Jadhav’s case is based on numerous controversial and contentious premises, especially because it is yet another instance of extreme rivalry between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, an Indian national and a secret military agent was arrested in Balochistan on 3 March 2016 on allegations of espionage and terrorism against Pakistan. Owing to Jadhav’s two confessional statements, one in March 2016 and the other in June 2017, Jadhav was sentenced to death in April 2017 for espionage. Meanwhile, India insisted that Jadhav was not guilty, classified this decision as a “pre-meditated murder”, and turned to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for support and help to invalidate Jadhav’s pronouncement of guilt. As a consequence, the implementation of Jadhav’s death sentence was postponed. Approximately one year later, on Wednesday 17 July 2019, the ICJ pronounced its judgment on Jadhav’s case based on the public hearings that began on 18 February 2019. In its judgment, the ICJ had ruled that Jadhav be allowed consular access immediately, and asked Pakistan to ensure effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences. This was in accordance with Article 36 of the the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 (VCCR).
Article 36 states that “when a national of a foreign country is arrested, they must be informed of the right to have their country’s consulate notified and should also have the right to regular consultation with their consulate’s officials during their detention and trial.” Perhaps, through this verdict, the ICJ sought to fill all the possible gaps; it wanted to allow a fairer and a more acceptable trial to take place; it wanted to make up for matters that previously went unnoticed when dealing with Jadhav. The fact that Jadhav’s case has so many areas of analyses, each depicting a unique picture of the case, is noteworthy. Initially, Pakistan argued that Jadhav shouldn’t be allowed consular access. Continue reading
Women of Afghanistan are still hopeful about a better future …
On the surface, our world leaders protrude an aura of optimism when asked about the US-Taliban peace Talks. They talk about a world where the viral spread of terrorism by the hands of such militant groups is nothing more than a distant nightmare. An example of such portrayal is present in an interview given by the President of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, who said, that ‘For the first time, the possibility for peace is really at hand. The aim of the South Asia strategy is not to perpetuate war; it is simply put as a staple of understanding within a secure South Asia’. Recently, the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump said that he ‘believes that great nations do not fight endless wars. He wants to end 18 years of war and bring back the US military group from Afghanistan.’ The outlook of the peace talks is believed to be positive, it creates an illusion that our world is moulding into a suburban utopia where everything is perfectly conjoined with one another to make a seemingly flawless wonderland.
However, we forget that even the said utopian wonderland tends to break under the visual perfection of its existence. Upon closer inspection into the US-Taliban peace talks we observe how society causally undermines the suffering of the silent half of the Afghan population, the Afghani women. Prior to the Taliban take over and the Soviet occupation, Afghanistan was a relatively progressive country when addressing the rights of women. Afghan women made up 50% of government workers, 70% of schoolteachers, and 40% of doctors in Kabul. After the fall of the Taliban regime, things started to look a bit better for the Afghan women, at least on paper. In the year 2004, a new constitution was approved, and the country held its first presidential elections, proclaiming that Afghanistan is henceforth a democratic state that provides equal rights to men and women. Continue reading
These narratives show how foreign investors are a double-edged sword for Pakistan. TCC was suspected of lending support to Baloch separatists.
Pakistan has recently been garnering a lot of attention in international tribunals. A recent case is the Reko Diq case, which led to arbitration in the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). In Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1), ICSID has ruled that Pakistan has to pay a $5.8 billion penalty to a mining company, the Tethyan Copper Company (TCC). It is an oddity that the Pakistani public has been disabled from knowing the full details of the ICSID arbitration judgment. The condition for the publication of the award is that both parties must consent to its publication and apparently there is no consensus that it should be published, or alternatively there is consensus that it should not be published. Either way that is rather opaque and lacks transparency. Yet we do know the identities of the arbitrators and the costly law firms employed by the parties and all the procedural steps in the arbitration (which is rather pointless indeed without knowing the full and exact details of the final arbitration award).
