A successful foreign policy refers to the exercise of a spirit of idealism to keep the events under control. The lack of a global hegemonic authority often leads to many unanticipated changes in international relations. To meet such variants a state always keeps flexibility in foreign policy directives. Contemporary history tells us how nations survive in exigent situations by taking daring decisions. They took timely decisions to tackle challenges that not only dealt with the dangers posed for their existence, but also set examples for thriving nations. Although these decisions were not easy for nations, sometimes cost too much, yet they laid down the path for their grandeur in the history of mankind. Modern history glorifies that Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter at the cost of disbanding colonialism. Charles De Gaulle gave Algeria independence, reducing France’s status from world power to regional power in order to strengthen its socio-economic gash. The United States also had to depart from the Monroe Doctrine for over a century because of coercion in the pacific theatre and jumped into World War II.
The exercise continued in the post Cold War era as India and China revisited their decades long firm commitments to the socialist economic systems. The Pakistani leadership that surfaced after the assassination of the country’s first prime minister and defense minister Liaquat Ali Khan had to prefer valediction to neutrality in foreign and strategic diplomacy against latent Indian aggression and expansion of Soviet influence. Thanks to the Korean War, the United States desperately needed to contain soviet influence in Asia. The experienced civil and military bureaucracy of a newborn Pakistan was adapted to the American requirements due to its western administrative structure and spirit. Thus under the new doctrine envisaged by the defense minister and then Commander-in-Chief General Ayub Khan, Pakistan was determined to turn out to be part of the great game and entered the US bloc as a regional military force. Apart from the SEATO, the CENTO and the RCD, bilateral agreements with the United States made Pakistan a strong pro-US military force in South Asia and Southeast Asia. Continue reading
We may look back at Deng Xiaoping’s words and ponder over how these protests will play out and what they herald for the future of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy …
‘One country, two systems’ – this core principle has been the cornerstone of state policy on the reunification of China. And generating fascination, scepticism, consternation and more, this constitutional policy sought to answer lingering questions pertaining to sovereignty, administration and autonomy with regard to the mainland region of China and the Taiwan region. This principle was coined by People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) paramount leader [from 1978 until 1992] Deng Xiaoping – popularly referred to as the General Architect of Reforms – who went on to highlight its most conspicuous implication: ‘within the People’s Republic of China, the mainland with its one billion people will maintain the socialist system, while Hong Kong and Taiwan continue under the capitalist system.’ He further added that ‘When we adopt the policy of “one country, two systems” to resolve the Hong Kong question, we are not acting on impulse or playing tricks but are proceeding from reality and taking into full account the past and present circumstances of Hong Kong.’
The latter point is particularly interesting – its context leaves one contemplating what this political and administrative ideology entails for future circumstances in Hong Kong; circumstances quite like the 2019 protests that have been ongoing since the end of March and have seen especially violent escalations this week. Following the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, in February 2019 the government of Hong Kong proposed the controversial Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill which would permit extradition of fugitives to China and facilitate mutual legal assistance. Fears pertaining to arbitrary legal processes and detainment were among the most concerning, as stated by organisers of the protests and pro-independence political figures. Continue reading
A number of speakers drew emphasis on the United States’ unilateral, militaristic adventurism in the Middle East …
Trump has been threatening Iran and has imposed further major sanctions. He says that he abandoned military strikes so as to save the lives of 150 people who would have died had he not retracted his orders to attack Iran, which he claimed will be obliterated if it did not behave itself. On 22 June 2019, The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs hosted a roundtable talk (11:00 am – 1:00 pm) to discuss the causes, implications and factors pertaining to the heightened volatility in the Middle East, with respect to the string of recent events at the Library of the Institute. This roundtable talk was attended by academics, retired generals and brigadiers, defence analysts and diplomats. One of the main speakers was Iranian Third Consul Mr Mehdi Amir Jafari, who underlined Iran’s respect for peaceful, political initiatives with regard to conflict-resolution but simultaneously stressed that the need for peaceful and diplomatic resolutions must be shared mutually by all actors involved.
Some of the most important themes that were brought up with regard to the incumbent power politics of the Middle East included thought-provoking questions concerning the place for morality and ethical considerations in realpolitik, the inherent ties of the United States’ military-industrial-complex in shaping American foreign and defence policy and the emergence of a new world-order. General (Retd.) Sikander Hayat specifically highlighted what this new world-order entails, stating that it concerns the rise of China as a giant in international political economy. This point was analysed from an array of perspectives with regard to the Middle East, most notably from an economic, political and defence perspective. Dr. Moeini Feizabadi went into the history of the military-industrial complex and its significance in shaping the United States’ Middle East policy as well. Continue reading
Donald Trump tweeted that Iran made a very big mistake! but has now backed off regarding the shooting down of the US drone. In this post Urooj Hanafi examines the earlier attacks on the Japanese Kokuka Courageous and Norwegian Front Altair.
