan was the Darfur conflict, which began in the early 2000s.
○ This conflict arose from tensions between ethnic Arab groups and non-Arab African groups in the Darfur
region.
○ The Sudanese government was accused of supporting Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed,
○ which were responsible for violence and atrocities against non-Arab populations.
3. South Sudan Independence:
○ In 2011, South Sudan, after a long struggle for autonomy, gained independence from Sudan.
○ This marked a significant development in the Sudan conflict, as it led to the partition of the country.
○ However, South Sudan itself has since experienced internal conflicts.
Recent Developments:
1. Transitional Government:
○ One of the key recent developments in Sudan was the establishment of a transitional government in August
2019.
○ This followed months of protests against the long-ruling President Omar al-Bashir,
i. who was eventually ousted from power.
○ The transitional government included a military-civilian power-sharing arrangement.
2. Peace Agreements:
○ Sudan's transitional government has been actively involved in peace negotiations with various armed groups,
○ including those from Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile.
○ Several peace agreements were reached,
i. aiming to end long-standing conflicts and bring stability to the regions.
3. Economic Challenges:
○ Sudan has faced severe economic challenges, including hyperinflation and economic instability.
○ The transitional government has been working to stabilize the economy and attract international assistance
and investment.
4. Tensions in Eastern Sudan:
○ Eastern Sudan, historically marginalized, has witnessed tensions and conflicts

○ Eastern Sudan, historically marginalized, has witnessed tensions and conflicts
▪ related to land disputes, ethnic tensions, and competition for resources.
○ Addressing these issues has been a priority for the government.
5. International Involvement:
○ The international community, including the United Nations and regional organizations,
○ has been actively engaged in peace efforts in Sudan.
○ International actors have also provided humanitarian assistance to those affected by the conflicts.
6. Humanitarian Concerns:
○ The conflicts in Sudan have resulted in significant humanitarian challenges,
○ including displacement, food insecurity, and human rights abuses.
○ Addressing these issues and ensuring the protection of vulnerable populations have been ongoing priorities.
The Sudan conflict remains a complex and multifaceted issue, requiring sustained efforts to achieve lasting peace,
stability, and development in the country.
International diplomacy, peace negotiations, and efforts to address the root causes of conflicts continue to play a vital
role in shaping Sudan's future.
US RUSSIA RIVALRY AND SUDAN CONFLICT

The rivalry between the United States and Russia has had implications for their respective approaches to the Sudan
conflict. While the Sudan conflict is primarily an internal issue, both superpowers have interests in the region, and their
rivalry can influence their positions and actions regarding Sudan.
1. Diplomatic Engagement and Peace Efforts:
• United States:
○ The U.S. has been actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to address the Sudan conflict, particularly in
supporting peace negotiations and the transitional government.
○ The U.S. has a keen interest in helping resolve Sudan's conflicts to promote stability and prevent
humanitarian crises in the region.
• Russia:
○ Russia has also participated in diplomatic initiatives related to Sudan.
○ Moscow's involvement in diplomatic efforts is part of its broader strategy
▪ to assert itself as a global actor engaged in conflict resolution.
○ While Russia's interests in Sudan may not be as extensive as those of the U.S.,
▪ it seeks to maintain influence in the region.
2. Arms Sales and Military Engagement:
• United States:
○ The U.S. has, in the past, imposed restrictions and sanctions on Sudan, including an arms embargo,
▪ due to concerns about human rights abuses and support for terrorism.
○ However, following positive developments such as
▪ the ousting of President Omar al-Bashir and the establishment of a transitional government,
○ the U.S. has taken steps to ease certain sanctions.
• Russia:
○ Russia has historically supplied arms to Sudan, including during the Darfur conflict.
○ Arms sales to Sudan have been a source of revenue for the Russian defence industry.
○ It's important to note that international arms embargoes have limited the sale of certain types of weapons to
Sudan.
3. Resource Interests:
• United States:
○ The U.S. primarily engages in Sudan to promote peace, stability, and humanitarian relief.
○ Its interests are less resource-driven than those of some other countries.
• Russia:
○ Russia has economic interests in Sudan related to resource extraction, particularly in the fields of mining and
energy.
○ Ensuring stability and peace in Sudan is crucial for safeguarding these economic interests.
4. Proxy Dynamics:
• While Sudan's conflicts are primarily rooted in internal factors,
• there have been instances where international actors, including the U.S. and Russia,
• have indirectly supported various parties in Sudan's conflicts.
• This indirect involvement can be seen as part of the broader U.S.-Russia rivalry, where both superpowers seek to
gain influence in regions of strategic importance.
In summary, the U.S.-Russia rivalry does intersect with the Sudan conflict, albeit indirectly. Both countries have interests
in promoting stability and peace in Sudan, but their approaches and priorities may differ. The rivalry can influence their
diplomatic engagements, arms sales, and resource interests in the region. However, their primary goal remains to
address the Sudan conflict and its humanitarian and security implications.
IMPACT ON TE REGION
• The Sudan conflict has had a significant impact on the wider region,
• affecting neighboring countries and contributing to regional instability in various ways.

• affecting neighboring countries and contributing to regional instability in various ways.
• Here are some of the key impacts of the Sudan conflict on the region:
1. Refugee and Displacement Crisis:
• Sudan's conflicts, including
○ the Darfur conflict and
○ conflicts in the border regions of South Kordofan and Blue Nile,
• have generated large numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
• Many of these people have sought refuge in neighbouring countries.
• This has placed a strain on the resources and infrastructure of these countries.
2. Regional Instability:
• The spill-over effects of Sudan's conflicts have contributed to regional instability.
• Armed groups and rebel movements from Sudan have sometimes crossed into neighboring countries,
• leading to violence and insecurity in border regions.
3. Humanitarian Impact:
• Sudan's conflicts have led to humanitarian crises, including food insecurity and limited access to healthcare.
• The strain on humanitarian org to provide assistance in Sudan has also affected their operations in neighboring
countries,
○ where they must address the needs of refugees and IDPs.
4. Economic Impact:
• The economic consequences of the Sudan conflict have been felt regionally.
• Sudan's instability can disrupt trade and economic cooperation with neighboring countries,
• affecting cross-border trade routes and markets.
5. Security Concerns:
• The movement of armed groups and the flow of small arms and light weapons across borders have raised concerns
about regional security.
• Neighboring countries have often been drawn into efforts to address these security challenges.
6. Diplomatic and Mediation Efforts:
• Neighboring countries, as well as regional orgs such as
○ the African Union (AU) and
○ the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD),
• have been actively involved in diplomatic efforts to address the Sudan conflict.
• they have played roles in mediating peace agreements and supporting transitional processes.
7. Resource Competition:
• Resource-rich border areas between Sudan and its neighbours have been sites of conflict and competition.
• Disputes over access to resources, such as water and arable land, have exacerbated tensions in the region.
8. Proxy Dynamics:
• Some regional actors have supported various parties involved in Sudan's conflicts, either directly or indirectly,
• which can contribute to proxy dynamics and regional rivalries.
• These proxy interventions have further complicated efforts to achieve peace and stability.
9. Impact on South Sudan:
• The independence of South Sudan in 2011, while not directly linked to the Sudan conflict, was a significant regional
development.
• However, South Sudan itself has experienced internal conflicts and humanitarian crises,
○ which have had a broader regional impact.
10. Migration and Human Trafficking:
• The instability and economic challenges in Sudan have contributed to irregular migration and human trafficking
across the region.
• Neighboring countries have had to address these issues, often with limited resources.
In summary, the Sudan conflict has had far-reaching regional impacts, affecting neighboring countries in East and North
Africa. These impacts have ranged from humanitarian crises and security concerns to economic disruptions and
diplomatic efforts to mitigate the effects of the conflict. Regional cooperation and international involvement have been
essential in addressing these challenges and seeking solutions to promote peace and stability in the broader region.
WAYFORWARD
• Resolving the Sudan conflict is a complex and challenging endeavour that
• requires a comprehensive approach involving multiple stakeholders, including
○ the Sudanese government,
○ opposition groups,
○ regional actors, and
○ the international community.
1. Negotiation and Diplomacy:

○ Engage in inclusive peace talks:
▪ Facilitate negotiations that include all relevant parties, including the Sudanese government, armed
opposition groups, and civil society representatives.

opposition groups, and civil society representatives.
▪ Inclusivity is essential to ensure that all stakeholders have a say in the peace process.
○ International mediation:
▪ Continue to involve regional organizations, such as
□ the African Union (AU) and
□ the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD),
□ international actors
in mediating peace agreements.
▪ Their neutrality can help build trust among conflicting parties.
2. Sustainable Peace Agreements:
○ Develop comprehensive peace agreements:
▪ Negotiate and implement peace agreements that address the root causes of conflicts,
▪ including issues related to governance, power-sharing, resource allocation, and security sector reform.
○ Monitor and enforce agreements:
▪ Establish mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing compliance with peace agreements,
▪ including the deployment of peacekeeping forces or observer missions if necessary.
3. Humanitarian Assistance:
○ Provide humanitarian aid:
▪ Ensure the safe and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance to conflict-affected areas
▪ to address food insecurity, access to healthcare, and other urgent needs.
○ Support internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees:
▪ Develop and implement programs to assist IDPs and refugees in returning to their homes or resettling in
safe and stable environments.
4. Economic Recovery and Development:
○ Promote economic stability:
▪ Support efforts to stabilize Sudan's economy, including
□ debt relief,
□ access to international financial institutions, and
□ investment in key sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure, and energy.
○ Encourage private sector growth:
▪ Create an enabling environment for private sector development
▪ to stimulate economic growth, job creation, and poverty reduction.
5. Rule of Law and Governance:
○ Strengthen the rule of law:
▪ Support judicial and legal reforms to enhance access to justice, protect human rights, and combat
impunity.
○ Promote good governance:
▪ Assist in building transparent, accountable, and effective institutions to improve public services, combat
corruption, and foster political stability.
6. Security Sector Reform:
○ Restructure the security sector:
▪ Implement comprehensive security sector reforms
▪ to create a professional and accountable security apparatus that serves the interests of the state and its
citizens.
○ Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR):
▪ Develop DDR programs to reintegrate former combatants into society and provide them with livelihood
opportunities.
7. Regional Cooperation:
○ Engage neighboring countries:
▪ Foster regional cooperation and dialogue to address cross-border security challenges, reduce proxy
interventions, and promote stability in the broader region.
○ Refugee management:
▪ Collaborate with neighboring countries to manage the influx of refugees and provide support for their
humanitarian needs.
8. Reconciliation and Social Cohesion:
○ Promote reconciliation:
▪ Facilitate reconciliation processes at the community and national levels
▪ to address historical grievances, promote social cohesion, and build trust among different ethnic and
religious groups.
○ Invest in education and cultural exchange:
▪ Promote education and cultural exchange programs that foster tolerance, diversity, and mutual
understanding.
9. International Support:
○ Engage the international community:
▪ Seek diplomatic and financial support from the international community, including the United Nations,
regional organizations, and donor countries,
▪ to facilitate peacebuilding efforts and development programs.
Monitor and evaluate progress:

▪
○ Monitor and evaluate progress:
▪ Establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of peace agreements and
development initiatives to ensure accountability and adapt strategies as needed.
10. Long-Term Commitment:
○ Recognize that achieving lasting peace and stability in Sudan is a long-term endeavour
○ that requires sustained commitment from all stakeholders.
○ Continuously adapt and update strategies based on changing circumstances and priorities.
Efforts to address the Sudan conflict should prioritize the well-being and aspirations of the Sudanese people while
also taking into account the complex regional dynamics. Sustainable peace and development in Sudan will
contribute to greater stability in the wider region, making it a crucial priority for the international community.

Sudan Conflict 2023
Wednesday, 4 October 2023 8:48 pm
• On April 15, fighting broke out in Sudan between

○ the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), (the country’s national army), and
○ the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), (a paramilitary group).
• The RSF is the largest paramilitary group in Africa,

○ created in 2013 out of the Janjaweed militias
○ that have been accused of war crimes and genocide in Darfur,
○ a region in western Sudan, in the early 2000s.
• The conflict has displaced almost 1.1 million people, both inside Sudan and into
neighboring countries.
• It is estimated that between 700 and 1,000 people have been killed and
• at least 5,287 have been injured.
• Experts say that over half of the population is in need of humanitarian
• aid after widespread power outages left civilians without access to water and food.
Background of the Sudan Conflict

○ Sudan is the third largest country in Africa,
○ Located directly south of Egypt.
○ It was a British colony until 1956 and
○ has a population of 49 million people.
○ Sudan is strategically situated on the Red Sea,
○ contains vast mineral resources, and is
○ a major agricultural exporter to Africa and the Middle East.
○ There are over 500 ethnic groups in Sudan,

○ but approximately 70 percent of people identify as Sudanese Arab.
○ The country has a long history of political unrest, military takeovers, and violence.
○ The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for former President Omar al-Bashir,
○ accusing him of crimes against humanity and genocide.
The Main Actors in the Sudan Conflict

○ At the center of the conflict in Sudan are two men:
○ General Abdelrahman al-Burhan, leader of the SAF, and
○ General Mohamed Hamdan , who leads the RSF and frequently goes by the name
Hemedti.
○ Prior to this conflict, the two men took advantage of unrest caused by pro-democracy
protests in 2019
○ to overthrow President Bashir, whom they had previously supported and worked
under.
○ A civilian-military coalition was created to help move Sudan towards democracy,
○ but two years later, Burhan and Hemedti worked together again to lead a military
coup
○ to take control of the country.
○ They claimed the takeover was to maintain stability from infighting in the civilian-led
government.
○ International observers say that since 2021, corruption has soared and the Sudanese
economy is struggling.
The Reasons for the Violence in Sudan
○ Burhan has been the de facto leader of Sudan since the coup in 2021, and
○ Hemedti’s RSF forces, with anywhere from 70k to 150k members,
Were supporting—but are still separate from—the army.

○ Were supporting—but are still separate from—the army.
○ As Hemedti’s influence increased and he attempted to recruit more members to the RSF
○ tensions between the two men began to rise.
Conditions on the Ground in Sudan
○ It is not clear who shot first, but experts agree both sides were prepared for fighting.
○ The conflict has largely centered on the Sudanese capital of Khartoum and Darfur.
○ Residential areas, including schools, hospitals, markets, and the airport, have been
targeted, bombed, and emptied by soldiers for use as temporary bases.
○ There are reports of intimidation, looting, and sexual violence against women and girls.
The U.S. Response to the Sudan Conflict
○ The United States has used a number of diplomatic actions to try to end the conflict in
Sudan.
○ President Joe Biden issued an executive order
○ allowing the U.S. government to impose sanctions
○ “on individuals responsible for threatening the peace, security, and stability of
Sudan; undermining Sudan’s democratic transition; using violence against civilians;
or committing serious human rights abuses.”
○ Some experts in the region are pessimistic such sanctions will convince the two generals to
end the conflict;
○ Sudan was under similar sanctions from 1989 to 2017.13
○ The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

○ has deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team
○ to coordinate humanitarian aid in the region.
○ Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been involved in negotiations for a ceasefire.
The International Response to the Sudan Conflict
○ The United Nations Human Rights Council had an emergency meeting on May 11 and \
○ passed a resolution
○ calling for an end to hostilities,
○ a transition to a civilian-led government, and
○ human rights monitoring.
 The Arab Union,
 the African Union, and
 the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in Eastern Africa (IGAD)
○ have also called on both sides to cease fighting.
❖ Opinion:
○ There are competing interests in the region: stability or democracy.
○ Neither Burhan nor Hemedti want a democratic Sudan, and
○ many governments support a transfer of power to one general or the other
○ to maintain stability and gain access to Sudan’s resources,
○ rather than prioritizing democracy.
What About a Ceasefire?

○ A ceasefire, brokered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and
○ agreed to by the SAF and RSF,
○ began the evening of May 22.
○ The aim was to stop fighting so humanitarian aid could reach civilians trapped by the
violence.
○ The negotiations did not include civilian leaders and
○ the ceasefire does not address future governance.
○ Six previous ceasefires have failed,
○ but Secretary Blinken says this is the first with a “monitoring mechanism,”
○ without elaborating what that was.
○ Reports were mixed this week as to whether the ceasefire has been successful.

