Media coverage as well as the response to the Sudan crisis has been abysmal
Since the talks between the Transitional Military Council (TMC) and the Alliance for Freedom and Change have broken down, Khartoum has been plagued by violence. When the military capitulated to popular demand and brought an end to the 30-year long oppressive rule of Omar al-Bashir, the people rejoiced. Sudanese spirits were at a high much like the same demonstrators who managed to overthrow despots during the Arab Spring Uprising. Unfortunately, after that uprising it soon became clear that the military is often as authoritarian as its governmental counterpart. It cleverly employs a tactic of appearing to appease the people, allowing the dust settle which is then followed by strict military rule. Fortunately, the Sudanese appeared to have learnt from history as the Alliance for Freedom and Change called for a total civil disobedience campaign after the military’s very brutal crackdown on a protestors’ camp on 3 June when it refused to hand over authority to a civilian administration preferring to concentrate power in its own hands.
There have been serious human rights violations as the Central Committee for Sudanese Doctors (CSSD) has put the death toll at 118 victims while hundreds have been injured. About 40 “bloated” bodies have been recovered from the Nile- an attempt by the military to lower the official death toll. Additionally many women have suffered from rape with numbers likely understated due to the societal stigma attached to such an offense. Much of the atrocities have been committed by the paramilitary force known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) headed by General Hamdan. It is this same force that was responsible for the genocide in Darfur for which Mr. Bashir has been indicted by the International Criminal Court and gives rise to the question: why are similar crimes currently committed by the same force not being taken seriously by the international community? Continue reading
The Pakistan Horizon is the flagship journal of The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (PIIA) which we have published continuously since 1948. Research at the PIIA is published either in monographs or in Pakistan Horizon, the quarterly journal of the Institute. The first issue was published in March 1948. Since then, it has been published without a break; it contains articles, speeches, surveys of Pakistan’s diplomatic relations, book reviews, chronologies of important events and documents. Notably, our respected journal is the oldest journal on International Relations in South Asia. Apart from adding to the learning on politics, Pakistan Horizon aims to combine rigorous analysis with a helpful approach to international issues. It thus features articles related to Pakistan’s foreign policy, regional and global issues, women’s concerns in international relations, IR theory, terrorism and security studies and emerging environmental concerns. The abstracts for all our latest articles from PAKISTAN HORIZON, Volume 72, Number 2, April 2019 are available below.
As part of its public diplomacy programme, PIIA arranges roundtable sessions, lectures and seminars on a regular basis. These sessions have been addressed by world leaders, scholars and academics including: Presidents Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf; Prime Ministers Liaquat Ali Khan and Benazir Bhutto: Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, President Habib Bouraqiba, Prince Karim Aga Khan, Madame Sun Yat Sen, Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, Henry Kissinger, Rauf Denktash, Justice Philip C. Jessup, Lord Clement Attlee, Prime Minister Sutan Sjahrir, Prime Minister SWRD Bandranaike, Professor Arnold Toynbee, Professor Andre Siegfried, Professor Y. V. Gangovsky, Michael Krepon, Walter Russell Mead, Professor Kishore Mahbubani, Professor Francis Robinson CBE (see here) and the unsurpassable Rajmohan Gandhi (see here). Continue reading
In the wake of sensationalized headlines pertaining to the ongoing tech-wars between the United States and China, one may ponder over the overt and covert implications of this growing dilemma. Visualizing a trajectory with regard to the recent events that have been observed over the course of this tech-war, the most pressing developments would certainly be the United States trade-blockade against Chinese telecommunications company, Huawei, and interestingly enough, the resurgence of the geopolitical tussle over rare-earths between the United States and China, with Africa being the unfortunate playing field. As security experts from the United States continue to stress on the ‘security risks’ attributed to Huawei and its products, the tech-wars have reached a peak where all options are to be explored in order to gain the upper-hand in the field of science and technology. Chinese President Xi Jinping met his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Moscow on fifth June, with this meeting garnering considerable media coverage in order to draw out China’s next strategy amid the frenzy generated by the United States’ trade-blockade involving the blacklisting of Huawei.