It is rather appalling that the award is not in the public domain and the people of Pakistan are being denied access to the full details of the decision. Reko Diq is a region in Balochistan that has large gold and copper reserves. TCC acquired an exploration license in 2006, buying it from the company BHP Minerals. Though this seems a very recent mining project, TCC itself is a joint venture by other foreign companies, and BHP had been granted licenses since 1993 by the Balochistan Development Authority (BDA) under the Chagai Hills Exploration Joint Venture Agreement (Chevja). Now that TCC was exploring Reko Diq’s reserves, it completed its feasibility study in 2010, and applied for a mining lease, but it was denied. Chevja had been challenged by petitioners before. In 2013, the Supreme Court decided that the agreement (Chevja) was void ab initio. In 2009, the provincial government had already terminated Chevja. Continue reading
India has long had a field day putting tariffs on American products. No longer acceptable!
Because the G-20 failed to restore the international trade order, on 9 July 2019 American President Donald Trump fired off yet another Twitter attack. This tweet from the US President was posted after a few days of the G-20 Summit, when he met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the sidelines of the G-20 Summit late last month, where the two leaders agreed upon further meetings to resolve the escalating matter of trade disputes which included import quotas on agricultural goods and to put price caps on medical devices. The other hindering topics included: outsourcing of intellectual property protections on generic drugs. Moreover, ever since taking office, President Trump has focused on reducing bilateral trade deficits to reduce national security impact of steel and aluminum imports, however, a deadlock was avoided up until the recent but significant change in Prime Minister Modi’s approach after getting elected for a second term.
The decision to revoke India’s status for special trade treatment and the slap back tariffs by India on US goods and services has quickly led Washington and New Delhi towards an impasse. The desire 0f the Modi government to please domestic constituencies has further aggravated the situation to a tit-for-tat stand-off and India has escalated a trade battle by slapping new tariffs on American goods, a battle that was never worth fighting and may now indeed backfire. Furthermore, India had announced retaliatory tariffs back in June last year, but they were recently implemented. The 120% tariffs on US goods and services are limited in nature and largely symbolic but show a shift from restrain to a tit-for-tat policy by India. Modi government’s shift backward on market openness, with increasing tariffs on a few dozen goods, new regulations on e-commerce and a push for data localization in its growing digital economy is what has upset the Trump administration. Continue reading
Pakistan’s national objective is based upon pursuing social justice through peace and security …
On Saturday, July 20, 2019, former Federal Secretary, Inspector General of Police and Director General FIA, Mr. Tariq Khosa, visited The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs, where he addressed the members of the Institute on Internal Security and Governance Challenges confronting Pakistan. He started his speech by explaining that he does not have any political affiliations or any personal agenda. He expressly stated that his lecture did not intend to offend any segment of society. While discussing terrorism and internal security challenges he focused on three ‘Ms’, (i) Mullah; by which he meant religious extremists, who by design deliberately promote a mindset that proliferates violence, (ii) Military; who he said are the big part of the problem, yet they are a bigger solution to those issues, and (iii) Militants, in shape of non-state actors who have eroded the authority of the state. He spoke about the Karachi Operation which started under the command of the Karachi police force, with the support of Intelligence Bureau, in September 2013.