SKIPPED* Middle East crisis
As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, the Middle East has been plagued by a
complex web of political, economic, and social crises for decades. It is essential to note that the
situation in the region can change rapidly, and new developments may have occurred since then. I
will provide an overview of some of the key issues that have historically contributed to instability
in the Middle East.
1. Conflict in Syria: The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, has been one of the most
devastating conflicts in the region. It has caused significant loss of life, displaced millions of
people, and involved various local and international actors. The conflict has also fueled the
rise of extremist groups like ISIS.
2. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be a
major source of tension in the Middle East. The issues of borders, settlements, refugees, and
the status of Jerusalem remain unresolved, leading to periodic outbreaks of violence.
3. Iranian Influence: Iran's regional influence and its rivalry with Saudi Arabia have exacerbated
tensions in the Middle East. Iran has been involved in proxy conflicts in countries like Yemen,
Iraq, and Syria, leading to increased instability.
4. Yemeni Civil War: Yemen has been embroiled in a civil war since 2015, with Houthi rebels,
supported by Iran, fighting against the internationally recognized government, which is
backed by a Saudi-led coalition. The conflict has resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis.
5. Terrorism: Various extremist groups, including ISIS and al-Qaeda, have operated in the
region, causing violence and instability. Efforts to combat terrorism have led to military
interventions by Western and regional powers.
6. Oil and Energy Security: The Middle East is a crucial region for global energy security due to
its vast oil reserves. Disruptions in the region's oil production and distribution can have a
significant impact on global oil prices and the world economy.
7. Refugee Crisis: The Middle East has been a major source of refugees and internally displaced
people due to conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries. This has put immense
pressure on neighboring countries and led to a humanitarian crisis.
8. Human Rights Concerns: The Middle East has faced criticism for human rights abuses,
including restrictions on freedom of speech, political repression, and discrimination against
minority groups.

minority groups.
9. Arab Spring: The Arab Spring, a series of pro-democracy uprisings that began in 2010, had
mixed outcomes in the region. While some countries experienced political change, others
faced repression and instability.
10. Economic Challenges: Many countries in the Middle East face economic challenges, including
high youth unemployment, corruption, and dependence on oil revenues. Economic
difficulties can exacerbate social and political tensions.
It's important to recognize that these issues are interconnected, and efforts to address one
problem often have repercussions in other areas. Moreover, the Middle East is a diverse region
with different countries facing unique challenges and opportunities.
Please keep in mind that the situation in the Middle East can change rapidly, and new
developments may have occurred since my last update. To get the most up-to-date information on
the Middle East crisis, it is essential to consult recent news sources and expert analysis.
The Middle East: Goodbye America, hello China?
ALJAZEERA
In an attempt to salvage his country’s waning influence in the Middle East, US Secretary of State
Antony Blinken is embarking on a three-day visit to Saudi Arabia this
week. But advancing “strategic cooperation” with his Saudi and Gulf counterparts may well
prove an uphill battle.
In July last year, President Joe Biden attended the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in the
kingdom and vowed that the United States “will not walk away and leave a vacuum to be filled by
China, Russia, or Iran”. But that is precisely what has been happening.
Despite US objections, the past year has seen its regional allies go hybrid: they have improved
relations with Beijing and Tehran and maintained strong ties with Moscow.
Although the Biden administration has publicly downplayed the importance of the recent Chinese-
brokered Saudi-Iranian agreement to re-establish diplomatic relations, it seems frantic about the
growing Chinese influence in the oil-rich Gulf region and the greater Middle East.
Over the past two decades, the US has ramped up oil and gas production, becoming virtually
energy independent. It may no longer need Gulf oil as much, but it insists on being in charge in the
region so it is able to cut China off of vital energy supplies in the event of a conflict, and secure
them for its allies.
As Blinken warned last month, “China represents the most consequential geopolitical challenge we
face today: a country with the intent and, increasingly, the capability to challenge our vision for a
free, open, secure, and prosperous international order.”
But Beijing’s autocracy may actually be an easier and better fit for the region’s autocrats than
Washington’s democracy.
Russia’s sway in the Middle East and beyond has also made the US nervous.
Fed up with their ambiguity, even complicity with Russia, the Biden administration has
been ramping up pressure on certain Middle Eastern states, making clear that its patience is
running out. It has been warning countries in the region against helping Russia evade sanctions
and demanding they pick sides – or else face the wrath of the US and G7 nations.But to no avail.
Week in the Middle East

Saudi Arabia has thus far refused the US request to substantially increase oil production to
lower its market price and offset the effect of Western sanctions on Russia. It has maintained good
relations with Moscow and dragged its feet on supporting Ukraine. Saudi Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s “middle finger to Washington” has reportedly made
him extremely popular in the region.
Last year, in response to Biden’s threats to punish Riyadh for its presumed insolence, the kingdom
went on to host the Chinese president, Xi Jinping for bilateral talks and the China-GCC and China-

went on to host the Chinese president, Xi Jinping for bilateral talks and the China-GCC and China-
Arab summits. Saudi Arabia then normalised relations with Iran under Chinese auspices, just as the
West was tightening sanctions against Tehran, and in a clear snub to the US, went on to repair ties
with Syria.
But this new attitude towards relations with the US is not only evident in Riyadh; it is a regional
phenomenon. The United Arab Emirates, another US ally, has also cultivated closer ties with China,
improved strategic relations with France, and worked on engaging Iran, Russia and India. This, at
times, has been at the expense of its relations with the US.
The region as a whole has been diversifying its global engagement. This is quite apparent in its
commercial relations. Between 2000 and 2021, trade between the Middle East and China has
grown from $15.2bn to $284.3bn; in the same period, trade with the US has increased
only modestly from $63.4bn to $98.4bn.
Six Middle Eastern countries – among them Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt – have recently
requested to join the Chinese-led BRICS group, which also includes Russia, India, Brazil and South
Africa. This is despite the West’s ever-widening sanctions regime imposed on Russia.
Of course, America has been the dominant strategic power in the Middle East the past three
decades and remains so today. But will it be in the next three decades?
In a region where autocratic regimes and the general public do not agree on much if anything at
all, saying no to America is a very popular stance because the majority believes it is a hypocritical
imperial power that pays only lip service to human rights and democracy.
This is particularly apparent in US foreign policy on Palestine, which staunchly and unconditionally
supports the Palestinians’ coloniser and occupier – Israel.
On his visit to Riyadh, Secretary Blinken will likely put pressure on Saudi Arabia to normalise
relations with Tel Aviv, hoping to lower its asking price, which reportedly includes a nuclear civilian
programme and major security assurances.
The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have already normalised relations with Israel at the
expense of the Palestinians in return for American concessions, such as the sale of US-made F-35s
to Abu Dhabi, US recognition of Moroccan claims over Western Sahara, and the lifting of US
sanctions on Khartoum. All so that the Israeli government does not have to make any
“concessions” of its own and end its decades-long occupation of Palestine.
But the Palestinian cause, which is quite close to the heart of ordinary Arabs, is not the only issue
that has convinced the Arab public that America is a duplicitous power that should be kept at a
distance.
Thanks to satellite television and social media platforms, people of the region saw with their own
eyes US crimes in Iraq and its humiliation in Afghanistan, and do not think of it as a guardian of
civilisation, let alone an invincible power. The balance sheet of US interventions in the Middle East
over the past 20 years since the 9/11 attacks is firmly not in its favour.
No wonder that in a 2022 poll conducted by the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy
Studies in 14 Arab countries, 78 percent of respondents believed that the biggest source of threat
and instability in the region was the US. By contrast, only 57 percent thought of Iran and Russia in
these terms, both of which have had their own share of dirty work in the region – from Syria to
Iraq and Yemen.
In his aptly titled book, Grand Delusion: The Rise and Fall of American Ambition in the Middle East,
former US official Steven Simon estimates the US has wasted some $5-7 trillion on wars that
have resulted in the death of millions of Arabs and Muslims, and the devastation of their
communities. In addition, these conflicts have killed thousands of US soldiers, injured tens of
thousands and led to some 30,000 suicides of US veterans.
It is no coincidence then, that more Middle Easterners (and Americans) agree that the
region’s decoupling from America and at least some American disengagement from the region is
as desirable as it is inevitable.
Such a turn of events would also be terribly consequential with messy long-term implications
for both sides and it would be determined by whether and how America chooses to change its
foreign policy.

SOLUTIONS FOR MIDDLE EAST CRISIS
Addressing the complex and multifaceted crises in the Middle East requires a comprehensive and
multi-pronged approach. While there are no quick-fix solutions, here are some key steps and
strategies that can contribute to stability and peace in the region:
1. Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution:
• Promote diplomatic negotiations and dialogue to resolve conflicts. Encourage regional and
international actors to engage in peace talks.
• Support and mediate peace processes in conflicts like Syria, Yemen, and the Israeli-
Palestinian issue, involving relevant stakeholders.
2. Conflict Prevention and Resolution:
• Strengthen conflict prevention mechanisms to address the root causes of conflicts, including
political, economic, and social grievances.
• Support peacebuilding efforts, such as post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation
initiatives.
• Provide humanitarian aid and support to address the dire humanitarian crises resulting from
conflicts, particularly in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.
• Ensure safe and unhindered access for humanitarian organizations to deliver aid to those in
need.
4. Counterterrorism:
• Enhance international cooperation to combat terrorism in the region, including intelligence
sharing, financial tracking, and border security measures.
• Promote deradicalization and counter-extremism programs to prevent the recruitment of
extremist elements.
5. Promotion of Political Reform:
• Encourage political reforms and inclusive governance in countries where authoritarianism
and political repression persist.
• Support civil society organizations, free media, and institutions that promote democracy and
human rights.
6. Economic Development and Diversification:
• Promote economic diversification in oil-dependent economies to reduce vulnerability to oil
price fluctuations.
• Encourage foreign investment and economic reforms to create jobs and address high youth
unemployment.
7. Regional Cooperation:
• Foster regional cooperation and dialogue among Middle Eastern countries to address
common challenges, build trust, and reduce tensions.
• Develop confidence-building measures to improve security and stability in the region.
8. Energy Security:
• Promote energy diversification and cooperation among energy-producing and energy-
consuming countries to ensure stability in global energy markets.
9. Arms Control and Non-Proliferation:
• Promote arms control agreements and non-proliferation efforts to prevent the spread of
weapons of mass destruction in the region.
10. Address Sectarianism:
• Encourage interfaith dialogue and promote religious tolerance to mitigate sectarian
tensions.
• Support efforts to bridge divides between Sunni and Shia communities.
11. International Engagement:
• Engage international organizations, such as the United Nations, to play a central role in
conflict resolution and peacekeeping efforts.
• Coordinate international support and funding for peace initiatives and humanitarian aid.
12. Long-Term Commitment:
• Recognize that addressing the Middle East crisis will require sustained and long-term efforts,
as many of the underlying issues are deeply entrenched.
It's important to acknowledge that the Middle East crisis is a complex and interconnected set of

It's important to acknowledge that the Middle East crisis is a complex and interconnected set of
challenges, and progress may be slow and incremental. Additionally, regional and global
cooperation is essential to effectively address the crises in the Middle East and promote peace and
stability in the region.

U.S.-Saudi relations under the Biden administration
“The United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary relationship and friendship
that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt.”
— Barack Obama
BRIEF HISTORY
The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has evolved significantly over the years.
Early 20th Century:

• The U.S.-Saudi relationship began to take shape in the early 20th century
• when American oil companies, such as Standard Oil of California (now Chevron) and Texaco,
• began exploring and drilling for oil in Saudi Arabia.
1930s - 1940s:
• In 1933, Standard Oil of California made a major oil discovery in Saudi Arabia,
○ leading to the establishment of the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO).
• During World War II, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia became allies.
○ The U.S. established an airbase in Dhahran to support the war effort.
• In 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Saudi King Abdulaziz Al Saud (Ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy
○ in what became a landmark meeting symbolizing the start of a formal diplomatic relationship.
1950s - 1960s:
• The 1950s saw the U.S. supporting the modernization efforts of Saudi Arabia under King Saud,
○ including infrastructure development and military assistance.
• In 1960, KSA played a role in the formation of the Org of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC),
○ which had a significant impact on global oil markets.
1970s - 1980s:
• The 1970s marked a period of significant tension in the U.S.-Saudi relationship,
○ largely due to oil-related issues.
○ The 1973 oil embargo, initiated by OPEC countries including Saudi Arabia,
○ was a response to U.S. support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
• The 1980s saw improved relations as the two countries cooperated during the Iran-Iraq War and in countering Soviet
influence in Afghanistan.
1990s - 2000s:
• The 1990-1991 Gulf War marked a major turning point in U.S.-Saudi relations,
○ as the U.S. led a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation with Saudi Arabia as a key partner.
• The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the Gulf War became a contentious issue,
○ leading to strains in the relationship and providing a rallying point for extremist groups.
• The September 11, 2001 attacks, carried out by mostly Saudi nationals, further strained relations.
○ Although there was no direct Saudi government involvement,
○ the incident increased scrutiny of Saudi Arabia's religious and financial support for extremist groups.
2010s - Early 2020s:
• Despite various challenges and tensions, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continued to cooperate on security and energy matters.
• Relations became particularly close during the Trump administration, which provided strong support for Saudi leadership
and arms sales.
U.S.-Saudi relations under the Biden administration:

1. Arms Sales:
○ In February 2021, President Biden announced the suspension of the sale of precision-guided munitions
▪ to KSA & UAE
○ This decision was made due to concerns about the use of these weapons in the Yemeni conflict,
○ where civilian casualties had been reported.
○ While this move did not completely halt arms sales,
○ it demonstrated a shift in the U.S. approach toward scrutinizing such sales to Saudi Arabia.
2. Yemen Conflict:
○ The Biden administration appointed a special envoy for Yemen, Timothy ,
▪ to help facilitate a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.
○ The U.S. announced its intent to revoke the Trump administration's designation of the Houthi rebels as terrorists,
as this designation had complicated humanitarian efforts in Yemen.

○ as this designation had complicated humanitarian efforts in Yemen.
○ The U.S. also pledged $191 million in humanitarian aid to Yemen.
3. Iran Nuclear Deal:
○ The Adm engaged in indirect talks with Iran in Vienna
○ to explore the possibility of reviving the JCPOA,
○ a nuclear agreement from which the Trump administration had withdrawn.
○ Saudi Arabia expressed concern about the potential revival of the deal,
○ as it viewed Iran as a regional rival and was worried about the deal's impact on Iran's influence in the Middle East.
4. Human Rights Concerns:
○ The Biden administration took steps to address human rights issues in Saudi Arabia.
○ For instance, it imposed sanctions on several Saudi officials believed to be involved in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi,
○ including the Saudi deputy head of intelligence, Ahmad al-Asiri.
○ The administration also issued a visa ban on individuals
○ who, in its view, undermined democratic processes in Saudi Arabia.
5. Khashoggi Investigation:
○ The release of the U.S. intelligence report in February 2021
○ linked Saudi Crown Prince MBS to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
○ While the report did not lead to direct sanctions on the Crown Prince,
○ it intensified scrutiny of his actions and leadership.
○ This underscored the Biden administration's emphasis on human rights and press freedom.
6. Energy Cooperation:
○ Despite differences on various issues, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continued to cooperate on energy matters.
○ The Biden administration worked with Saudi Arabia to stabilize oil markets,
○ particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when global oil demand was affected.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS MAGAZINE

U.S President Joe Biden and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, July 2022 - Reuters
The New Old Middle Eastern Order
Biden’s Trip Shows Why Washington Is Still Getting the Region Wrong
By Marc Lynch | July 26th, 2022
U.S. President Joe Biden’s trip to the Middle East ended not with a bang but a whimper. The rewards for his fist bump with Saudi
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, proved paltry. Saudi Arabia did not commit to increasing oil production.
No dissidents were released. Human rights only came up when MBS dismissed criticism of journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder,
which was carried out under his orders, by pointing to American silence over Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian American
journalist who was killed in May in the West Bank by the Israeli military. Saudi Arabia did not announce major moves toward
normalization with Israel, and no new security alliance emerged.
Yet the Biden administration had broader ambitions for the trip that aren’t fully captured by the scorecard of short-term
deliverables. The administration believed that it needed to reset relations with Saudi Arabia and other regional allies, working on
the relationships for their own sake to better deal with a range of issues. The likely impending demise of negotiations for a
revived nuclear agreement with Iran, as well as the rippling shocks from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, added some urgency.
While media rumors ahead of the visit about the creation of a formal military alliance with the Arab states and Israel proved
premature, the intent of the trip was to push the region toward a new regional order based on Israeli-Arab cooperation against
Iran under American guidance.
The trip did make some small steps in that direction—but not in ways that are likely to increase regional stability. The security
architecture envisioned by the administration would not be novel. Israel’s alignment with Arab states against Iran has been
growing for decades. The Abraham Accords, first brokered under the administration of President Donald Trump, made
cooperation formal and public and explicitly removed the questions of Palestine and human rights from the equation. The
United States is gambling on the ability of autocratic Arab states to embrace a regional order that includes Israel without
concern for how these policies are received by their publics back home. But taking that risk at a time of escalating economic,
political, and social crisis across much of the region is likely to backfire—as it has in the past.
Orchestrating a U.S.-led Middle Eastern regional order has been a U.S. pastime since at least 1991, when the United States
successfully led a military operation to drive Saddam Hussein’s Iraq out of Kuwait. But today’s Middle East is in no condition to
be ordered by Washington. Middle Eastern leaders prefer to hedge their bets within what they see as an increasingly multipolar
world, as could be clearly seen in their refusal to take the side of the United States and Europe against Russia. Were Biden to
succeed on his own terms by bringing Israel and the Arab autocracies into a formal regional alliance against Iran, it would only
repeat the mistakes of the past. This would accelerate the next collapse of regional order by reversing progress toward de-
escalation, encouraging domestic repression, and paving the way to the next round of popular uprisings.
THE MYTHOLOGIES OF 1991