‘Protectionism and unilateral approaches are on the rise, and a policy of force and hegemonism is increasingly taking hold,’ stated Xi Jinping. This statement, coupled with strongly-worded rhetoric exchanged between the United States and China leaves one pondering over what the next move may be from both sides. While this meeting resulted in a deal between Russian telecommunications company ‘Mobile TeleSystems’ (MTS) and Huawei towards developing the 5G network in Russia (a key, strategic development for the telecommunication sector between the two countries), the news concerning the United States and China’s revived dispute over the supply of rare-earths in Africa harbours an incredibly unique position in the discussion concerning strategizing and exploring tactical options. Continue reading
Time and again there has been a clamour from politicians and the media that the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report should be made available to the public. Recently this demand was aired on a television channel. Actually, the report, which was a classified document, was officially declassified on 30 December 2000 and became part of the public narrative. Many people have criticised the report, which is a most remarkable document, without ever having read it. Within a week after he was sworn in as president, on 26 December 1971 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto appointed a commission of inquiry into the 1971 war with Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman as president and justices Anwarul Haq of the Lahore High Court and Tufailali Abdur Rahman of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan as members. They were tasked to inquire into the circumstances in which the Commander Eastern Command surrendered and Pakistan’s armed forces under his command laid down their arms and a ceasefire was ordered along the borders of West Pakistan and India and along the ceasefire line in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Commission examined 213 persons including members of the public, political leaders, members of the army, navy and air force, serving and retired civil servants and journalists. The main report was submitted to Bhutto on 12 July 1972. Since some of the major actors in the East Pakistan tragedy were prisoners of war in India, the Commission tried unsuccessfully to interview them through the International Committee of the Red Cross. After the 1974 Simla Agreement, when these prisoners and civilian internees were repatriated to Pakistan, the Commission examined 72 persons, including Lt. General A. A. K. Niazi, Commander Eastern Command. The supplementary report, based on their evidence, was completed before the end of 1974. Continue reading
Caught right off guard or simply unwilling to process the implications that these results may pose, Europe – it may be argued – is visibly unsettled. The results of the European Parliament Elections of 2019 usher in a transformative, albeit disconcerting era where 25 per cent of the European Parliament’s seats are expected to be occupied by the euro-skeptic, far-right, ultra-nationalist parties that have been generating notorious headlines across Europe. Despite the traditional, centrist parties just about managing to scrap the majority in the elections, the question still remains – what can one make of the ruffling victory of the euro-skeptics? Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party of France, Matteo Salvini’s Lega Nord (Northern League) party of Italy and Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party of Hungary made impressive breakthroughs, with Le Pen most notably managing to win 25 per cent of the vote over incumbent French President Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche party, which stood at 21.3 per cent. Salvini, too, confidently and resolutely secured 34 per cent of Italy’s vote.
The momentum that the far-right has picked up within contemporary European politics is a contemplative political development which may be tied down to a diverse range of mutually inclusive and exclusive factors. One of the most pertinent causes for this rise can be linked to the mainstream, centrist, social-democrat parties becoming increasingly influenced by the neoliberal ideological framework – this is most notably encompassed through the economic policies of Emmanuel Macron. Marine Le Pen’s late father, the infamous Jean-Marie Le Pen, had explicitly mentioned the strategy of galvanizing on the disenchantment on the left-leaning supporters who had consistently cast their votes for the social-democrats, stating: ‘Left-wing voters are crossing the red line because they think that salvation from their plight is embodied by Madame Le Pen. They say ‘no’ to a world that seems hard, globalized, implacable. These are working-class people, pensioners, office workers who say, “We don’t want this capitalism and competition in a world where Europe is losing its leadership.’” Continue reading
Brexit becoming paralyzed indicates for the country being steered towards danger due to the absolute challenges yet to come.
Theresa May never envisioned for Britain to contest in the European Parliamentary elections, 2019 with it being around the corner. All political parties are fighting for it inevitably as a proxy quest for Brexit. The recent local elections have been expounded in the same imprudent way the decisions on Brexit results were interpreted. Yet it would be an extent to make-believe that for the first time in the history of Britain, the European Elections of UK are truly focused on Europe’s and Britain’s position in the contemporary world. The reality is extremely less gratifying. The elections can be comprehended with a holistic understanding of another occurrence in the state and particularly the Conservative party’s distress due to the significant deterioration of British influence as the referendum was a short-term highlight. Therefore the elections are dubious to be therapeutic and purgative. On a conflicting note, the vote of 2016 has hauled the Brits into an entrenched melodrama.
The case regarding Brexit is one that is inescapable. It is binding for leaders and political parties to engage in it. The more it persists, the further the country goes beyond any endeavor to make a thoughtful, far-sighted decision about the actualities that shape its contemporary presence. The argument concerning Brexit is so severe that we fail to perceive lucidly enough the self -injury Britain is inflicting upon itself, regardless of the temporary consequence of the clashes that presently preoccupy the activists’ of the parties. Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP who is also in favor of a soft Brexit was of the opinion that they have become dangerous in the sense; the European Union’s conventional partners are not willing to exert any burdens any longer stated by Charles Grant, who is a pro-European veteran. In past Britain was considered Continue reading
Dr. Tariq Banuri, distinguished members of the audience. It is my great pleasure to welcome you, especially Dr. Tariq Banuri, to this opening session of the conference on the existential challenge faced by Pakistan from climate change. I am thankful to Dr. Tariq Banuri for taking the trouble to travel to Karachi to join us this afternoon. As some of you would know, The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs is the oldest think tank in our country. It was established in 1947 and was formally inaugurated by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. In his augural speech, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan recognised the need for an institution which should act as a bridge between policy makers and public opinion. For 72 years, our institution has fulfilled this purpose. We have given space to statesmen, scholars, diplomats, jurists and specialists in their fields from all over the world and have, on the other hand, provided a platform for informed debate on international politics and foreign policy challenges.
Our research output is disseminated through our publications and our quarterly journal, Pakistan Horizon, which has appeared without a break since 1948. It is the oldest scholarly journal in Pakistan. It is significant, perhaps, that we are holding this Conference in the sizzling heat outside ― and the electricity can go off at any minute. We have convened this Conference because climate change is considered to be the greatest threat to our planet in the 21st century. While some governments may have dragged their feet, the people have mobilised against it in many countries. Young people have gone on school strikes and taken to the streets to draw attention to the disastrous affects of climate change on the environment. We have all heard about the Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg, whose activism has led her to address the highest forums on this issue ― the World Economic Forum, the European Parliament and the United Nations. Continue reading