He explained that since 2013, terrorist incidents in Karachi have declined by 70%. Subsequently, 373 terrorists were killed and 521 were arrested from 2015 till 2018. Unfortunately, the police faced the major brunt of this operation, with a total of 450 police officers who were martyred, 163 in 2013 which reduced to 6 in 2018. Mr. Khosa recounted that it was not the Pulwama Incident which made us change our strategy on the use of non-state actors, but that the decision was taken along with the present government in January 2019, emphasizing that there would not be any non-state actor in the future. However, the efficiency of this policy is yet to be seen. He further explained how the Police Reforms were constituted by the Supreme Court, in a committee of serving IGs as well as nine retired IGs who had served in all the provinces and have come up with a seven-point agenda to reform governance issues. Continue reading
Filed under Accountability, Criminal law, Discussion, Events, Human Rights, India, Karachi, Pakistan, Pakistan Horizon, Police, Politics
On Friday, July 19 2019, Dr. Syed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour, President of the famous Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), visited us at The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (PIIA) for a roundtable on Iran’s relationship with the United States and how it is influencing the course of events in the region. He said that in order to understand the question of why Iran is the way it is today, it is important to comprehend three integral factors – the United States’ contradictory policies with Iran, the resulting state of bitterness, and an uneven assessment of the available possibilities. By laying emphasis on the contradictory policies of the United States, during very tense times, Dr. Kazem sought to explain how certain inconsistencies in the harsh policies of the United States have been a significant source of tension between the two countries, especially when pursuing negotiations and settling agreements. Watch Video
He said that negotiations between the United States and Iran continued for twelve years before the Americans decided to withdraw itself from further negotiations. In this regard, Dr. Kazem explained how Iran wasn’t doing anything wrong and it was in fact merely abiding by the negotiations. Even now, he expressed that Iran is willing to negotiate, however, in this era of nationhood and nationalism, Iran has to defend itself – its integrity and sovereignty. Hence, according to him, maximum pressure from the United States is likely to bring maximum resistance from Iran as well. He also explained that contradictory American policies have resulted in a state of bitterness where one has to choose from the limited alternatives available, that is cooperation and confrontation. Talking about Pakistan and Turkey and their relationship with Iran, Dr. Kazem said that Iran, Pakistan and Turkey are all regional players. He further explained that they all have stakes in the region, and are connected through a regional perspective. Continue reading
When talking about the world’s second most popular sport, one cannot ignore India and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The title is precisely apt because not only does BCCI rule cricket in India, it has become exceedingly powerful in the global cricket fraternity. indeed, on the global plane, cricket is governed by an organization known as the International Cricket Council (ICC) which supervises the world’s 105 cricketing nations. The ICC was originally founded in 1909 by three nations: England, Australia and South Africa. Along with other global sports, cricket’s ruling body was mainly dominated by West. While cricket was declining in the West it started getting popular in this part of the world mainly in Pakistan and India. So much so that now, cricket has more fan base and viewership than the national games of both the countries. With this, ICC saw a power shift within itself concluding with BCCI taking over the authority in 1997 and assuming 80 per cent control of the Council’s finances and establishing itself as a ruling force of governance in cricket. BCCI has made ICC its subsidiary which operates on behalf of its master.
The reason for this monopoly of Indian cricket board is the major source of revenue that it generates which the ICC cannot afford to defy and hamper its relationship with the BCCI. With India’s growing influence and dominating eminence and with increasing fixation of Indian Premier League (IPL) among people, BCCI is becoming ever so stronger and commanding in the cricket world. So how does India make use of its power? By ensuring that cricket flourishes more in the home country which in turn hinders development in the rest of the member countries. The recent introduction of the 20/20 format perhaps shows the biggest opportunity for BCCI to achieve a cricketing monopoly as the overwhelming enthusiasm is being displayed by hard-nosed businessmen and sports and entertainment pundits for BCCI and IPL. Continue reading
Trump represents the height of dysfunction in the US and the negative consequences of blindly pandering to a pro-Israel lobby and the military-industrial complex’s interests.
While the US and Saudi Arabia continue to accuse Iran of creating instability in the region, it would benefit Trump greatly if he turned his gaze inwards to demonstrate some degree of reflection. When one considers the current crisis and its motivations, it is fairly reasonable to reach the conclusion that Trump instigated a crisis in order to carry out his “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran. Trump incorrectly predicted that his move would be successful in causing the Iranians to capitulate to US demands for Iran to stop funding proxy wars and discontinue its ballistic missiles program. A victory of this nature would have boosted Trump’s credibility in the upcoming US elections while showing that a mediation-oriented leftist approach is wrong. However, Trump’s simple-minded plan has clearly failed as Iran has not backed down and continues to challenge the US on an almost equal footing.