THE MYTHOLOGIES OF 1991
The urge to establish a U.S.-led regional order runs deep in Washington’s DNA. In particular, there is a generation of the U.S.
foreign policy community that views 1991 and the regional order constructed in the Middle East at the time as the ideal to be
emulated. It’s easy to see why. The era immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union was the high point of U.S. global
primacy. Following the 1990–91 U.S. intervention to reverse Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, the administrations of George H. W.
Bush and Bill Clinton launched ambitious efforts to rewire the region around U.S. unipolarity and lock in a regional order
favorable to U.S. interests.
For a brief moment, all roads led to Washington. The United States launched the Madrid peace process to end the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict but also to establish a U.S.-led regional order that could include both Israel and Arab states. Former Soviet
allies such as Syria cast about for ways to get into this new order through peace negotiations with Israel. Even Iran, exhausted
from a decade of war with Iraq, looked to rebuild relations with Europe and the Gulf states, launching a “dialogue among
civilizations” at the UN, taking small steps toward engagement with Washington, and dialing back its regional interventionism.
A positive normative purpose, as well as a military foundation, for a U.S.-led regional order briefly flickered into view. The U.S.-
led military operation to retake Kuwait had been a genuinely multilateral affair, authorized by the UN Security Council and an
Arab summit. Heavy U.S. investment in Arab-Israeli peacemaking after 1991 and stewardship of the Oslo peace process offered a
potential positive vision for the future of the Middle East.
But those normative foundations did not take root, and regional order proved difficult to manage. Washington’s nostalgia for
the Middle East of the 1990s runs deep, but that period wasn’t as orderly as the myth holds. Why the approach the United
States adopted in 1991 failed to produce a stable, legitimate U.S.-led regional order even at the height of its global power offers
instructive lessons for today.
NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT

The post-1991 regional order did not manage itself. The so-called dual containment of Iran and Iraq required the establishment
of semipermanent U.S. military bases across the region, especially in the Persian Gulf. This was a massive shift from the previous
decades of offshore balancing, during which the United States policed the region through its local allies and avoided large-scale
permanent military bases. It also required devoting a disproportionate amount of diplomatic energy to the region’s problems,
with each crisis seeming to demand even greater American attention. Dealing with these endless crises meant ignoring or even
promoting the autocratic regimes that would ultimately undermine the order.
At the heart of U.S. micromanagement of the region was the containment of Iraq, which required the maintenance of a
draconian, historically unprecedented sanctions regime. Cutting Iraq off from imports and exports was responsible for untold
numbers of excess deaths and human misery that profoundly undermined American moral claims in Arab eyes. Clashes over
weapons inspections led to repeated military actions, such as Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign of Iraqi
targets carried out by the United States and the United Kingdom in December 1998. Ultimately, however, these efforts didn’t
work. Saddam exploited the UN’s oil-for-food program to secure his own regime, and regional compliance with sanctions
eroded.
Despite the diplomatic energy spent on it, the United States also failed to deliver on the promise of Israeli-Palestinian peace. The
Clinton administration certainly put effort into the negotiations but was unable to overcome the assassination of Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, successive waves of Hamas terrorism, or Israel’s relentless expansion of settlements in the West
Bank. Washington similarly failed to deliver on Israeli-Syrian peace.
The 1990s also saw the downplaying of democracy out of fear of Islamist victories at the ballot box. Instead, Washington
pretended to believe that Arab autocrats would cultivate civil societies and prepare their populations to someday be ready for
real democracy. That, of course, is the same argument made by most Arab autocratic regimes today, a claim the Biden team has
shown no interest in challenging. The result of trading off democracy promotion for stable order was the entrenchment of Arab
autocracy in all of its pathologies. Not coincidentally, the 1990s were also a period of Islamist insurgency in Egypt and Algeria
and the incubation period for al Qaeda.
Ultimately, the glory days of U.S.-led regional order in the Middle East were less than they appeared. The containment of Iraq
and American efforts to secure Arab-Israeli peace both failed. The idea of building the conditions for democracy by working with
Arab autocrats did not deliver. And the prominence of the U.S. role in all these failures arguably made it an attractive target for
al Qaeda as it shifted from the “near enemy” to the “far enemy” on 9/11.
REPEATING MISTAKES
The presidential administrations that followed Clinton each attempted their own redesign of Middle Eastern regional order.
After the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration set out on a strategy of U.S. primacy. The centerpiece of this new
regional order would be the “global war on terror,” which in the Middle East involved close U.S. cooperation with regional
security services and a massive and intrusive expansion of the U.S. presence in the region. The invasion of Iraq to remove
Saddam proved, of course, to be uniquely disastrous, creating a vacuum of stability in the heart of the Middle East. The U.S.
occupation of Iraq unleashed brutal sectarianism, empowering both Iran and Sunni jihadist movements such as the nascent

occupation of Iraq unleashed brutal sectarianism, empowering both Iran and Sunni jihadist movements such as the nascent
Islamic State (also known as ISIS), and generated a flood of millions of refugees. The Iraq war exhausted American willingness
and capability to act militarily in the Middle East, and it ended with Iran’s somewhat Pyrrhic victory in establishing its allies in
dominant positions in the Iraqi state.
There was an order to be found in this chaos, however. This “new Middle East,” a term coined by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice during the height of Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon, was violent and hypercompetitive, but structurally, it was quite similar to
today. On one side was what U.S. officials called the “axis of moderates,” which included Israel and most of the Arab states
under the U.S. security umbrella, and on the other side was the “axis of resistance,” which included Iran, Syria, and nonstate
actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is often forgotten that Saudi-owned media initially supported Israel’s 2006 assault on
Hezbollah because of its antipathy toward the Iranian-backed Shia movement until a hostile public response forced them to
change their editorial line. The extreme unpopularity of U.S.-led efforts, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, allowed Turkey
and Qatar to make great political gains during this time by acting as swing states taking positions more in line with Arab public
opinion writ large.
President Barack Obama offered a genuinely different vision of regional order based on creating a stable and workable balance
of power between Iran and its neighbors through nuclear diplomacy and a reduced U.S. military presence. It is telling that Israel,
Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) opposed virtually everything the Obama administration attempted, including
the Iran nuclear deal, because their leaders thrived within the regional order he was seeking to change. The Gulf states wanted
nothing to do with Obama’s ideas of sharing the region with Iran and even less to do with his heretical ideas about embracing
democracy and the Arab Spring uprisings. At the same time, Israeli leaders were against Obama’s ideas about restarting peace
negotiations that would work toward creating a Palestinian state and even more opposed to the idea that a two-state solution
would be necessary to establish relations with Arab states. Iran, too, proved unwilling to meaningfully moderate its regional
policies of using proxies to fight in places such as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen after the nuclear deal was signed. This further
undermined Obama’s efforts to craft a new regional order.
Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—like many other Arab leaders—therefore welcomed the Trump administration’s return to the
George W. Bush-era “new Middle East” model. Trump adopted their views as his own and stopped pressuring Arab states on
their human rights records or pushing them to resolve the Palestinian issue. His administration abandoned the Iran nuclear deal
and instead pursued what it called a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. But once again, attempts to impose a regional
order backfired. His tight embrace of these Arab states and Israel encouraged the worst instincts of those governments,
including aggressive interventionism that inevitably accelerated civil wars and state failures across the region, from Yemen to
Libya and Syria. Stepped-up repression at home only increased domestic instability and the risk of renewed uprisings, while
Israel’s rapidly accelerating seizures of Palestinian lands triggered repeated crises.
To the dismay of those regional allies, Trump’s tight embrace proved to have limits. His refusal to retaliate against Iran after the
unprecedented attack on two key oil installations inside Saudi Arabia in 2019 proved especially sobering to the region’s leaders.
If the friendliest American administration in memory could not be counted upon to respond militarily to such a transgressive
attack, could any U.S. security guarantees be trusted?
NO MORE LIP SERVICE

Biden’s concept for the region shows that this vision of regional order endures among the region’s leaders and in Washington
policy circles, despite all the conflict and human misery it has generated. Arab regimes have adapted quite effectively to
Washington’s demands and have proved quite effective at pushing back on any U.S. efforts to change policies. Members of the
Biden team are, for the most part, creatures of the Clinton administration who believe they learned the right lessons from both
the Obama and Trump years. But ironically, the Middle East they hope to design more resembles the regional order attempted
by President George W. Bush.
What’s telling about the Biden team’s embrace of the Bush-era model of regional order is what it leaves out: the “freedom
agenda.” Bush may have given up notions of promoting democracy in the Middle East once Hamas won Palestinian legislative
elections in 2006, but the administration’s rhetoric about democratic change at least offered some positive vision for regional
order. On his recent trip to Saudi Arabia, Biden abandoned that completely. That’s understandable for an administration that
wanted to mend relations with Arab leaders and avoid anything that might antagonize them. But it has real costs.
Arab autocracy was the glue holding together the U.S.-led regional order in both the 1990s and the first decade of this century.
The 2011 Arab uprisings undid that in ways that are still not fully appreciated. They did not produce sustainable democratic
transitions anywhere, with Tunisia’s presidential coup in July 2021 sealing the fate of one of the few that had emerged. Today’s
Arab autocrats want Washington to believe that there has been a full restoration of the old order, that democracy is now off the
table, and that they are firmly back in control. The dismal economic indicators in most of the region, exacerbated by COVID-19,
along with Russia’s war in Ukraine and the repeated explosions of popular mobilization in unexpected places such as Algeria,
Iraq, Lebanon, and Sudan, suggest that this faith is misguided.
A DIFFERENT WORLD
Even setting aside the likelihood of new mass uprisings, the region today looks quite different from previous eras of U.S.-led

Even setting aside the likelihood of new mass uprisings, the region today looks quite different from previous eras of U.S.-led
regional order. Today’s Middle East is internally multipolar, with Arab power shifted from the traditional heartlands of the
Levant and Egypt to the Gulf, and non-Arab states such as Turkey, Israel, and Iran increasingly involved. Existential regime
insecurity following the shock of 2011, combined with the proliferation of failed states and civil wars, shifted the logic of
intervention and changed the balance of power. Obama’s refusal to intervene directly in Syria, Trump’s refusal to respond to the
Saudi oil attacks, and Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan fundamentally changed Arab leaders’ view of the United States as a
security provider.
At the same time, this is not a period of U.S. dominance. That isn’t to say that there is anything like a new bipolarity or even
multipolarity in the world. Russia was always more of a spoiler than a competing pole to U.S. power, and it is now consumed by
its war in Ukraine. China has not yet made a bid to translate its rapidly growing economic presence into political or military
influence, and for the most part, it shares core U.S. interests such as keeping Gulf oil flowing.
But even without a true peer competitor, the United States simply does not have the resources or the political capabilities to
play the role of hegemon in the Middle East. Regional powers no longer believe the United States can or will act militarily to
defend them. The Arab uprisings taught these autocratic leaders that Washington could not guarantee the survival of regimes
that worked toward U.S. interests. Their nationalist posturing and relentless complaint of abandonment by Washington are not
just a bargaining position aimed at securing more U.S. arms and political support (though they are that). They also reflect Arab
states’ increased capabilities and their profound feelings of insecurity. Attempting ineffectually to reassure these states will go
nowhere: their doubts are too deep, and American capabilities and political will are too obviously insufficient.
This sounds like a bad thing, but it doesn’t have to be. Rather than attempt to rebuild an order whose foundations have eroded
beyond repair, a better approach would be to encourage the moves countries took on their own to de-escalate regional tension
in the absence of American leadership. Over the last year, the UAE rebuilt its relations with Qatar and Turkey, cease-fires took
hold in Yemen and Libya, and Saudi Arabia even held preliminary talks with Iran. The United States’ moves to build a united front
against Iran—escalating arms sales and reaffirming security guarantees—could prove deeply counterproductive to these local
efforts. The more that Washington moves to expand its military and political commitments to lead a new regional order, the less
stable the region will likely become.
The region has been profoundly disordered since 2011, and its problems have been legion. But how order is rebuilt has profound
consequences, and outdated conceptions of order will rapidly contribute to more failure. Today, the Gulf is a more independent
region, with Arab states willing and able to act without regard to a superpower patron. But outside of a few wealthy Gulf states,
the region is also a patchwork of warscapes and a place where ever-fiercer autocrats are barely holding on in the face of massive
and mounting economic problems. Despite recent cease-fires, conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen continue to smolder and could
reignite at any time. Autocrats and kings across the region project stability and normalcy, but in reality, both economic and
political conditions are worse today than on the eve of the 2011 uprisings. In the absence of any hope for a two-state solution or
any serious international restraint on its occupation, Israel’s relentless expansion into the West Bank and the ongoing siege of
Gaza could spark another crisis at any moment.
At the same time, the United States is a mess, consumed by political infighting and polarization. Washington has largely
abandoned even the pretense of promoting democracy or human rights. Advocates in Israel and the Gulf argue that the
Abraham Accords provide a vision for the region around which an order can be built, but all evidence suggests that Arab publics
overwhelmingly reject the idea of normalization with Israel without a resolution of the Palestinian issue. An order relying on
autocratic regimes to suppress public opinion rather than building an order that commands legitimacy beyond the palaces will
not be a stable or enduring one.
It would be ironic indeed if this order ended as did Clinton’s 1990s regional order—in an unnecessary and disastrous war.
Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 fatally ruptured the Obama effort to build an alternative order.
Biden could not overcome the toxic effects of that. With the Iran nuclear deal dead, it is all too easy to envision the same steady
slide toward U.S. support for a regime change war in Iran. To be sure, Biden has avoided discussing the use of force against Iran,
and his withdrawal from Afghanistan gives some credibility to his determination to avoid another large-scale war. But pressure
to take decisive action will grow as the choices narrow down to accepting a nuclear Iran or acting militarily to prevent it. The
path Biden is taking to rebuild regional order makes that disastrous outcome more likely.

PAK INDIA TRADE
''The two countries [Pakistan and India] have already come close to nuclear confrontation
twice
and this could get worse. So dealing with the relationship with India is extremely
important.''
--Noam
Chomsky
PAK INDIA TRADE

• Trade between Pakistan and India has a complex and historically fraught relationship.
• The two neighboring countries share a long border and have significant economic potential,
• but their political and security tensions have often impacted trade ties.
1. Historical Context:
• Before the partition of British India in 1947, trade between regions that are now Pakistan and
India was seamless and substantial.
• After partition, trade links were disrupted, and hostilities erupted over the Kashmir region,
leading to several wars and ongoing political tensions.
2. Bilateral Trade Statistics:
• Pakistan and India have sporadically engaged in trade over the years, but it has been relatively
limited compared to their potential.
• In 2012, both countries took steps to normalize trade relations by granting each other Most
Favored Nation (MFN) status, which was later renamed Non-Discriminatory Market Access
(NDMA).
• In 2019-2020, bilateral trade between Pakistan and India was valued at approximately $2
billion, with Pakistan exporting goods like agricultural products and textiles to India and
importing items like chemicals and machinery.
3. Trade Barriers:
• Despite some normalization efforts, various barriers hinder Pakistan-India trade, including:
• Political Tensions: Ongoing political disputes, particularly over Kashmir, have led to trade
suspensions and disruptions.
○ Security issues have led to trade interruptions, including the suspension of trade via the
Wagah-Attari border crossing in 2019.
5. Non-Tariff Barriers:
○ Both countries have imposed non-tariff barriers, such as stringent product standards and
lengthy customs procedures.
○ Public Sentiment: Public sentiment often influences trade relations, and incidents of
violence can escalate tensions.
4. Potential Benefits:
• Improved trade relations between Pakistan and India could bring several advantages:
○ Economic Growth:
▪ Enhanced trade could stimulate economic growth in both countries by creating
jobs and increasing business opportunities.
○ Stability:
▪ Reducing political tensions through trade could lead to regional stability.
○ Energy Cooperation:
▪ Both nations could benefit from cross-border energy trade.
5. Geostrategic Implications:
• The trade relationship between Pakistan and India is intertwined with their broader
geopolitical and security concerns.
• Progress in trade relations could help pave the way for more extensive diplomatic
engagement.

engagement.
6. Recent Developments:
• no significant breakthroughs in Pakistan-India trade relations.
• The status of bilateral trade was subject to political dynamics and security concerns.

East west Tensions
''The whole so-called Western bloc formed by the US in its own image and likeness is the''
empire of lies''
Vladimir
Putin
Pres. Of
Russia
EAST WEST TENSIONS

• several East-West tensions in the realm of geopolitics and international relations.
• These tensions involved a range of countries and issues.
• It's important to note that the situation may have evolved since then:
1. Russia-West Tensions:
• Ukraine Crisis:
○ The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, particularly Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014
and support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine,
○ had strained relations between Russia and Western countries, including the United
States and European Union.
○ Sanctions were imposed on Russia in response.
• Cyberattacks and Disinformation:
○ Accusations of Russian involvement in cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns
targeting Western governments and organizations had contributed to tensions.
2. China-West Tensions:
• South China Sea:
○ Disputes over territorial claims in the South China Sea involving China, neighboring
countries, and the United States had led to heightened tensions. The U.S. conducted
freedom of navigation operations in the area to challenge China's claims.
• Trade and Economic Disputes:
○ Trade tensions between China and the United States had escalated into a trade war,
with tariffs imposed on each other's goods.
3. Iran-West Tensions:
• The United States had withdrawn from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2018,
• leading to increased tensions with Iran.
• Negotiations to revive the JCPOA were ongoing in 2021.
4. North Korea-West Tensions:
• North Korea's nuclear weapons program and missile tests had continued to be a source of
concern and tensions in the East-West relationship.
• Diplomatic efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula were sporadic.
5. Belarus-EU Tensions:
• Belarus faced criticism and sanctions from the European Union and the United States
○ due to the disputed presidential election in 2020 and the subsequent crackdown on
protests.
• The forced landing of a passenger plane in Belarusian airspace in May 2021 further
exacerbated tensions.
6. Middle East Tensions:
• Ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, including
○ the Syrian civil war,
○ Yemeni civil war, and
○ regional rivalries involving Iran and Saudi Arabia,
contributed to complex East-West dynamics in the region.
7. NATO-Russia Relations:
• NATO-Russia relations had been strained since Russia's annexation of Crimea.

