An initiative by CSSExamDesk.

com
Articulate for CSS 2022
April 2021 (Volume - 7)
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar

Hot Topics inside:

1. Saudi-Iran Talks
2. US-Russia Summit
3. Pakistan-Russia relations
4. Vietnam Redux & Afghanistan
5. The Sino-American cold war
6. Pakistan's Lawfare Dilemma
7. Biden’s invitation to Pakistan
8. Democracy needs sustained dialogue
9. Political calculations to settle Myanmar crisis
10. Artificial Intelligence & Human intelligence
 The Sino-American cold war
As Albert Einstein put it: “Life is like riding a bicycle.
To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” At
present, both superpowers would do well to heed
Einstein’s very personal advice. Currently, both the
US and China find their regional policies in the
crucial Indo-Pacific entirely out of kilter, as Beijing’s
overly bellicose strategic policy is matched in folly
by Washington’s tone-deaf misunderstanding of the
importance of geoeconomics. The first superpower to
keep moving and balance its geoeconomic and
geopolitical strategies in the region will be the nation
most likely to triumph in today’s incipient cold war.
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
In my last book, “To Dare More Boldly: The
Audacious Story of Political Risk,” I look at the
riveting tale of former Chinese Paramount Leader
Deng Xiaoping, the most important person of the
20th century that the average Westerner has
absolutely no knowledge of. Deng almost
single-handedly changed the course of Chinese and
world history by (after December 1978) rationally
opening up the Chinese system, thereby laying the
groundwork for Beijing’s astounding economic rise.
The genius of Deng, following the chaos of Mao
Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, was to re-harness the
Chinese Communist Party’s political legitimacy —
traditionally called “The Mandate of Heaven” —
around two forces that are both organically and
indelibly a long-standing part of China’s political
culture: Capitalism and nationalism. But Deng, even
as he re-annexed Hong Kong and Macau, advanced
his program in a characteristically cautious,
understated way. He understood that foreign and
domestic policy are about limits, and that China’s
overall foreign policy strategy must be indelibly tied
to its specific domestic circumstances. For Deng, this
meant that, just as China was taking off — albeit
from a very low economic base — Beijing’s foreign
policy had to be characterized by caution, almost
quietism. Nothing could be allowed to get in the way
of economic growth, which Deng knew would at last
bring China back to the top table of the world’s great
powers within a generation.
Suffice it to say, this doctrine of geopolitical
quietism has been ruinously overturned by President
Xi Jinping, who has instead (in true Communist
fashion) tried to hurry history along. Championing
China’s resilient rebound from the coronavirus
pandemic it unleashed upon the world, Xi has
become ever more triumphalist in his public
statements, even as he has seemed to take on the
whole of the Indo-Pacific region at once. The laundry
Page No. 01 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
list of China’s aggressive moves has grown
startlingly long: The brutal suppression of the
Uighurs in its western Xinjiang province; the
crackdown on Hong Kong’s democracy movement;
the ceaseless jockeying for position in the South
China Sea; the economic bullying of Australia; the
armed conflict with India over Chinese territorial
expansion in the Himalayas; and the constant
overflights and general increased pressure on Taiwan.
Throwing caution to the wind — as well as Deng’s
astute geostrategic policy — Xi has made it clear that
China intends to call the tune for the whole of the
Indo-Pacific, not at some future date, but right now.
Expressly because of Xi’s folly, US ties to India
are presently better than they have ever been, as is the
case for US-Vietnamese relations. Long-term allies
Japan and Australia are clamoring to enhance their
already highly integrated strategic partnerships with
America. The Association of Southeast Asian
Nations states also want to drift closer to the US. As a
result of all this, America finds itself in a very
favorable geostrategic position in the Indo-Pacific,
not because of any particularly brilliant Kissingerian
diplomatic moves on its part, but merely because it is
the recipient of Xi’s strategically disastrous
impatience. But never underestimate America’s
vexing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory. At present, in both US political parties’
protectionist withdrawal from the world (and here, if
anything, Joe Biden’s Democrats are even worse than
the Republicans), America, for the first time in its
history, finds itself with not one but two protectionist
parties, even as both have fled the mantle of fiscal
responsibility.