Iran has retaliated in response to the earlier seizure of Grace I (by the UK on the directions of the US) by attempting to halt a UK ship and then by towing the Panamanian-flagged tanker, Riah, to its port for technical repairs in response to a distress signal issued by the tanker. While it is likely that the Riah did not have technical issues, Iran is coating its retaliatory efforts in strategic statements in a similar vein to those of the British who claimed that the reason for the seizure of Grace I was due to EU sanctions against Syria. It is worth noting that the EU sanctions have been placed on Syria since 2014 yet it is only now in the midst of tension that they seem to be remembered in the case of Iran exporting its oil. Continue reading
In light of the history of US-Turkey relations, it might not be very difficult to decipher the crux of the developing differences between the United States and Turkey, and to understand the rationale behind the actions and intentions of the two countries.
The ongoing tension between the two NATO allies, the United States and Turkey, recently took a pivotal course when Turkey received its first shipment of “the Russian S-400 air defense system”, its parts and components, in Ankara, at the Murted military airbase on Friday, 12 July. Subsequently, the United States reportedly put forward plans to penalize Turkey for its purchase of a Russian air defense system. Before the actual delivery, Turkey was already being warned that it “could face possible sanctions and a block on its participation in the US-made F-35 fighter jet programme because of the Russian deal.” On Wednesday, 17 July, the United States officially cancelled the delivery and sale of the F-35 aircrafts to Turkey. According to The New York Times, “The White House informed Turkey on Wednesday that would not sell F-35 stealth fighter jets to its NATO ally, in retaliation of the country’s purchase of Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile systems.”
A country’s actions and its relationship with other countries could be a demonstration of an interrelated and a convoluted web of several national and international experiences and developments. Hence, it might be interesting to observe how countries could be viewing and handling different issues in a variety of ways according to their economic, political, and social backdrop. Perhaps, the recent break in relations between the United States and Turkey could be analysed in a similar way. There is no doubt that disagreement continues to dog US-Turkey relations owing to the delivery of the Russian S-400 system to Ankara. The other side of the coin is that Trump is inherently against the NATO alliance and does not wish that the US should disproportionately bankroll the historic alliance which Turkish leaders cleverly joined in 1952. Continue reading
Johnson is presenting himself as too keen to please the US President.
Donald Trump’s diplomacy is known for not following any traditional rules. Last week, he refused to work with British ambassador Sir Kim Darroch. This ‘expulsion’ happened after diplomatic cables were leaked that gave away Darroch’s opinion of the US President. In the cables, Darroch called Trump ‘insecure’, ‘inept’ and ‘incompetent’, and the White House as ‘uniquely dysfunctional’. Taking offence, Trump announced that he would not want to work with the British ambassador. Darroch was dis-invited from a banquet and thereafter was unable to attend an event with a minister. He was not only expelled, but also resigned from the post on July 10. In his resignation letter, Darroch wrote: “The current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.” There are several things that are not new about this situation. Kim Darroch’s opinion of Trump and how he is running the White House does not come as a surprise. Rather, diplomats have expressed solidarity with it. Secondly, such diplomatic cables and them getting leaked are not a new phenomenon.
Examples include Wikileaks, going as far back as 2010. Thirdly, Trump’s diplomacy has already adopted a different style altogether, with his opinions coming through on Twitter. This has become known as ‘twitter diplomacy’. What is interesting in this saga, however, is how Boris Johnson has responded to Trump’s decision to expel the British ambassador. Johnson is most likely to be Prime Minister in less than two weeks. He was accused by MPs for not supporting Darroch, leading to his decision to quit. Johnson appeared in a leaders’ debate on television, where he is blamed for not backing the British ambassador. Continue reading