• NATO-Russia relations had been strained since Russia's annexation of Crimea.
• NATO had increased its military presence in Eastern Europe as a deterrent, which was
viewed with concern by Russia.
It's important to recognize that these tensions are multifaceted and involve a combination of
political, economic, military, and strategic factors. Geopolitical tensions can have significant
global implications, affecting not only the countries directly involved but also the stability and
security of regions and the international order as a whole.
For the most current information on East-West tensions, I recommend consulting recent news
sources and official statements from governments and international organizations.

Us-Iran Relation
"There is no doubt that the United States will not achieve success with this new plot against Iran
as they are retreating step by step.''
--Hassan Rouhani,
The Iranian president,
“Today, five innocent Americans who were imprisoned in Iran are finally coming home,”
-Joe Biden On
celebrating the release of
5 American prisoners from Iran
September 18, 2023.
US-Iran Relation
U.S.-Iran relations have been characterized by decades of tension and conflict.
1. Historical Background:
• U.S.-Iran relations have a complex history.
• Prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the United States maintained a close alliance with Iran
• under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
• The U.S. provided military and economic support to the Shah's regime.
• Iranian Revolution (1979):
○ The Iranian Revolution, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,
○ resulted in the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of an Islamic Republic.
○ This event drastically changed the dynamics of U.S.-Iran relations.
• Hostage Crisis (1979-1981):
○ The U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, during which 52 American diplomats were held captive for 444 days,
▪ was a major turning point.
○ The hostage crisis damaged diplomatic relations between the two countries and
○ led to the severing of formal diplomatic ties.
Major Driving Forces

1. Sanctions:
○ The United States imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran over the years.
○ These sanctions targeted various aspects of Iran's economy,
▪ including its oil exports, banking sector, and military.
2. Nuclear Deal (JCPOA):
○ In 2015, the U.S. and other world powers negotiated the JCPOA with Iran.
○ The agreement aimed to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
▪ The deal imposed strict limits on Iran's uranium enrichment and
▪ allowed for international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
○ The JCPOA faced criticism from some quarters, particularly in the U.S.
○ Many opponents argued that it did not go far enough in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
3. Trump Administration and JCPOA Withdrawal (2018):
○ In May 2018, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA.
○ He argued that the deal did not do enough to address Iran's regional activities and missile program.
○ Following the withdrawal, the U.S. reimposed sanctions on Iran,
○ pursuing a "maximum pressure" policy.
4. Tensions and Escalations:
○ The period following the JCPOA withdrawal witnessed heightened tensions.
○ There were several incidents in the Persian Gulf region,
○ including the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone by Iran in 2019.
○ Attacks on oil tankers were also reported.
○ The U.S. blamed Iran for these incidents, while Iran denied involvement.
○ These events raised concerns about the potential for a military conflict in the region.
5. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani (2020):
In January 2020, the U.S. conducted a drone strike in Baghdad, Iraq,

○ In January 2020, the U.S. conducted a drone strike in Baghdad, Iraq,
○ targeting and killing Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force.
○ The strike escalated tensions and led to retaliatory missile attacks by Iran on U.S. military bases in Iraq.
6. 2021 Presidential Transition and Diplomacy:
○ In January 2021, Joe Biden assumed the U.S. presidency.
○ His administration expressed a desire to return to the JCPOA
▪ if Iran came back into compliance with its nuclear commitments.
○ Diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S. and other parties, were ongoing in Vienna in 2021
▪ to revive the JCPOA.
○ These negotiations aimed to find a path forward for both the U.S. and Iran to return to compliance with
the nuclear deal.
It's important to note that U.S.-Iran relations are influenced by a range of factors, including regional conflicts,
geopolitical considerations, and domestic politics in both countries. The situation can change rapidly, and diplomatic
efforts play a crucial role in managing and resolving disputes between the two nations. For the most up-to-date
information, it's essential to consult recent news sources and official statements from relevant governments.
IMPACT ON THE REGION

• The longstanding tensions and developments in U.S.-Iran relations have had significant impacts on the ME
region,
• these effects have also reverberated to some extent in Pakistan.
Impact on the Middle East:
1. Regional Conflicts and Proxy Wars:
▪ The U.S.-Iran rivalry has played out in various regional conflicts across the Middle East.
▪ Both have supported opposing factions in conflicts
□ Viz the Syrian Civil War, Yemeni Civil War, and the broader Sunni-Shia divide,
▪ exacerbating these conflicts.
2. Yemen:
▪ the most direct and devastating consequence: the Yemeni Civil War.
▪ Iran has been accused of providing support to Houthi rebels,
▪ while the U.S. has backed the Saudi-led coalition.
▪ This war has caused immense suffering and humanitarian crises in Yemen.
3. Syria:
▪ In Syria, Iran has supported the Assad regime, while the U.S. has supported various rebel
groups.
▪ This conflict has led to a massive humanitarian crisis and displacement of Syrians.
4. Iraq: U.S.-
▪ Iran tensions have also played out in Iraq,
▪ where Iranian-backed militias and U.S. forces have at times been in direct conflict.
▪ The situation in Iraq remains highly fragile due in part to these tensions.
5. Lebanon:
▪ Hezbollah, a Shia militant group backed by Iran, has a significant presence in Lebanon.
▪ The group's activities and the U.S. designation of it as a terrorist organization have been a point
of contention.
6. Arms Race and Militarization:
▪ The ongoing tensions have prompted some countries in the region to engage in an arms race,
▪ seeking advanced weaponry and military alliances.
▪ This has contributed to an increasingly volatile and militarized Middle East.

Impact on Pakistan:
1. Balancing Act:
○ Pakistan shares a border with Iran and has historically maintained a balanced approach in its relations
with both the United States and Iran.
○ Pakistan has close ties with both countries and has sought to mediate or facilitate dialogue during
periods of heightened tension.
2. Economic Implications:
○ Pakistan has economic interests in the region, particularly regarding energy and trade.
○ The U.S. sanctions on Iran have affected Pakistan's plans to import natural gas and electricity from
Iran.
○ Pakistan has faced challenges in balancing its energy needs with its international obligations.
○ Pakistan has also been affected by regional security dynamics.
○ The instability in neighboring Afghanistan and its impact on terrorism and militancy
○ has had repercussions for Pakistan's security.
4. Diplomatic Efforts:
○ Pakistan has occasionally played a role as a mediator or facilitator in U.S.-Iran relations
○ due to its cordial ties with both countries.
○ Pakistan has a vested interest in promoting stability in the region to prevent spillover effects on its own
security.
In summary, the ongoing tensions and conflicts in U.S.-Iran relations have had profound implications for the
Middle East, contributing to regional instability, conflicts, and humanitarian crises. Pakistan, as a
neighboring country, has been impacted economically and faces security challenges due to regional
instability. Pakistan's diplomatic efforts in mediating between the U.S. and Iran reflect its desire for regional
stability and its strategic interests in maintaining good relations with both countries. However, it's important
to note that the situation in this region is highly fluid, and developments can change rapidly, potentially
affecting Pakistan and the broader Middle East in various ways.

NUCLEARIZATION OF ASIA
''Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a
mousetrap.''
– Albert
Einstein
NUCLEARIZATION OF ASIA
• refers to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the presence of nuclear-armed states in
the Asian continent.
• Asia is home to several nuclear-armed countries, including China, India, Pakistan, North
Korea, and Israel.
• The nuclear dynamics in Asia have significant implications for regional and global security.
Nuclear-Armed States in Asia:
1. China:
○ China is one of the world's nuclear-armed powers,
○ with a well-established nuclear arsenal.
○ Its nuclear doctrine emphasizes a no-first-use policy,
○ which means China commits not to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict.
2. India:
○ India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 and declared itself a nuclear weapons
state.
○ India's nuclear posture includes a credible minimum deterrent and a commitment
to a no-first-use policy,
○ though there has been some debate about the latter in recent years.
3. Pakistan:
○ Pakistan conducted its nuclear tests in 1998 in response to India's nuclear tests.
○ Pakistan's nuclear posture is characterized by a focus on deterrence against India,
○ with a belief in first-use in certain scenarios if its security is threatened.
4. North Korea:
○ North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK),
○ is known to possess nuclear weapons.
○ Its nuclear program has led to international tensions and sanctions.
○ North Korea's intentions and the scope of its arsenal remain subjects of concern.
5. Israel:
○ While Israel has never officially confirmed its nuclear weapons program,
○ it is widely believed to possess a significant nuclear arsenal.
○ Israel's policy is one of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its
possession of nuclear weapons.

Causes of Nuclearization in Asia:
○ Many Asian countries cite security concerns as a primary driver for nuclearization.
○ Historical and regional conflicts, particularly between India and Pakistan,
○ have led to the acquisition of nuclear weapons to deter perceived threats.
2. Great Power Rivalry:
○ The rivalry between major powers, particularly the United States and China,
○ has implications for the nuclear dynamics in the region.
○ The presence of U.S. alliances with countries like Japan and South Korea can
influence nuclear decision-making.
3. Prestige and Nationalism:
○ Some countries in Asia view possessing nuclear weapons as
▪ a source of national pride and
▪ a symbol of their status on the global stage.
○ This has motivated nuclear programs in certain cases.
Consequences and Challenges:
1. Regional Instability:
a. The nuclearization of Asia has contributed to regional instability, with nuclear-armed
states engaged in territorial disputes and conflicts. The presence of nuclear weapons
can escalate tensions and make conflicts more dangerous.
2. Arms Race:
a. The development of nuclear arsenals in Asia has triggered arms races and the
proliferation of ballistic missile technology. Neighboring countries often perceive the
need to match their adversaries' capabilities, leading to a cycle of proliferation.
3. Non-Proliferation Concerns:
a. The presence of nuclear weapons in Asia raises concerns about nuclear non-
proliferation and arms control efforts. It challenges the principles of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
4. Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution:
a. Efforts to reduce tensions and promote diplomacy in the region are essential.
International diplomacy, including talks with North Korea and confidence-building
measures between India and Pakistan, remains crucial for stability.
In conclusion, the nuclearization of Asia is a complex and multifaceted issue with far-reaching
implications for regional and global security. Managing nuclear tensions, preventing further
proliferation, and promoting conflict resolution through diplomatic means are critical challenges in
the region. The actions and policies of nuclear-armed states in Asia have a significant impact on
the stability and security of the continent and the broader international community.

Nuclear weapons in South Asia
The three-body problem
The arsenals of China, India and Pakistan are growing.
But the countries are not yet in an arms race
For most of the 75 years since India and Pakistan became independent states, at midnight
on 15th August 1947, nuclear weapons have cast a shadow over South Asia. China got the
bomb in 1964, two years after thumping India in a border war and forcing its policymakers to
confront their country’s vulnerabilities. India showed it too could build one with a
demonstrative explosion just a decade later. Pakistan was a screwdriver’s turn away by the
1980s. In 1998, both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear-weapons tests, making official
what was already an open secret.
Yet, in many ways, all three countries were hesitant nuclear powers. China did not deploy a
missile capable of hitting the American mainland until the 1980s. When India and Pakistan
fought a war over Kargil, in the disputed region of Kashmir, in the summer of 1999, India’s
air force, tasked with delivering the bombs if needed, was not told what they looked like, how
many there were or the targets over which they might have to be dropped.
All that has changed. China has been adding hundreds of new missile silos in recent years.
When Pakistan celebrated its 60th birthday in 2007 it had roughly 60 nuclear warheads.
Fifteen years on, that number has nearly tripled (see chart). The combined arsenals of China
(350 warheads), India (160) and Pakistan (165), though modest by American and Russian
standards (several thousand each), now exceed British and French stockpiles in Europe
(around 500 in total). All three countries are emulating the American and Russian practice of
having a nuclear “triad”: nukes deliverable from land, air and sea. South Asia’s nuclear era is
entering a more mature phase.
That need not mean a more dangerous one. A new report by Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie
Endowment, a think-tank in Washington, explores the dynamics among Asia’s three nuclear
powers. Since 1998, most Western attention has focused on the risk of a conflagration
between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. That danger persists. Yet the risk of an arms race
has been exaggerated, argues Mr Tellis, a former State Department official
India’s arsenal has grown slowly, he observes—it remains smaller than Pakistan’s—and its
nuclear posture remains “remarkably conservative”. The comparison with the nuclear behemoths is
instructive. America and Russia both maintain huge arsenals designed to enable so-called
counterforce strikes—those which pre-emptively target the other side’s nuclear weapons to limit the

counterforce strikes—those which pre-emptively target the other side’s nuclear weapons to limit the
damage they might do. That means their arsenals must be large, sophisticated and kept on high
alert.
In contrast, China, India and Pakistan, despite their manifold differences, all view nukes as
“political instruments” rather than “usable tools of war”, argues Mr Tellis. Both China and
India, for instance, pledge that they would not use nuclear weapons unless an adversary
had used weapons of mass destruction first, a commitment known as “no first use”. America
disbelieves China’s promise, much as Pakistan doubts India’s. But the Chinese and Indian
arsenals are consistent with the pledges, insists Mr Tellis.
He calculates that if India wanted to use a tactical (or low-yield) nuclear weapon to take out
a Pakistani missile on the ground, it would have to do so within a few minutes of the
Pakistani launcher leaving its storage site. That is implausible. India does not have missiles
that can launch within minutes of an order, nor those accurate to within tens of metres of
their target. And, for now, China’s rocketeers also train and operate on the assumption that
their forces would be used in retaliation. The result is that things are more stable than the
swelling arsenals suggest.
There are two wrinkles, though, and both concern China. The Pentagon says that China’s
arsenal could expand to 1,000 warheads by 2030, as it seeks to overwhelm American
missile defences and narrow the numerical gap with its chief rival. If that comes to pass,
India might fear that its comparatively meagre arsenal no longer serves as a credible
deterrent. If India has fewer warheads, it will want to be sure they can inflict unacceptable
damage on Chinese cities. But the thermonuclear device which India tested in 1998 was
widely considered to have fizzled.
The real problem, though, is not so much the number of weapons as what China might be
able to do with them. India gets by with a small arsenal because it is highly secretive about
the location of its nukes—the same approach that China has taken for most of its history. Yet
improvements in surveillance technology (such as new spy satellites), artificial intelligence that can
find patterns in huge amounts of data and cyber-espionage against nuclear command-and-control
networks could one day pierce “the veil of opacity”, warns Mr Tellis. That, in combination with more
warheads and more accurate missiles, might enable China to “hold at risk almost every Indian
nuclear-storage site”, a prerequisite of counterforce.
It is, in part, to hedge against such a destabilising rupture that India has decided to hide its
nukes in the ocean. Its first nuclear-armed submarine, the Arihant, began patrols in 2018.
Another, the Arighat, is undergoing sea trials. Two more are under construction. But Mr
Tellis doubts that India, despite extensive Russian help, has been able to build a sufficiently
compact and powerful naval nuclear reactor for extended spells at sea, and a vessel quiet
enough to remain undetected.
The conventional wisdom is that a cascade is under way: America and Russia are
abandoning arms control; China races to catch up with America; India pursues China;
Pakistan follows. The reality is more complex, insists Mr Tellis. China has an eye on India,
too. India increasingly pays more attention to China than to Pakistan. And Pakistan—
specifically, its powerful army—is set on its own path, its programme “increasingly driven less by
what India is actually doing and more by its fervid imaginings of Indian capabilities”.
In one sense, nuclear weapons are stabilising. They preclude, among their possessors, the
big wars that have roiled South Asia through its
history. But they do not prevent small or peripheral ones. And the terror they evoke can be
exploited. Pakistani generals have used their nuclear shield to harbour jihadists. China might
one day seek to emulate Russia’s use of nuclear threats in Ukraine to keep America from
intervening in a war over Taiwan.
South Asia’s nuclear future will depend on whether nuclear conservatism withstands the
pressures of power politics and the temptations of technology. The direction of China’s

pressures of power politics and the temptations of technology. The direction of China’s
arsenal does not offer grounds for optimism.