These are the political reasons that the US is, in
turn, committing a gigantic geoeconomic blunder,
definitively closing off economically from the
Indo-Pacific, the most important future economic
region in the world. This is epitomized by both
parties calamitously committing an act of immense
geoeconomic self-harm in rejecting the pro-Western
Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific
Partnership trading deal. At the same time, China
continues (presently through the guise of the
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership free
trade deal) to further economically integrate with the
region. From a regional perspective, the lopsided
nature of what both superpowers provide is clear:
Most of the region wants to shelter under the US
security blanket, even as they also want to further
their booming trade ties with China. At present, given
 their respective follies, neither the US nor China has
an attractive, holistic pitch that will definitively win
the Indo-Pacific nations over to their side. Whichever
great power manages to balance its geopolitical and
geoeconomic strategies — for China to be seen as an
unthreatening regional neighbor and for the US to be
seen as a viable trading alternative — will win the
brewing superpower contest that defines our new age.
It is as simple as that. (Arab News, April 16, 2021)
US-Russia Summit
US-Russia relations are at rock bottom. Name-calling
over recent weeks, combined with events around
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
eastern Ukraine, required a sudden gesture by US
President Joe Biden to call his Russian counterpart
Vladimir Putin on Tuesday to discuss a potential
summit and a host of other bilateral security issues.
The Biden administration, not yet in office for 100
days, got caught by the bear trap in Ukraine after
failing to react fast enough. Russia is taking
advantage of that “gap,” which is allowing Moscow
to advance its interests quickly and effectively
without immediate pushback by America or its allies.
It is part of an ongoing geopolitical tectonic shift. US
sanctions against Russia for last year’s SolarWinds
hack and other actions targeting dozens of people and
entities is a first American response following
Biden’s offer of a meeting. The diplomatic expulsion
of Russians is likely to be met with a tit-for-tat
response. There is also a question of whether the
Biden administration blinked or not because of the
Russian buildup in and around Ukraine, with the
phone call and sanctions coming late. Russia
interprets Biden’s call as a sign of weakness and
perhaps Moscow sees its ability to act with impunity
at this moment.
To be sure, there is minor back-channeling that
occurs between the two sides. The US chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff uses a deconfliction line with
his Russian counterpart. But that line has not been
used publicly for a month or more. Counterterrorism
cooperation exists and Russian Security Council
Secretary Nikolai Patrushev has hinted that these
communications are important. However, at the same
time, he slapped Washington for “putting biological
labs around Russia.” Russia’s attitude will be on
display next week, when Putin gives a major speech
at Moscow’s Manezh Square. He is expected to speak
of Russia’s immediate future, events around the
world, and where Moscow fits into this emerging
landscape. The proposed leaders’ summit comes at a
time when Russia’s Ministry of Defense has moved
Page No. 02 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
the bulk of its Central Military District equipment to
Ukraine’s border. The equipment being sent is top of
the line for Russia’s armed forces. Their potential use
against Ukrainian forces to seize territory, and the
Ukrainian/NATO/US response, is heating up several
key locations on the border and in the Donbass region
itself, where hostilities are occurring. Belarusian
forces need to be included in any actions against
Ukraine. Such a combined force would be sizable and
formidable. But the Ukrainian/NATO/US counter is
also advanced and kinetic action is highly undesirable.
The outcome of any confrontation may show certain
superiorities in terms of technologies and their
application, especially drones and electronic warfare.