Tensions have escalated as regional and global rivalries have come into play due to the recent attacks on the Japanese Kokuka Courageous and Norwegian Front Altair on 13 June near the Persian Gulf. The incident demands that two vital questions be addressed: who committed the deed? Who benefitted the most from the attacks? Iran has been adamant in its denial of the attacks, but the US, citing rather blurry photographic and video-based evidence unequivocally blames the former believing that the infamous Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) use of limpet mines caused the explosions on the two tankers. The Trump administration appears to be taking a gamble: use a “maximum pressure” strategy to force Iran in line with its wishes or risk a conflict in an already volatile region. In December 2018, the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) while additionally bringing an end to any sanction waivers that allowed certain countries to import oil from Iran.
The economic effects have been dire forcing the Iranian economy into a slump as the finance sector and oil revenues have taken a serious hit. However, the US policy of “maximum pressure” is highly questionable because inciting forced radical change is likely to lead to an eventual backlash. Even if Iran were to capitulate to US demands, most likely through the imposition of US-leaning leaders implementing western ideals, the people would retaliate possibly leading to a second Iran revolution setting rapprochement with Iran decades behind. It comes as no surprise that Saudi Arabia, a current US favorite due to its purchase of US weapons and a buffer against Iranian influence in the Middle East, loyally stands by US claims and has generously promised to increase oil production along with the UAE in order to help re-stabilize global oil prices. 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
Former Ambassador to Afghanistan urges Pakistan to shift focus away from India.“The India-centric approach will have to be reviewed because it doesn’t deliver much” he said. Watch Video
PIIA recently held a talk on the Afghan conflict and this is Peerzada Salman’s news report of our event from Dawn. He said there is only one reason for the Afghan conflict: foreign forces. And if Pakistan and Afghanistan are to have good relations for a lasting peace in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to review its India-centric policy. This was the point that Rustam Shah Mohmand, former ambassador of Pakistan to Afghanistan, gave significant emphasis to during his talk titled The Afghanistan conflict: emerging dynamics and impact on Pakistan at The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (PIIA) on Wednesday evening. Mr Mohmand said what he was about to say might not be liked by some people. He then gave a robust historic perspective on the Afghan issue by asserting that most conflicts in the world were unnecessary, underlining that the country faced British imperialism in the 19th century, Russian invasion in the 20th century and US invasion in the 21st century.
Mr Mohmand said there were many theories about the 9/11 incident (who carried out the attacks and whether any Afghan was involved) that made the US invade Afghanistan. In 2001, the attack was launched and seven or eight months later President Bush announced that Afghanistan had been liberated, and “the liberation continues”. During the invasion unspeakable crimes against humanity were perpetrated. Taliban supporters were arrested, and 3,000 people (mostly innocent) were choked to death in containers. More than 200,000 civilians had been killed, villages decimated and markets blown up chasing invisible and visible enemy. Mr Mohmand asked: “What has the war delivered?” Ninety per cent of Afghanistan’s GDP comes from either foreign funding or spending by coalition forces inside the country. Domestic revenue is five to seven per cent of the GDP. Malnutrition in children is 39pc and unemployment is 45pc. Continue reading
Filed under Al Qaeda, Balochistan, China, Disarmament, Discussion, India, ISIS, Pakistan, Pakistan Horizon, Politics, Taliban
In order to understand the apprehension of the West, one has to understand who Huawei’s leadership is and its relationship with the Chinese state.
“Whua eiy”? “Huwai”? As it rolls off our tongue the Chinese tech giant Huawei – actually pronounced “wah-way” – is at the forefront of the ongoing battle between the United States and China in their race to control 5G – the fifth generation of mobile broadband. With the advent of Technological Revolution actors, international organizations and Multinational Corporates (MNCs) are able to operate globally without the limitation of borders, distance or location. Consequently, it is easier for governments to gather information, organize it and store it which is empowering them more than ever. In the past, a wanted criminal, drug lord or terrorist could easily cross borders and take refuge in a foreign country as seen in the instance of 9/11 attacks. The systems then became sophisticated enough to trigger a breach in fact powerful states have increased their power through the information technology by keeping tabs on mobile phones, electronic mails, data and radio transmissions in foreign countries. And now it has now gone a step further.
On January 11, Polish authorities detained Stanislaw Wang, Huawei’s sales director in Poland and Piotr D., a former Polish security official, on suspicion of spying for the Chinese government. The arrest took place a month after Meng Wanzhou’s, Huwaei Chief Financial Officer, detention during a layover at Vancouver airport by the Canadian authorities. The request to arrest Meng came from the United States charging her of violating sanctions on Iran. Prima facie the events may appear as arrests of Huawei officials in different countries for different reasons however, for analysts watching closely it’s more than just that: These are aggressive measure taken by the United States in the larger political campaign to prevent China from dominating the 5G space. In effect, this is the new face of an arms race in the global arena whereby the Trump’s administration view of Huawei’s expansion in western countries can be understood via zero-sum game theory. Continue reading