''We continue to urge China and other claimants

to work constructively to resolve these disagreements,
so that the South China Sea - which is so vital to the global economy -
can be defined by commerce and cooperation.''
--Barack Obama
SOUTH CHINA SEE DISPUTE

• a complex and longstanding territorial and maritime conflict
• involving multiple countries in Southeast Asia and
• has been a source of regional tension for many years.
• The main points of contention revolve around
○ sovereignty claims,
○ territorial disputes, and
○ access to the strategic waterway.
Key Actors and Claims:
1. China:
○ China has the most expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea,
○ demarcated by the "nine-dash line."
○ This line encircles much of the sea, covering areas also claimed by other nations.
○ China claims sovereignty over numerous islands, reefs, and shoals,
○ including the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands.
2. Taiwan:
○ Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China (ROC), also
○ claims sovereignty over the same areas as China.
○ Taiwan's claims are similar to China's, and
○ it has stationed military forces on some of the disputed islands.
3. Vietnam:
a. Vietnam has sovereignty claims over parts of the South China Sea,
b. including the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands.
c. Vietnam has occupied certain features in the Spratly and
d. has engaged in territorial disputes with China.
4. Philippines:
○ The Philippines has claims in the South China Sea,
○ primarily focused on the Spratly Islands.
○ In 2016, the Philippines won a case against China at the Permanent Court of
Arbitration(PCA)
▪ ruled that ''China's historical claims within the nine-dash line had no legal basis.''
○ However, China rejected the ruling.
5. Malaysia:
○ Malaysia also claims parts of the Spratly Islands and has sovereignty over some features
in the South China Sea.
○ Malaysia's claims overlap with those of China, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
6. Brunei:
○ Brunei claims a portion of the South China Sea
○ but has a relatively small and less contested claim compared to its neighbors.

Key Issues and Causes:
1. Territorial Disputes:
a. At the heart of the conflict are territorial disputes over various islands, reefs, and shoals.
These disputes are often fueled by competing historical narratives and resource-rich
waters.
2. Resource Riches:
a. The South China Sea is rich in fisheries and is believed to contain substantial oil and
natural gas reserves. Control over these resources is a significant driver of the disputes.
3. Strategic Importance:
a. The South China Sea is one of the world's busiest and most important maritime routes. It
facilitates a significant portion of global trade, including oil shipments. The control and
militarization of key features in the sea could impact freedom of navigation.
Consequences and Concerns:

1. Escalation Risks:
○ Tensions in the South China Sea have the potential to escalate into military conflicts,
○ particularly if there are confrontations between naval or coast guard vessels.
2. Impediment to Diplomacy:
○ The disputes have made regional diplomacy more challenging.
○ Negotiating a peaceful resolution to these disputes is complicated by competing
territorial claims.
3. International Concerns:
○ The international community is concerned about the disputes' impact on
▪ freedom of navigation,
▪ adherence to international law, and
▪ the potential for wider regional instability.
International Law and Arbitration:
• The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is
○ a crucial legal framework for resolving maritime disputes.
○ The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
○ which rejected China's claims within the nine-dash line, was based on UNCLOS
principles.

principles.
• However, China has rejected the arbitration ruling, asserting its historical claims as a basis for
its sovereignty in the South China Sea.
Efforts at Conflict Resolution:
• Diplomatic efforts, such as
▪ the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC) in the South China Sea
▪ and the ongoing negotiations for a Code of Conduct (COC),
○ have aimed to manage tensions and promote peaceful resolution.
○ These negotiations involve China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) member states.
In conclusion, the South China Sea dispute is a complex and multifaceted issue with significant
geopolitical and economic implications. Managing and resolving these disputes peacefully is crucial
for regional stability and international security. However, achieving a comprehensive and lasting
resolution remains a challenging task, given the competing interests and historical claims of the
involved parties.

Implications of Russia-Ukraine Conflict
IMPLICATIONS OF RUSSIA UKRAIN CRISIS

• The Russia-Ukraine crisis, which began in 2014, has significant implications for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and
the broader international community.
• This crisis has its roots in historical, political, and ethnic factors, and it has evolved into a complex and ongoing
conflict with a range of consequences:
1. Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty:

○ Ukraine:
▪ The most immediate and fundamental implication for Ukraine is the violation of its territorial integrity
and sovereignty. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and ongoing support for separatist
movements in Eastern Ukraine (Donbas region) challenge Ukraine's control over its territory.
○ Russia:
▪ Russia's actions have led to international condemnation, sanctions, and diplomatic isolation. Its
actions in Ukraine have strained its relations with Western countries and organizations.
2. Humanitarian Consequences:
○ Displacement:
▪ The conflict has caused a significant humanitarian crisis, with hundreds of thousands of people
internally displaced in Ukraine, and many others have fled to neighboring countries. Humanitarian
organizations are providing assistance, but the situation remains dire.
○ Casualties:
▪ The conflict has resulted in casualties, including civilian deaths and injuries, affecting the lives of
Ukrainians in the conflict zones.
3. Security in Europe:
○ European Security:
▪ The crisis has had a profound impact on European security. It has undermined the post-Cold War
security order and raised questions about the security assurances provided by international
agreements.
○ NATO:
▪ Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO has been complicated by the ongoing conflict. NATO member
countries have provided support to Ukraine, but the conflict presents challenges for NATO's
relationship with Russia.
4. Diplomatic Efforts:
○ Minsk Agreements:
▪ Diplomatic efforts have been made to resolve the conflict,
▪ including the Minsk agreements brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE).
▪ However, implementation has been slow, and there have been violations by both sides.
5. Sanctions and Economic Impact:
○ Sanctions:
▪ Western countries, including the United States and the European Union, have imposed sanctions on
Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine.
▪ These sanctions have had economic consequences for Russia.
○ Economic Impact:
▪ Ukraine's economy has been adversely affected by the conflict, with disruptions to trade,
infrastructure, and investment.
6. Geopolitical Implications:
○ West-Russia Relations:
▪ The crisis has strained relations between Western countries and Russia,
▪ leading to increased tensions in other areas, such as Syria and cyber warfare.
○ Russian Geopolitical Goals:
▪ Russia's actions in Ukraine have been seen as part of a broader strategy
▪ to assert influence in its neighbourhood and challenge Western dominance.
7. Energy Security:
○ Gas Supplies:
▪ Ukraine is a key transit route for Russian gas exports to Europe.
▪ The conflict has raised concerns about energy security in Europe and prompted efforts
▪ to diversify energy sources and routes.
8. Global Norms and International Law:
○ Norms and International Law:
▪ Russia's actions have challenged international norms and principles,
▪ including the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.

▪ including the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.
▪ The crisis has underscored the importance of upholding international law and norms.
9. Ongoing Conflict:
○ Despite various ceasefire agreements and diplomatic efforts, the conflict in Eastern Ukraine continues,
○ with periodic flare-ups of violence. The ongoing instability has long-term implications for the region.
In conclusion, the Russia-Ukraine crisis has far-reaching implications, affecting not only the immediate parties
involved but also the broader international community. It has challenged the post-Cold War security order, tested
international norms and principles, and created a complex and ongoing conflict with significant humanitarian and
geopolitical consequences. The resolution of the crisis remains a pressing challenge for regional and global
stability.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PAKISTAN

The Russia-Ukraine crisis has several implications for Pakistan, despite its geographical distance from Eastern
Europe. Here are some of the key ways in which the crisis affects Pakistan:
1. Diplomatic Balancing Act:
○ Pakistan has historically maintained a close relationship with Russia and the United States.
○ The crisis has put Pakistan in a delicate diplomatic position as it seeks to balance its relations with both
countries.
○ Pakistan has to navigate its ties with the U.S., which has imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the
crisis,
○ while also strengthening its relations with Russia.
2. Regional Stability:
○ The crisis in Ukraine has highlighted the importance of regional stability for Pakistan,
○ given its proximity to conflict zones in Afghanistan.
○ The instability in Eastern Europe serves as a reminder of the challenges posed by conflict in neighbouring
regions and the potential for spillover effects.
3. Energy Security:
○ Pakistan has an interest in energy security, and the crisis has implications for global energy markets.
○ Any disruptions in energy supplies from Russia or Europe can have indirect consequences for Pakistan's
energy situation,
○ given its reliance on imported energy resources.
4. Implications for International Security Norms:
○ Pakistan, like Russia, has faced criticism and scrutiny over its nuclear program.
○ The crisis in Ukraine and Russia's actions have raised questions
○ about the international community's commitment to upholding the principles of
▪ non-interference and
▪ respect for territorial integrity,
○ which are relevant to Pakistan's own security concerns.
5. Economic Relations:
○ Pakistan has been exploring economic opportunities with Russia, including trade and investment.
○ The crisis may impact these economic relations, particularly if sanctions against Russia expand and affect
bilateral trade.
6. Global Impact on Security:
○ The crisis has a global impact on security dynamics, with implications for nuclear disarmament, arms
control, and the broader international security architecture.
○ These developments can indirectly affect Pakistan's own security interests.
7. Refugee Flow and Humanitarian Concerns:
○ While Pakistan is not a direct destination for Ukrainian refugees,
○ the crisis underscores the potential for large-scale displacement during conflicts.
○ As a country with its own share of refugee issues, Pakistan may be interested in the humanitarian aspects
of the crisis
○ and the role of international organizations in providing assistance.
In summary, while Pakistan is not directly involved in the Russia-Ukraine crisis, it does have diplomatic, economic, and
security interests that are affected by the ongoing conflict. Pakistan's foreign policy and diplomatic efforts are crucial in
managing its relations with the parties involved in the crisis and in navigating the broader geopolitical implications for
the region and the world.
SOLUTION
The Russia-Ukraine crisis is a complex and deeply entrenched conflict with historical, political, and security
dimensions. Finding a lasting solution to this crisis requires a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach
involving diplomatic, political, and humanitarian efforts. Here are some potential solutions:
1. Diplomatic Negotiations:
○ Renewed Diplomacy:
▪ Engage in sustained, high-level diplomatic negotiations involving all relevant parties,
▪ including Ukraine, Russia, and key Western and regional actors viz NATO.
▪ This could build on existing initiatives like the Normandy Format and the Minsk agreements.

▪ This could build on existing initiatives like the Normandy Format and the Minsk agreements.
○ International Mediation:
▪ Seek the involvement of a neutral third-party mediator or mediators, such as
□ the United Nations (UN),
□ the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),
□ or individual countries with diplomatic credibility.
2. De-escalation and Ceasefire:
○ Immediate Ceasefire:
▪ Call for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine to halt the ongoing violence
and provide humanitarian relief to affected areas.
○ Disengagement Zones:
▪ Establish disengagement zones and demilitarized areas in conflict zones to reduce the risk of
clashes and civilian casualties.
○ Access to Humanitarian Aid:
▪ Ensure safe and unhindered access for humanitarian organizations to deliver essential aid, including
food, medicine, and shelter, to the affected population.
○ Protection of Civilians:
▪ Prioritize the safety and protection of civilians in conflict-affected areas, including children, women,
and vulnerable populations.
4. Respect for International Law:
○ Adherence to International Law:
▪ All parties should commit to respecting international law,
▪ including the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity
▪ as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
○ Compliance with Rulings:
▪ Encourage parties to abide by international legal rulings, such as
□ the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling
□ on maritime entitlements in the South China Sea.
5. Confidence-Building Measures:
○ Exchange of Prisoners:
▪ Facilitate the exchange of prisoners of war and detainees as a confidence-building measure.
○ Civilian Protection:
▪ Establish mechanisms to protect civilians, their property, and critical infrastructure.
6. Political Dialogue:
○ Inclusivity:
▪ Promote an inclusive political dialogue that involves representatives from all parts of Ukrainian
society, including the conflict-affected areas.
○ Autonomy and Decentralization:
▪ Explore options for greater autonomy and decentralization within Ukraine, respecting the diverse
identities and aspirations of different regions.
7. Economic Reconstruction:
○ Reconstruction Efforts:
▪ Invest in post-conflict economic and infrastructure reconstruction efforts to rebuild affected regions
and create opportunities for local populations.
○ Economic Incentives:
▪ Explore economic incentives and development projects that can help stabilize the region and
improve the living conditions of the population.
8. Confidence and Security-Building Measures:
○ Arms Control:
▪ Negotiate and implement arms control agreements to reduce the risk of military escalation,
▪ including limitations on troop deployments and military exercises in sensitive areas.
○ Monitoring Mechanisms:
▪ Establish international monitoring mechanisms
□ to oversee the implementation of agreements and
□ verify compliance.
9. Civil Society and Track II Diplomacy:
○ Engage Civil Society:
▪ Encourage civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and track II
diplomacy initiatives to play a role in building bridges between conflicting parties and fostering
dialogue.
10. International Community's Role:
○ International Support:
▪ Encourage the international community to provide political, economic, and humanitarian support to
facilitate the implementation of a negotiated settlement.
It's important to recognize that finding a solution to the Russia-Ukraine crisis is a long and challenging process
that will require sustained efforts and compromises from all parties involved. A comprehensive and inclusive

that will require sustained efforts and compromises from all parties involved. A comprehensive and inclusive
approach, supported by the international community, is essential to achieving a lasting peace in the region.

The Global Food Crisis Shouldn’t Have Come As a Surprise

How to Finally Fix the Broken System for Alleviating Hunger
By Christopher B. Barrett | July 25th, 2022
The world’s agricultural and food systems face a perfect storm. Overlapping crises, including the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, wars in Ukraine and elsewhere, supply chain bottlenecks for both
inputs like fertilizer and outputs like wheat, and natural disasters induced by climate change have
together caused what the United Nations has called “the greatest cost-of-living crisis in a
generation.” World leaders cannot afford to ignore this unfolding catastrophe: rapidly increasing
food prices not only cause widespread human suffering but also threaten to destabilize the political
and social order. Already, along with skyrocketing energy costs, surging food prices have helped
bring about the collapse of the Sri Lankan government.
But storms are increasingly predictable, and severe damage from them is therefore increasingly
preventable. This is true of the current food crisis as well as extreme weather events. Political and
business leaders have for too long ignored key fissures such as insufficient safety net coverage and
lags in agricultural and policy innovations that leave agri-food systems—and the billions of people
whose lives or livelihoods depend on them—vulnerable to the effects of other calamities. If the
global response to the current food emergency likewise neglects these critical points, it may
inadvertently exacerbate underlying problems, worsen and prolong unnecessary human suffering,
and accelerate the arrival of the next perfect storm. Conversely, serious efforts to address not only
the current crisis but also the long-standing issues that have helped cause it could move the world
toward healthier, more equitable, resilient, and sustainable agri-food systems. World leaders and
international organizations have a chance to make food emergencies and widespread acute hunger
problems of the past; they must not let this crisis go to waste.
A CRIPPLING FOOD INSECURITY CRISIS

The clearest evidence that the world is in the throes of a food emergency is the spike in food prices:
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that global food prices were
23 percent higher in May 2022 than they were a year earlier. Moreover, they are now more than 12
percent higher than at the peak of the 2008–12 global food price crisis, a disaster that cast tens of
millions of people back into poverty and sparked political unrest in dozens of countries. Indeed, the
social and political upheaval across the Middle East that led to the 2010–11 Arab uprisings was
partly driven by the high cost of food.
Dramatic increases in food prices pose severe health risks, including acute malnutrition or even
famine, particularly in the developing world. According to the World Food Program (WFP), a record
number of up to 323 million people are now, or are at risk of soon becoming, acutely food insecure
(the technical term for nutrient intake deficiencies that puts a person’s life or livelihood in
immediate danger). In more than a dozen desperately poor countries—Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina
Faso, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya,
Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe—hundreds of millions of people already
face severe food insecurity. In the absence of adequate, appropriate, rapid humanitarian response,
many people will die unnecessarily.
There is more than enough food in the global system to go around. Even amid the current crisis,
global daily food supplies average roughly 3,000 calories, 85 grams of protein, and 90 grams of fat
per person, far exceeding human metabolic needs for a healthy life. The core drivers of hunger and
malnutrition are poverty and maldistribution, including excessive food loss and waste, not
insufficient agricultural production. Today, roughly three billion people are too poor to afford a

insufficient agricultural production. Today, roughly three billion people are too poor to afford a
healthy diet and perhaps a billion more could soon suffer similarly. Higher food prices
disproportionately hurt the poor for the simple reason that they spend a far larger share of their
income on food. Without adequate safety nets, preferably ones that are triggered automatically for
people with incomes below a certain threshold or when food prices rise too high, people suffer
unnecessarily.
History and the current crisis sadly show that Western politicians’ discretionary responses routinely
prove insufficient and may even aggravate preexisting inequities. In Ukraine, for instance, the global
humanitarian response has been laudably swift. As a result, it is not among the countries facing food
emergencies, despite the fact that Russia’s invasion has driven more than 12 million Ukrainians from
their homes. Nor are high food prices causing mass hunger among displaced Ukrainians. Yet in
Yemen, which has suffered a terrible civil war for eight years, the WFP estimates that a record 19
million people are food insecure. If the international community were equally generous where
brown-skinned peoples similarly face war and acute food insecurity, the global food system would
have adequate supplies to address the problem.
BUILD BETTER SAFETY NETS

If the international community is serious about addressing the food crisis—and about fixing a global
agri-food system that leaves vulnerable and marginalized communities unevenly exposed to hunger
and famine—it must build better safety nets. Food price spikes only cause mass malnutrition when
safety nets are inadequate. The world has ample food supplies to feed everyone a healthy diet, even
in the face of natural and manmade disasters. But it lacks mechanisms to trigger responses that
equally protect people in locations less geopolitically important than Ukraine, or among populations
of the global South that may be less visible to leading Western governments. Establishing automatic
global safety nets, through a combination of financial arrangements contractually triggered by
disasters and treaty commitments among governments, could build effective safeguards that are
increasingly needed with climate change.
The G-7 countries just pledged an additional $4.5 billion for emergency global food assistance, which
sounds generous. Unfortunately, that brings global commitments up to only $14 billion, less than
one-third of the $46 billion in current total humanitarian appeals worldwide. And international aid is
down amid the pandemic. The massive costs that governments have shouldered to fund domestic
COVID-19 responses have understandably limited humanitarian spending abroad. But penny
pinching by the world’s richest countries risks precipitating crises in the coming years that could be
far greater, in both monetary cost and human suffering, than the current crisis.
Policymakers must also work to address humanitarian emergencies promptly and fully, or risk
downstream crises that could be far more serious. Ignoring food emergencies doesn’t make them go
away nor cheaper to address later. In fact, it often leads to more challenging problems that are more
difficult to tackle, mostly because higher food prices and greater acute food insecurity are strongly
associated with forced migration. When people grow desperate to feed their families, they take
risks, most commonly by fleeing their homes. Any humanitarian agency can attest that it’s far more
expensive to meet the needs of displaced people than it is to help people in their own homes before
circumstances compel them to leave. And the number of displaced people is growing. At the end of
2021, there were already a record 89 million people forcibly displaced, even before Russia’s invasion
drove 12 million Ukrainians to flee their homes.
Moreover, there are steep sociopolitical costs to the failure to address humanitarian needs, both in
countries that need assistance and in those that might provide it. High food prices lead to an
increased risk of conflict and political unrest in countries with weak social safety nets. Roughly four
dozen countries experienced domestic political unrest or civil war during the 2008–12 global food
price crisis. Governments in Haiti, Libya, Madagascar, and Tunisia fell, sometimes violently, and
protracted civil wars erupted in Syria and Yemen.
Those problems can also spill over into high-income countries. Europe’s migrant crisis began in 2011

Those problems can also spill over into high-income countries. Europe’s migrant crisis began in 2011
with mass unrest across North Africa and West Asia over spikes in food prices; it culminated in 2015
when waves of Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, and others fleeing civil war sought refuge in Europe. The
nationalist, anti-immigrant domestic political response that predictably followed heralded a distinct
rightward shift in European—as well as U.S.—politics over the last decade. Russian President
Vladimir Putin may be looking to replicate Europe’s migrant crisis by aggravating the preexisting
global food crisis.
Indeed, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine didn’t cause the food price crisis so much as it aggravated an
already existing problem. Global food prices were already rising quickly before the war. Although
food prices fell during the very beginning of the pandemic, they rose rapidly through last year—in
October 2021, they blew past the December 2010 prior global food price record. Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine and blockade of its Black Sea ports certainly accelerated this trend by disrupting wheat,
sunflower oil, maize, and fertilizer exports, driving global food prices up 18 percent just from January
to March 2022. Nonetheless, global food prices peaked a month into the invasion and have since
tapered off slightly in response to reasonably favorable growing conditions in other major producing
countries, the rising risk of recession in major economies, and an agreement to open a Black Sea
corridor to evacuate Ukrainian export commodities. This is because the supply shock arising from
the Ukraine war is relatively small. Of the roughly three billion tons of grain produced globally each
year, the loss of perhaps half of Ukraine’s exports—which is likely the upper bound—implies a
supply shock of less than one percent. That’s less than what was lost to the severe 2012 drought in
the United States’ Midwest—not enough to cause a crisis.
TIME FOR NEW TRADE AGREEMENTS

As they craft a response to the current food emergency, policymakers should also assess the need
for a global agreement to tie governments’ hands when domestic political forces agitate for export
bans. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not the only cause of the February–March rise in food prices.
Ill-advised export bans by a few major food-producing countries looking to insulate domestic
consumers from rising global market prices also contributed to this spike in costs. India banned
wheat exports, Indonesia blocked palm oil exports, and China prohibited the export of agrichemicals.
Repeating errors made during the 2008–12 global food price crisis, several governments caved to
domestic political pressures and imposed export bans in the hope that they could prevent global
price shocks from affecting domestic markets. Such policies inevitably quickly fail. Meanwhile, bans
temporarily fuel faster and greater—if short-lived—price increases among importers that must
scramble to find new suppliers to fill interrupted supply chains, temporarily jacking up prices in the
process.
Only about one-quarter of the food consumed globally depends on international trade. Trade
doesn’t feed the global population so much as it stabilizes prices, dispersing varied demand and
supply shocks across the world quite effectively. No nation can be reliably self-sufficient and
adequately nourished. The world needs orderly trade regimes to absorb the shocks that inevitably
occur, especially as climate change progresses. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was created
during a period of steadily falling real food prices; they hit an all-time low in December 1999.
Because its rules were negotiated during an era of falling prices, the WTO has effective tools to limit
governments’ ability to indulge domestic political pressure for protectionism around imports that
lead to lower prices. But when prices rise, the protectionist impulse concerns exports, not imports,
and the WTO lacks corresponding agreements to constrain governments’ ability to restrict exports.
New trade agreements to rectify this oversight are needed if the world is to get a handle on food
prices.
REIMAGINING THE AGRI-FOOD SYSTEM

Policymakers must also recognize the urgent need to promote innovation in agri-food systems.
Through greater investment in research and development and more creative policies, it would be
possible not only to boost agricultural productivity but also to reduce food loss and waste, and the
demand for agricultural commodities as livestock feed and transport fuel, rather than food. An
enormous structural problem in the agri-food system is that demand for grains and oilseeds for
biofuels, and especially for animal feed, has grown far faster than the demand for food.

Public agricultural research and development has a very high return on investment. Yet U.S. public
investment in agricultural research has fallen by one-third over the past two decades, and ongoing
investments remain heavily concentrated in refining traditional crops and methods. Part of the
problem is that governments and policymakers often look for short-term results, whereas the most
effective agri-food innovations pay off handsomely over years and decades. Among long-term
innovations, governments should be investing in circular systems that can recycle waste products
into fertilizers and feed; controlled environment agriculture that can reduce land, pesticide, and
water use and crop loss to pests and pathogens; and alternative proteins that can produce healthy,
tasty products at a fraction of the agrichemical, land, and water costs of current systems. They must
also push for the institutional and policy innovations that can encourage private investment in these
new technologies.
Private investment in agri-food systems is far larger than state investments but only slightly better,
tending to concentrate on luxury goods and services rather than on projects that could address high
food prices and mass acute food insecurity. Although rising food prices in 2021 boosted venture
capital agri-food tech funding up to $52 billion, an 85 percent increase over 2020, the largest single
category was online grocery shopping. Although it is an understandable response to COVID-19
lockdowns, fancy delivery apps do little to nothing to reduce food insecurity, greenhouse gas
emissions, biodiversity loss, or water stress, and they may aggravate the global obesity epidemic.
The estimated $26 billion it would cost to eliminate global hunger represents less than one percent
of the $2.7 trillion in cash on hand in early 2022 among the 500 companies listed on the S&P index. If
governments built policy and institutional innovations to attract even a modest fraction of that
money to tackle the underlying imbalances that leave the world vulnerable to perfect storms like the
one it faces now, that would be a game changer for accelerating agri-food systems transformation.
Real leadership—from the private, philanthropic, and public sectors—will manifest in championing
smart and substantial investment in agri-food systems transformation.
Like extreme weather events, perfect storms that cause mass acute food insecurity are happening
more and more often. It took 35 years for the world to experience another food crisis after 1973–74,
but less than a decade after the 2008–12 disaster for the current emergency to hit. Policymakers,
international organizations, and the private sector must develop an appropriate, timely, and
sufficient humanitarian response regime—not only to avoid unnecessary human suffering now but
also to address the larger-scale, longer-term challenges that leave the world increasingly vulnerable
to food crises precipitated by a wide range of shocks. These key points—safety nets, immediate
action, limits on export bans, better research and development, and thoughtful investment—must
guide public and private policy. Policymakers must address the immediate global food emergency
with prompt and generous humanitarian aid and orderly international trade. They must also marshal
the major research and development investment and policy and institutional innovations necessary
to bend the arc of agri-food systems away from increasingly frequent and calamitous crises and
toward a healthier, more equitable, resilient, and sustainable world.

KHALISTAN MOVEMENT
there are "credible reasons" to believe that Indian agents may have been behind the murder
of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil.
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau
BBC Report
• The Khalistan movement is a contentious and complex issue

• That has its roots in the demand for an independent Sikh state called Khalistan.
• This movement gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s,
• primarily in the Indian state of Punjab, which has a significant Sikh population.
Historical Context:
1. Partition of India (1947):
○ The demand for Khalistan can be traced back to the partition of India in 1947
○ when the country was divided into India and Pakistan.
○ Sikhs, who had a distinct religious and cultural identity,
○ faced significant challenges during this period, including displacement and violence.
2. Punjab's Role:
○ Punjab, which is the heartland of Sikhism, was divided between India and Pakistan
during partition.
○ The Indian state of Punjab became home to a substantial Sikh population.
3. Anandpur Sahib Resolution:
○ In the 1970s, the demand for Khalistan began to gain momentum.
○ The Anandpur Sahib Resolution, adopted by the Akali Dal (a prominent Sikh political
party),
▪ called for greater autonomy for Punjab.
○ It did not explicitly demand an independent Sikh state but became a rallying point for
separatist sentiment.
Key Events in the Khalistan Movement:

Key Events in the Khalistan Movement:
1. Operation Blue Star (1984):
○ One of the most significant events: the Indian gov's military operation to remove armed
militants
▪ who had fortified themselves inside the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar.
○ This operation, known as Operation Blue Star, led to the death of many militants and
civilians
○ and caused widespread outrage among Sikhs.
2. Assassination of Indira Gandhi (1984):
○ In retaliation for Operation Blue Star, PM Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh
bodyguards in 1984.
○ This event triggered anti-Sikh riots in which thousands of Sikhs were killed in Delhi and
other parts of India.
3. Continued Violence:
○ The 1980s and early 1990s witnessed significant violence in Punjab
○ as militants, Indian security forces, and various political factions clashed.
○ This period was marked by bombings, assassinations, and human rights abuses.
4. Decline of the Movement:
○ By the mid-1990s, the Khalistan movement had largely lost its momentum.
○ Indian authorities managed to control militancy in Punjab,
○ and many separatist leaders either surrendered or were arrested.
CURRENT STATUS
• There are an estimated 26 million Sikhs around the world, according to the London School of
Economics (LSE).
• Canada has the largest Sikh community outside India,
• with about 770 K people having reported their religion as Sikh in the 2021 census.
• Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has intensified the pursuit of Sikh
separatists and arrested dozens of leaders from various outfits allegedly linked to the

separatists and arrested dozens of leaders from various outfits allegedly linked to the
movement.
• The Khalistan movement has seen some support in diaspora Sikh communities, particularly in
Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.
• Prominent Khalistan activists killed

Hardeep Singh Nijjar
On June 18, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, 45, was shot dead outside a Sikh gurdwara in Surrey,
a Vancouver suburb with a large Sikh population,
three years after India had designated him a “terrorist”.
• Nijjar supported the demand for a Sikh homeland and was reportedly organising an unofficial
referendum in India for an independent Sikh nation at the time of his death.
• Nijjar was born in 1977 in Punjab’s Jalandhar district and he moved to Canada in 1997.
• He was initially associated with the Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) Sikh separatist group,
○ according to India’s counterterrorism National Investigation Agency.
• New Delhi has listed BKI as a “terrorist organisation” and says it is funded by Pakistan’s Inter-
Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, a charge Islamabad denies.
INDIA-CANADA RELATIONS
• Following Trudeau’s claims that India had a role in the killing of Nijjar,
• tensions between Canada and India have escalated.
• India suspended issuing visas to Canadian citizens amid the escalation,
• citing “security threats” disrupting work at its missions in Canada.
• Also, in a tit-for-tat move, India expelled one of the top Canadian diplomats last week
• after Canada’s foreign minister expelled Pavan Kumar Rai,
• the most senior member of India’s foreign intelligence agency operating in Canada.
A row between India and Canada surrounding Sikh independence, commonly referred to as the
Khalistan movement, continues to cause tensions.

****National Issues****

''FATA merger with KP is a big win for Pakistan''

-- Imran Khan
Fata Merger in Pakistan

• The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) merger in Pakistan refers to a significant
constitutional and administrative change that took place in Pakistan in 2018.
• The government merged (FATA) with (KP) in 2018 through 25th Constitutional Amendment.
• FATA was a region in northwestern Pakistan that historically had a separate administrative and
legal framework from the rest of the country. This merger aimed to integrate FATA into the
mainstream administrative and political structure of Pakistan.
1. Historical Background:
• FATA was a historically marginalized and underdeveloped region of Pakistan.
• It had a unique legal status under the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR),
• which granted the government extensive powers to maintain law and order
• but also led to allegations of human rights abuses.
2. Reasons for Merger:
Several factors contributed to the decision to merge FATA into the neighboring province of
(KP):
a) Socioeconomic Development:
○ FATA was one of the least developed regions in Pakistan, lacking basic infrastructure,
education, healthcare, and economic opportunities.
b) Security Concerns:
○ FATA had been a stronghold for various militant groups, and its separate status made it
challenging to address security issues effectively.
c) Political Representation:
○ The people of FATA had limited political representation and lacked a voice in Pakistan's
national and provincial legislatures.
3. Legal and Administrative Changes:
To effect the merger, several changes were made:
a) Abolition of FCR:
○ The FCR, which had been in place for over a century, was abolished.
○ This marked the end of the special legal framework in FATA.
b) Extension of Pakistani Laws:
○ Pakistani laws were extended to FATA,
○ bringing the region under the same legal system as the rest of the country.
c) Creation of Provincial Seats:
○ FATA was allocated seats in the KP Provincial Assembly,
○ allowing its residents to elect representatives to the provincial legislature.
d) Socioeconomic Development:
○ The government announced plans to invest in infrastructure development, education,
healthcare, and other sectors in FATA
○ to bring it on par with the rest of the country.

4. Political and Cultural Implications:
• The merger had political and cultural implications for the Pashtun population of FATA.
• Some welcomed the change as it promised better governance and representation,
• while others were concerned about losing their distinct identity and culture.
5. Implementation Challenges:
• The process of merging FATA faced various challenges, including
○ administrative restructuring,
○ security concerns during the transition, and
○ ensuring that the development funds allocated for the region were effectively utilized.
6. Impact and Future:
• The impact of the FATA merger is an ongoing subject of debate.
• Supporters argue that it will lead to greater development, improved security, and political
empowerment for the people of the region.
• Critics are concerned about the potential loss of cultural identity and the ability to address
local issues effectively.
In conclusion, the FATA merger in Pakistan was a significant step toward mainstreaming a historically
marginalized and underdeveloped region. While it aimed to address various challenges, the long-
term success of the merger depends on effective governance, development initiatives, and ensuring
the rights and representation of the people of FATA within the broader Pakistani context.
❖ OPINION
THE government wants the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan to shun militancy and play
their role in mainstream politics. On their part, the TTP demand that the government
withdraw its troops from the now merged areas of erstwhile Fata, repeal the 25th
Amendment of the Constitution to reverse Fata’s merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and
implement the Sharia in Malakand Division. That much we seem to know. Right? But have
you ever wondered what the people of those districts want?
According to a poll survey in 2016 by the Fata Research Centre, 68 per cent of the respondents
in the ex-Fata region demanded the full abolishment of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR)

in the ex-Fata region demanded the full abolishment of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR)
and the introduction of a new governance system. The study further highlighted that 74pc of
the respondents endorsed the option of merging Fata with KP. The idea of restructuring Fata
as a separate province was endorsed by 26pc of the respondents.
Recently in 2021-22, the Community Resilience Activity North, a project sponsored by the UN
and working in collaboration with the concerned district administrations, was implemented in
the newly merged districts of KP to help the local communities build resilience against any
community stressors and increase social cohesion for community development. The project
was also meant to bridge the information gap between local communities and the newly
established government departments for better and improved working of the latter to provide
specific services to the communities where none existed before the merger in 2018.
Working as a consultant and trainer for this project, I happened to gain some insights into local
conditions and the persistent issues that were limiting the success of any development in the
region. Most local people I interacted with through community resilience workshops, seemed
to be losing hope and developing grievances about the new system. The reasons were often
different for the youth and the elders.
The merger has exposed the growing ideological gap between the elders and the youth
of the tribal districts.
The majority of youth living in the ex-Fata areas tended to support the process of the merger
in principle because they were not happy with the past system of FCR or the dictatorial powers
of the political agent. They were also not happy with the overwhelming influence of
community elders who, through the jirga system, played the role of intermediary between the
political agent and the common people.
Many elders, youth, and government officials have said that the merger afforded them
constitutional rights, like any other citizen of Pakistan. Many among the youth expressed their
optimism that they would now be able to appeal against the jirga’s decisions as well as
approach the higher courts in search of justice. This, they hoped, would give them a chance to
a fair trial and just and timely decisions. They also seemed happy to be saved from the
collective and territorial responsibility which was a cruel part of the FCR. The establishment of
new government departments offering all kinds of services after the merger also promised
more developmental work, a better law and order situation, relative peace, stability and
modern living facilities.
Women participants at these workshops particularly said that the previous system was very
repressive and that the jirga was manipulated by the rich and powerful. They talked about
how women face limitations and often go unheard and are not even allowed to be involved in
matters regarding their own lives. Female participants expressed their optimism over the new
reforms, hoping they would address the repression and limitations that women felt in the
previous system.
Some of the older people, however, believed that the old jirga system had ensured peace and
the quick dispensation of justice which was slow and faulty in the new system. They also
seemed to have grievances about losing the privileges they had as elders in the previous
system. They, however, still enjoy considerable influence in the community and people don’t
generally seem to oppose them openly. Some workshop participants, particularly senior
government officials, disagreed and claimed that the elders of the community do favour the
merger and reform process as they cooperate with the district administration.
But many people seemed extremely disappointed as their expectations from the merger and
promised reforms have not been fulfilled. They complained about the delays in the
administration of justice, the crime rate that has risen after the merger, and drug addiction
and corruption that have increased drastically. While some officials expressed frustration over
the lack of funds for the newly established departments, others believed that the process
through the merger was not smooth and a proper consensus had not been developed before

through the merger was not smooth and a proper consensus had not been developed before
taking this decision.
The merger also exposed the growing ideological gap and the perceptual difference between
the elders and today’s youth in the newly merged districts. Where the youth appeared to lose
the hopes they had from the merger because of unfulfilled promises and sluggish
performances, the elders’ concerns have been more about losing the privilege and control
they enjoyed previously.
There is an acute lack of awareness and trust in official procedures and services offered by the
newly established departments.
Compared to the pre-merger system the new system is not delivering. Reasons include the
lack of resources, no training of staff, lack of coordination between different departments,
local conflicts, confusion about procedures, delay in court decisions, damaged infrastructure,
the presence of extremist elements, and opposition from different segments of society. The
administration is unable to meet the people’s expectations, and public frustration with the
new system is growing while the security situation remains precarious.
Against the background of the current negotiations with the Taliban and their demand for the
reversal of the Fata merger, the need to engage the people of these areas by the government
and effectively address their grievances with assurances of a progressive future cannot be
stressed enough.
The writer is a consultant and researcher working on social issues, including building resilience
and cohesion in stressed communities.
Published in Dawn, July 18th, 2022

DISASTER MANAGEMENT
''We cannot stop natural disasters but we can arm ourselves with knowledge: so many lives
wouldn't have to be lost if there was enough disaster preparedness.''
--Petra
Nemcova
DISCUSS DISASTER MANAGEMENT IN PAKISTAN

• Disaster management in Pakistan is a critical and multifaceted endeavor
• due to the country's vulnerability to various natural and man-made disasters.
• Pakistan faces a range of hazards, including earthquakes, floods, droughts, landslides, and
terrorism.
• Effective disaster management involves preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery
efforts.
1. Institutional Framework:
i. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA):
○ Established in 2005, NDMA is the apex body responsible for
▪ formulating policies, plans, and guidelines for disaster management.
○ It coordinates disaster response efforts at the national level.
ii. Provincial Disaster Management Authorities (PDMAs):
○ Each of Pakistan's provinces has its own PDMA,
○ responsible for disaster management at the provincial level.
iii. District and Local Authorities:
○ District and local governments play a crucial role in disaster management and
response.
2. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR):
• Pakistan has adopted a comprehensive National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy
○ to reduce vulnerabilities and build resilience in communities.
○ This includes efforts to raise awareness, strengthen building codes, and improve
early warning systems.
• Earthquake-resistant building codes have been enforced in earthquake-prone areas.
3. Early Warning Systems:
• Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD) provides early warnings for weather-related
disasters,
• such as floods, cyclones, and droughts.
• The Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO)
○ contributes to disaster monitoring through satellite technology.
4. Response and Relief:
• Pakistan Army, along with other armed forces, plays a crucial role in disaster response and
relief operations.
○ They have significant resources and expertise in disaster response.
• The National Disaster Risk Management Fund (NDRMF) was established
○ to provide financial resources for disaster response and recovery efforts.
5. Community Engagement:
• Local communities play a vital role in disaster preparedness and response.
• Various NGOs and civil society organizations work to educate and involve communities in
DRR efforts.
• Community-based early warning systems have been established in some disaster-prone
areas.
6. Challenges:
• Limited Resources:
○ Pakistan often faces resource constraints in dealing with large-scale disasters,
which can hinder response and recovery efforts.

○ which can hinder response and recovery efforts.
• Climate Change:
○ The impact of climate change, including more frequent and severe floods and
droughts,
○ poses a growing challenge to disaster management.
• Urbanization:
○ Rapid urbanization and inadequate urban planning
○ contribute to vulnerabilities in densely populated areas.
• Lack of Coordination:
○ Effective coordination among various government agencies, NGOs, and international
organizations can be a challenge during disaster response.
7. Lessons Learned:
• Pakistan has learned valuable lessons from past disasters, including the 2005 earthquake
and the 2010 and 2011, 2022 floods.
• These experiences have led to improvements in disaster preparedness and response.
In conclusion, disaster management in Pakistan is a complex and evolving field. Efforts have
been made to strengthen disaster preparedness, risk reduction, and response mechanisms, but
challenges remain. As the country continues to face a range of natural and man-made hazards,
ongoing investments in disaster management, capacity building, and community engagement
are essential to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance resilience.

BARTER TRADE IN PAKISTAN
• Barter trade, or the exchange of goods and services directly without the use of money,
• has a long and ancient history that predates the invention of currency.
1. Prehistoric Times:
• Barter trade can be traced back to prehistoric societies where early humans exchanged
goods like food, tools, and resources with one another based on mutual needs.
• The simplicity of bartering made it a natural form of trade in these early human
communities.
2. Ancient Civilizations:
• Many ancient civilizations, including the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans,
○ relied on barter trade extensively.
• These societies engaged in the exchange of agricultural products, livestock, textiles, and
other goods without a standardized medium of exchange.
3. Challenges of Barter:
• Barter trade faced several challenges, including the need for a "double coincidence of
wants,"
○ where both parties had to desire what the other had to offer.
• The lack of a common measure of value and issues related to divisibility and durability of
goods
• made barter less efficient as economies grew.
❖ OPINION:
In the backdrop of Pakistan’s trade shift to a barter economy, de-dollarisation or lower
dependency on the US dollar has set its strong foothold in the country; offering Pakistan to
revitalise its economy with less vulnerability from exchange rate risks, balance of payments crisis
and inflation.
In a strategic move, Pakistan recognised the potential of barter trade agreements with countries
Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia and implemented a “business-to-business barter trade mechanism
2023” on June 2; facilitating state-owned and private enterprises in Pakistan to engage in barter
trade with all three neighbouring countries. This shift aligns with the global trend towards de-
dollarisation; driven by geopolitical and economic factors.
Pakistan’s trade with Iran, Afghanistan and Russia has the innate potential to swell but US-led
trade curbs have always acted as a dampener; keeping the quadrilateral trade among all
neighbouring countries at ebb.
The bilateral trade volume between Pakistan and Iran has stood at around $2 billion. Similarly,
Pakistan’s trade volume with Russia stands at approximately $400 million. The trade volume
between Pakistan and Afghanistan is estimated to be around $1 billion. If executed in true letter
and spirit, the barter trade among Pakistan, Iran, Russia and Afghanistan will go manifold.
Meanwhile, before subscribing to barter trade agreements, Pakistan has also begun importing
various essential items from these countries. For instance, Pakistan is importing 100 MW of
electricity from Iran, addressing its energy needs through bilateral cooperation. Additionally,
Pakistan has initiated the import of crude oil, wheat, and other commodities from Russia.
Instead of payment in dollars, Pakistan will settle these transactions through the exchange of
commodities or goods, further reinforcing the de-dollarisation policy.

The barter trade mechanism is a shot in the arms of Pakistan limping economy. The country of
approximately 240 million people is facing significant challenges related to the balance of
payments crisis and soaring inflation which reached an alarming rate of nearly 38 per cent in
May 2023. Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves have dwindled to slightly above $4 billion, a level
that can barely sustain imports for a month, according to central bank data.
Barter trade presents numerous benefits for Pakistan’s economy. By exporting a wide range of
goods, including agricultural products, textiles, and sports equipment, Pakistan can showcase its
diverse offerings to international markets. Simultaneously, barter trade allows the country to
import vital commodities such as crude oil, LNG, and LPG from its trading partners, satisfying its
energy requirements and reducing dependence on traditional trading methods. Diversifying
imports, which would include industrial machinery, wheat and pulses, further supports
Pakistan’s industrial growth and overall economic landscape.
Many countries are diversifying their currency holdings and reducing reliance on the greenback
due to concerns about its stability and aggressive rate hikes.
As the world increasingly calls for trade to be conducted in currencies other than the US dollar,
Pakistan’s barter trade move paving the way for de-dollarization aligns with a broader global
trend. Many countries, including Brazil and Southeast Asian nations, are diversifying their
currency holdings and reducing reliance on the greenback due to concerns about its stability and
aggressive rate hikes by the US Federal Reserve. China, as the world’s second-largest economy,
has been at the forefront of the de-dollarization movement, further driving this shift in global
trade dynamics.
Effective implementation of barter trade and de-dollarization is key for Pakistan to capitalize on
the opportunities presented by this transformative shift. It positions Pakistan as a proactive
player in the evolving international financial system, strengthening its economic ties with
regional and global partners. Through careful planning and strategic execution, Pakistan can
harness the benefits of barter trade and de-dollarization to fuel economic growth, enhance
regional cooperation, and pave the way for a more prosperous future.
The barter trade system also presents an opportunity for Pakistan to address its energy
requirements. By exporting surplus agricultural products, Pakistan can secure the import of vital
commodities such as crude oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
from its trading partners. This not only fulfils Pakistan’s energy needs but also reduces its
reliance on traditional payment methods, such as the U.S. dollar, which can be subject to
exchange rate risks and volatility.
Moreover, the barter trade system enables Pakistan to diversify its import spectrum and support
its industrial growth. By importing industrial machinery, wheat, pulses, and other goods,
Pakistan can strengthen its manufacturing sector, improve productivity, and create new
employment opportunities. This, in turn, contributes to overall economic development and sets
the foundation for long-term growth.
These developments underscore the tangible progress that Pakistan has made in diversifying its
trade partners and reducing dependence on traditional payment methods. By capitalizing on the
potential of barter trade and embracing de-dollarization, Pakistan is poised to expand its trade
volumes, strengthen economic ties, and pave the way for sustained economic development.
The successful implementation of the barter trade system requires careful planning, effective
coordination among relevant stakeholders, and a supportive policy framework. Pakistan’s
government, in partnership with key industry players, needs to ensure seamless logistics,

government, in partnership with key industry players, needs to ensure seamless logistics,
transparent mechanisms, and efficient monitoring to facilitate the smooth operation of the
barter trade system. Additionally, the development of robust infrastructure and streamlined
customs procedures can further bolster the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.
As Pakistan forges ahead with its barter trade system, it sets a precedent for other countries
looking to diversify their trade relationships and reduce reliance on traditional payment
methods. This bold step towards economic development, driven by mutually beneficial
exchanges and strategic partnerships, positions Pakistan as an emerging player in the global
trade landscape. By embracing the barter trade system with Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia,
Pakistan is laying the groundwork for sustainable growth, greater economic stability, and a
prosperous future.
The writer is a senior Journalist. He is also President of Institute of International Relations and
Media Research (IIRMR).

JARANWALA INCIDENT & BLASPHEMY
"Jaranwala incident is extremely tragic and totally intolerable,

It is imperative for the youth to discern the difference between
truth, half-truth, lies, misinformation and disinformation,"
--COAS ASIM
MUNIR
• In a single day on 16 August 2023, around 19 churches in Jaranwala were ransacked.

• The mob rampaged through the prominent Christian areas of the city to accomplish its
dastardly mission,
○ had begun on the pretext of the Holy Quran being defiled by two Christian brothers.
• The vigilante mob had gathered strength from the neighborhood by exploiting their
religious emotions
○ that demanded that an act of blasphemy be responded to with equal force.
• According to the reports, an announcement was made through a mosque
○ calling upon the faithful to take revenge not from the two brothers who were
blamed for desecrating the Quran,
○ but from the entire community—from its children, its women, and its elders.
• In no time, the city was engulfed in hatred emanating from a story that had neither been
investigated nor reported to the police.
• Unfortunately, by the time the police took control of the situation, the damage had been
done.
• Police found evidence of a foreign conspiracy behind

○ the recent Jaranwala incident and
○ the Sargodha blasphemy case,
• hatched to divert attention away from the ill-treatment of the Christians community in
India,
○ Punjab Inspector General (IG) Dr Usman Anwar said on Monday.
❖ ISLAM & EXTREMISM
❖ RIGHTS OF NON-MUSLIMS IN PAKISTAN
BLASPHEMY LAWS IN PAKISTAN

• Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are a set of controversial/NOTORIOUS laws
• that make it a criminal offense to insult or defile religious beliefs or religious figures,
• particularly those of Islam.
• These laws have been a source of significant debate and concern,
• both within Pakistan and internationally.
1. Origins and History:
• Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are rooted in British colonial-era legislation,
○ with amendments and additions made over the years.
• The most well-known of these laws is Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code,
○ which specifically addresses blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad.
○ added in 1986 during the rule of General Zia-ul-Haq.
2. Types of Blasphemy Laws:
• Pakistan's blasphemy laws encompass various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code,
including:
○ Section 295: Prohibits defiling religious books, places of worship, and religious
symbols.
○ Section 295-A: Criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage
religious feelings.
Section 295-B: Addresses blasphemy against the Quran.

○ Section 295-B: Addresses blasphemy against the Quran.
○ Section 295-C: Pertains to blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad.
• Penalties for violations of these laws include fines, imprisonment, and, in the case of
Section 295-C, a mandatory death penalty.
3. Controversies and Concerns:
• Pakistan's blasphemy laws have faced widespread criticism for being vague and prone to
misuse.
• They are often used to settle personal scores, target religious minorities, and suppress
dissent.
• Allegations of blasphemy can lead to mob violence, extrajudicial killings, and vigilantism.
• International human rights organizations and governments have expressed concern
○ over the abuse of these laws and their impact on freedom of expression and
religious freedom.
4. Notable Cases:
• Several high-profile blasphemy cases in Pakistan have garnered international attention,
including
○ the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman
○ who spent years on death row before her acquittal in 2018.
○ Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab province, and
○ Shahbaz Bhatti, the federal minister for minorities,
○ were both assassinated in 2011 for advocating against the misuse of blasphemy
laws.
5. Reform Efforts:
• Calls for reforming or repealing blasphemy laws have
• come from various quarters within Pakistan and internationally.
• However, attempts to amend or repeal these laws have faced strong opposition from
religious conservative groups in Pakistan.
In summary, blasphemy laws in Pakistan are a contentious issue, with significant implications for
freedom of expression and religious tolerance. While there is ongoing debate about the need for
reform, these laws remain a highly sensitive and divisive topic within the country.
RISE OF RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM IN PAKISTAN

The rise of religious extremism in Pakistan is a complex and multifaceted issue that has had
significant social, political, and security implications for the country. Several factors have
contributed to the growth of religious extremism in Pakistan:
1. Historical Context:
○ Pakistan's history is intertwined with religious identity,
○ as it was founded as a homeland for Muslims during the partition of India in 1947.
○ This religious identity has played a central role in the country's identity and politics.
2. Socioeconomic Factors:
○ Poverty, lack of education, and limited economic opportunities
○ have created fertile ground for the recruitment of individuals into extremist groups.
○ These groups often exploit the disenfranchised and marginalized segments of
society.
3. Madrassas:
○ The proliferation of religious schools (madrassas) in Pakistan,
○ particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, contributed to the spread of extremist
ideologies.
○ Some madrassas have been known to teach radical interpretations of Islam
▪ and serve as recruiting grounds for extremist organizations.
4. Soviet-Afghan War:
○ Pak's involvement in the Afghan War against the USSR in the 1980s had a significant
impact.
○ The country served as a base for the Afghan mujahideen,
○ and many foreign fighters were trained and radicalized in Pakistan.
5. Policies of State and Military:
At various points in Pakistan's history, the state and elements within the military

○ At various points in Pakistan's history, the state and elements within the military
establishment
○ have been accused of supporting and tolerating extremist groups as proxies
○ in regional conflicts, including in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
6. The Rise of Taliban to power in Afg:
○ The rise of the Afghan Taliban and their subsequent influence on extremist groups
within Pakistan,
○ such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), has further fueled religious extremism.
○ These groups have carried out numerous attacks on Pakistani soil.
7. Laws and Legal Framework:
○ The existence of controversial blasphemy laws,
○ which have been used to target religious minorities and settle personal scores,
○ has also contributed to an environment conducive to extremism.
8. External Factors:
○ Regional dynamics, including the influence of external actors like Saudi Arabia and
Iran,
○ have played a role in shaping religious discourse and extremism within Pakistan.
9. Security Challenges:
○ Pakistan has faced significant security challenges from various extremist groups,
○ resulting in a high human and economic cost.
○ The military and law enforcement agencies have engaged in counterterrorism
operations to combat these groups.
Efforts to Counter Extremism:
○ Pakistan has taken steps to counter religious extremism, including military
operations, deradicalization programs, and efforts to regulate madrassas.
○ Civil society organizations and religious scholars have also been involved in
promoting a more moderate and tolerant form of Islam.
WAY FORWARD
1. Counter Narrative; public awareness
2. Swift Justice; Speedy trial like contempt of court
3. Operation against Extremists, just like Raddul Fasad

a. (Be named Radul Nafaq; operation against religious leaders;
b. make them condemn extremist incidents)
4. Role of Clerks and Scholars
5. Filtering out Religious Clerks and Scholars from System

○ Learning from Europe; French revolution 1789;
○ Est of Vatican City for clerics; ever since then Europe is making strides once they got
rid of clerics
○ Pakistan should est similar city like Vatican city, All molvies should be sent to 'molvi
city'
In conclusion, the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan is a complex issue deeply rooted
in historical, social, political, and economic factors. Addressing this challenge requires a
multifaceted approach that includes not only security measures but also efforts to address
socioeconomic disparities, reform religious education, and promote tolerance and
pluralism within society.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS IN PAKISTAN
“Pakistan is a sate like S.S Titanic leading towards a giant ice-burg

unless, it changes its course, soon its fate would be sealed."
--Stephen
Cohen
Political Crisis in Pakistan

Pakistan has experienced several political crises throughout its history.
1. Military Interventions:
• Pakistan has a history of military coups and interventions in its politics.
○ The country's first military coup occurred in 1958 when General Ayub Khan took power.
○ Subsequently, General Zia seized power in 1977,
○ followed by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999.
• These military interventions disrupted democratic processes and led to political instability.
2. Civil-Military Relations:
• One underlying cause: the often-tumultuous relationship between civilian governments and
the military.
• The military has played a dominant role in Pakistan's politics,
• with periods of direct military rule and indirect influence over civilian governments.
• Example: The 2007 dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
○ President Pervez Musharraf's decision to dismiss Chief Justice Chaudhry
○ led to widespread protests by lawyers and civil society.
○ It highlighted the tense relationship between the judiciary, the military, and the
government.
3. Corruption and Accountability:
• Corruption has been a pervasive issue in Pakistan's political landscape.
• Political leaders and institutions have often been accused of corruption,
• which erodes public trust and leads to protests and political turmoil.
• Efforts to hold leaders accountable have been met with resistance and controversies.
• Example: Panama Papers scandal (2016).
○ The Panama Papers leak revealed offshore companies
○ owned by Pakistan's then-Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, and his family.
○ This led to corruption allegations and calls for accountability,
○ eventually resulting in Nawaz Sharif's disqualification from office in 2017.
4. Ethnic and Regional Tensions:
• Pakistan is ethnically and regionally diverse, and these differences have sometimes led to
political crises.
• Regional grievances, such as those in Balochistan and Sindh,
• have fueled demands for greater autonomy or independence.
• These tensions can escalate into violent conflicts.
• Example: Balochistan insurgency.
○ The Balochistan region has seen a long-running insurgency,
○ with Baloch nationalist groups demanding greater autonomy
○ and a larger share of the province's resources.
○ This conflict has led to periodic violence and instability.
5. Economic Challenges:
• Economic instability and challenges, including inflation, unemployment, and fiscal deficits,
• have contributed to political unrest.
• Public dissatisfaction with economic conditions can lead to protests and demands for change.
• Example: Protests against inflation and economic hardship in 2020.

• Example: Protests against inflation and economic hardship in 2020.
6. Religious Extremism and Terrorism:
• Pakistan has grappled with religious extremism and terrorism for many years.
• Militant groups and terrorist attacks have disrupted daily life and created political crises.
• Balancing the fight against terrorism with political stability has been a significant challenge.
• Example: The attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar (2014).
○ The Taliban's attack on an APS resulted in the deaths of over 140 people, mostly
children.
○ This tragic incident highlighted the ongoing battle against terrorism
○ and the need for political and security stability.
7. Ethnic and Religious Minorities:
• Discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities has been a contentious issue in Pakistan.
• The treatment of minority groups and their political representation has sparked protests and
international criticism.
• Example: Persecution of religious minorities, such as Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims.
○ Religious minorities in Pakistan have faced discrimination and violence,
○ often resulting in protests and international criticism.
○ Blasphemy laws have been used to target minorities, leading to tensions and instability.
8. Fragile Democracy:
• Pakistan's democratic institutions have faced challenges in consolidating power and ensuring
stability.
○ Frequent changes in government,
○ allegations of election rigging, and
○ weak governance
• have hindered the development of a stable democratic system.
• Example: Allegations of election rigging in the 2013 general elections.
○ The 2013 elections were marred by allegations of rigging by various political parties,
○ particularly Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
○ This led to protests and a demand for an inquiry into the alleged irregularities.
These examples illustrate the multifaceted nature of political crises in Pakistan, ranging from
military interventions and civil-military tensions to economic challenges, ethnic and regional
conflicts, and issues related to governance, accountability, and religious extremism.
Pakistan has made efforts to address these challenges, but they continue to shape the
country's political landscape and stability. It's important to recognize that the situation in
Pakistan can change rapidly, and developments may have occurred since my last knowledge
update in September 2021.
To address political crises and ensure stability, Pakistan has made efforts to strengthen democratic
institutions, improve civil-military relations, and combat corruption.
Additionally, international partners, including the United States, have played a role in supporting
democratic processes and stability in Pakistan.
It's essential to note that Pakistan's political landscape is dynamic, and the situation can change
rapidly.
To understand the current political crisis in Pakistan and its implications, it is crucial to consult up-to-
date news sources and expert analysis.
ECONOMIC CRISIS
• Pakistan has faced various economic crises and challenges over the years,
• which have had significant implications for the country's stability and development.
• These economic crises are often intertwined with the political issues discussed earlier.
1. Balance of Payments Crisis:
○ Example: Balance of payments crisis in 2018.
○ Pakistan has a history of struggling with external financing gaps,
○ leading to balance of payments crises.
○ In 2018, Pakistan faced a severe balance of payments crisis
▪ that prompted the government to seek a bailout package from the (IMF).

▪ that prompted the government to seek a bailout package from the (IMF).
▪ The crisis was exacerbated by a large current account deficit and dwindling foreign
exchange reserves.
2. Fiscal Deficits and Debt Burden:
○ Example: Rising fiscal deficits and public debt.
○ Pakistan has experienced persistent fiscal deficits,
○ where government expenditures exceed revenues.
○ This has led to a growing public debt burden.
○ By 2021, Pakistan's public debt had risen significantly,
○ raising concerns about its long-term sustainability and the need for fiscal reforms.
3. Inflation:
○ Example: High inflation rates.
○ Inflation has been a recurring problem in Pakistan,
○ eroding the purchasing power of citizens.
○ In 2020, Pakistan faced high inflation rates,
○ which contributed to social unrest and protests against the rising cost of living.
4. Energy Crisis:
○ Example: Chronic energy shortages.
○ Pakistan has struggled with chronic energy shortages,
○ leading to frequent power outages.
○ The energy crisis has hampered industrial production and economic growth.
○ Various governments have attempted to address this issue, but it remains a significant
challenge.
5. Tax Collection and Informal Economy:
○ Example: Low tax-to-GDP ratio.
○ Pakistan's tax collection system has been inefficient,
○ resulting in a low tax-to-GDP ratio compared to its potential.
○ A significant portion of the economy operates in the informal sector
○ which evades taxation. Improving tax collection has been a longstanding challenge.
6. Structural Reforms:
○ Example: Implementation of structural reforms.
○ Implementing necessary structural reforms in sectors such as agriculture, industry, and
public administration
○ has been challenging due to political resistance and vested interests.
○ Reforms are crucial for sustained economic growth.
7. Foreign Investment and Trade:
○ Example: China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
○ While Pakistan has sought foreign investment and trade opportunities, such as the
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC),
○ concerns about transparency, governance, and security have affected the pace of
investment and trade development.
8. Unemployment and Informal Labor:
○ Example: Youth unemployment.
○ High levels of unemployment, particularly among the youth, have been a pressing issue.
○ The informal labor sector, which lacks job security and benefits, is a significant source of
employment for many Pakistanis.
Efforts have been made to address these economic challenges through IMF programs,
austerity measures, and reforms, but the road to economic stability and growth remains
challenging. The economic situation in Pakistan is closely linked to its political landscape, and
addressing economic crises often requires political will and cooperation between different
stakeholders. Furthermore, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have added another layer
of complexity to Pakistan's economic challenges, affecting various sectors, including
healthcare, tourism, and exports.
❖ Opinion:
Political stability and economic policies are closely interconnected and mutually influential.

Political stability and economic policies are closely interconnected and mutually influential.
The relationship between the two is dynamic and complex, with each factor affecting and being
affected by the other. Here's how they are interrelated:
1. Policy Formulation and Implementation:
○ Political stability provides a conducive environment for the formulation and effective
implementation of economic policies.
○ Stable governments are more likely to develop and execute consistent, long-term
economic policies that encourage investment, innovation, and growth.
2. Investor Confidence:
○ Political stability is a critical factor in attracting both domestic and foreign investment.
○ When a country has stable political institutions and leadership, investors are more
confident about the security of their investments.
○ This confidence can lead to increased capital inflows, which can stimulate economic
growth.
3. Policy Consistency:
○ Political instability often leads to frequent changes in government and policy direction.
○ These changes can result in policy inconsistency and unpredictability,
○ which can be detrimental to economic planning and decision-making for businesses and
individuals.
4. Reform Implementation:
○ Major economic reforms, such as trade liberalization, fiscal consolidation, and regulatory
changes,
○ often require political stability to be effectively implemented.
○ In unstable political environments, reforms may face resistance, delays, or reversals,
hampering economic progress.
5. Social Cohesion:
○ Political instability, including social unrest and conflict, can disrupt social and economic
activities.
○ This can lead to a breakdown of law and order, damage infrastructure, and disrupt
supply chains, all of which negatively impact economic growth.
6. Macroeconomic Stability:
○ Political stability is often associated with greater macroeconomic stability.
○ Stable governments are more likely to pursue prudent fiscal and monetary policies,
○ which can help control inflation, maintain exchange rate stability, and promote
economic stability.
7. Government Efficiency:
○ Political stability can enable governments to function more efficiently.
○ Stable governments are better positioned to build and maintain effective institutions,
○ which can improve the delivery of public services and enhance the business
environment.
8. Public Trust:
○ Political instability can erode public trust in government and its ability to manage the
economy.
○ This lack of trust can lead to reduced compliance with tax laws, decreased civic
engagement,
○ and a more challenging environment for implementing economic policies.
9. International Relations:
○ A stable political environment can also positively influence a country's international
relations.
○ It can lead to stronger diplomatic ties, better trade relationships,
○ and increased cooperation on economic matters,
○ which can be beneficial for economic growth.
10. Long-Term Planning:
• Political stability allows governments to engage in long-term planning for economic
development.
• This includes investments in education, infrastructure, and research and development,
• which can have positive impacts on a country's economic competitiveness.
In summary, political stability and economic policies are intertwined, and their relationship is

In summary, political stability and economic policies are intertwined, and their relationship is
crucial for a country's economic performance and development. A stable political environment
can provide the foundation for sound economic policies, while effective economic policies can,
in turn, contribute to political stability by promoting growth, reducing poverty, and improving
the well-being of citizens. Conversely, political instability can hinder economic progress, and
poorly designed economic policies can exacerbate political tensions and instability.
❖ Way forward for Pakistan:

The way forward for Pakistan involves addressing its complex challenges in various domains,
including politics, economics, security, and social development. Here are some key areas
where Pakistan can focus on making progress, along with examples of initiatives and policies:
1. Political Stability and Democracy:
• Strengthen Democratic Institutions:
▪ Pakistan can work to strengthen its democratic institutions
▪ to ensure a smooth transition of power and enhance political stability.
▪ efforts to promote fair and transparent elections,
▪ as well as ensuring the independence of the judiciary, are essential.
• Example:
▪ The successful completion of democratic elections in 2018,
▪ which led to a peaceful transfer of power from one civilian government to
another, is a positive step towards political stability.
2. Economic Growth and Stability:
• Fiscal Reforms:
▪ Implementing fiscal reforms to reduce budget deficits and manage public debt
▪ can enhance economic stability.
▪ Streamlining tax collection and improving revenue generation are crucial.
• Example:
▪ Pakistan's engagement with the (IMF) in 2019,
▪ which resulted in a loan program, included commitments to fiscal discipline and
reforms
▪ aimed at stabilizing the economy.
3. Investment in Human Capital:
• Education and Healthcare:
▪ Investing in education and healthcare can improve the skills and well-being of the
population,
▪ ultimately contributing to economic growth and reducing poverty.
• Example:
The "Ehsaas" program launched by the government
aims to address poverty and provide social safety nets,
including health and education support for marginalized communities.
4. Security and Counterterrorism:
• Effective Counterterrorism Strategies:
▪ Pakistan can continue to work on effective counterterrorism strategies
▪ to combat extremist groups and ensure internal security.
▪ Enhancing intelligence capabilities and international cooperation are essential.
• Example:
▪ Pakistan's military operations in areas like Swat and North Waziristan
▪ have been instrumental in reducing the influence of extremist groups.
5. Infrastructure and Connectivity:
• Infrastructure Development:
▪ Investing in infrastructure, including transportation and energy projects,
▪ can improve connectivity within the country and boost economic growth.
▪ Projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) aim to enhance
connectivity and trade.
• Example:
▪ CPEC is a prominent initiative that seeks to improve infrastructure and
connectivity,
▪ potentially transforming Pakistan's economic landscape.

▪ potentially transforming Pakistan's economic landscape.
6. Foreign Policy:
• Balanced Foreign Relations:
▪ Pakistan can work on maintaining balanced and constructive relations with
neighboring countries and global powers.
▪ Diplomacy and conflict resolution can help reduce regional tensions.
• Example:
▪ Pakistan's engagement in peace talks with India and cooperation in regional
forums like
▪ the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
▪ demonstrate efforts to improve regional relations.
7. Social Inclusion and Minorities:
• Protection of Minority Rights:
▪ Ensuring the rights and protection of religious and ethnic minorities
▪ can contribute to social harmony and stability.
• Example:
▪ Initiatives to protect minority rights and address issues such as forced conversions
have been discussed and implemented at various levels.
8. Environmental Sustainability:
• Climate Change Mitigation:
▪ Addressing environmental challenges, including climate change and water scarcity,
▪ is vital for Pakistan's long-term sustainability.
▪ Policies promoting renewable energy and water conservation are crucial.
• Example:
▪ Pakistan's efforts to promote renewable energy, such as wind and solar power
projects,
▪ contribute to both economic growth and environmental sustainability.
9. Corruption and Governance:
• Anti-Corruption Measures:
▪ Implementing effective anti-corruption measures and ensuring transparency in
government institutions
▪ can improve governance and public trust.
• Example:
▪ The establishment of institutions like the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)
reflects efforts to combat corruption.
10. Rule of Law and Justice:
• Strengthening the Legal System:
▪ Strengthening the rule of law, ensuring timely and fair access to justice,
▪ and improving the legal system can promote social stability and economic
development.
• Example:
▪ Initiatives to reduce case backlogs in the courts and improve legal access
▪ have been discussed and implemented.
These examples highlight various initiatives and policy directions that Pakistan can pursue to
address its challenges and move forward towards a more stable, prosperous, and inclusive
future. Collaboration among political leaders, civil society, and international partners is
essential to making sustained progress in these areas.

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global power dynamics; International relations

Monday, 2 October 2023 2:29 pm

Global power dynamics

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 1

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 2

Global power politics

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 3

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 4

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 5

Thank you for joining us from Pakistan.

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 6

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 7

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 8

US RUSSIA RIVALRY AND SUDAN CONFLICT

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 9

1. Negotiation and Diplomacy:

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 10

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 11

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 12

• On April 15, fighting broke out in Sudan between

• The RSF is the largest paramilitary group in Africa,

Background of the Sudan Conflict

○ There are over 500 ethnic groups in Sudan,

The Main Actors in the Sudan Conflict

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 13

○ The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

What About a Ceasefire?

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 14

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 16

The Middle East: Goodbye America, hello China?

Week in the Middle East

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 17

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 18

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 19

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 20

Early 20th Century:

U.S.-Saudi relations under the Biden administration:

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 21

FOREIGN AFFAIRS MAGAZINE

THE MYTHOLOGIES OF 1991

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 22

NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 23

NO MORE LIP SERVICE

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 24

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 25

PAK INDIA TRADE

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 26

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 27

EAST WEST TENSIONS

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 28

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 29

Major Driving Forces

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 30

IMPACT ON THE REGION

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 31

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 32

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 33

CA by Shehreyar Khan 2024 Page 34