Putin is making this move as part of the wider
nature of Russian society today. For the president,
2021 is a key year, as the 30th anniversary of the
collapse of the Soviet Union falls in December. Some
Russians, including Putin and his coterie, see that
event as the 20th century’s biggest geopolitical
collapse. This has always been an issue with Putin
and it is a theme in many of his comments, especially
over the past 15 years. Revenge has been on his mind
for years, as demonstrated in his 2007 Munich speech.
Moreover, the upcoming 80th anniversary of the start
of the Great Patriotic War and Russia’s historical
re-examination of that conflict is also driving the
country’s policy toward Ukraine. A US-Russia
summit could be held this summer or even sooner.
Some say it could be in just a few weeks, although
diplomatic agendas must be set for a cooling-off
period to restructure or restart talks. It is notable that
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov angrily
called American commentary and actions “boring.”
More importantly, there is no US National Security
Council officer for Russia policy. Russia is taking
advantage of this gap, and others, to gain advantage
in theaters on every continent around the world, with
other major moves in Latin America, Africa and
Southeast Asia. Russia’s Arctic reach was also
demonstrated last month by the appearance of three
nuclear submarines breaking through the polar ice.
The optics are to show dominance. Thus, while the
US dillydallies, Russia is upping its game via vaccine
diplomacy, parliamentary outreach programs, and
providing services that a new US administration
cannot yet offer. With a US-Russia summit, that gap
and previous open areas of disagreement can be
restructured to reflect new realities. But the US is still
at a disadvantage. If some of the coronavirus
pandemic debt tables — as documented in last
month’s US National Intelligence Council 2040
 report — turn out to be true, then there will be more
geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges. The
tectonic shift of politics and security to the east is
fueled by this debt, which can benefit both Russia
and, naturally, China.
Finally, the “third location” aspect of the
proposed US-Russia summit is always important.
Diplomacy demands such an action in this heated
environment. If Finland is chosen, Helsinki is in a
unique position. It is deeply involved in African
affairs and, as such, may help defang the two sides in
the current situation. Concern over the Baltics is part
of the strategic picture too. The fact Putin is now able
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
to stay in power until 2036 helps make this
US-Russia summit all the more serious and important
to get right, with Moscow shifting gears and
accelerating its interests globally. The current
US-Russia environment is dominated by questions of
war and peace. (Arab News, April 16, 2021)
Biden’s invitation to Pakistan
US President Joe Biden has belatedly invited
Pakistan to participate in the much-touted virtual
summit on global climate change that is scheduled
for later this week. Some 40 world leaders had
already secured their place at the table. Those from
South Asia included India, Bangladesh and Bhutan.
Pakistan was conspicuous by its absence. Prime
Minister Imran Khan tweeted his disapproval, noting
that his government’s environmental. policies are
driven by sustainability and the commitment to future
generations. To be sure, this was more than mere
oversight. After all, Pakistan’s “Ten Billion Tree
Tsunami” initiative, launched back in September
2018, had been well received around the world. The
initiative in Phase-I is a four-year (2019- 2023)
project implemented across Pakistan by the Ministry
of Climate Change in partnership with provincial
forest and wildlife departments; at a total cost of
Rs125 billon. Yet that was seemingly not sufficient to
win everyone over. As Cameron Munter, a former
US ambassador to Pakistan, explained during last
month’s Islamabad Security Dialogue: “Pakistan has
lost a great deal of importance in the minds of the
leadership in Washington. What that means is that for
seventy years Pakistan has been seen by its location
and importance to think. Location as a geo-strategic
imperative. That question about location has
changed”. Of course, Pakistan’s geo-strategic
location proved useful for Charlie Wilson’s war in
expelling Russia from Afghanistan. More recently,
Pakistan’s geo-strategic significance is what led it to
Page No. 03 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
being an important stakeholder in China’s Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI) which spans across 65
countries, involving 4.4 billion people and accounting
for 40 percent of global GDP. Lastly, due to
Pakistan’s geo-strategic location, the US has
regularly outsourced responsibility to Islamabad for
its exit from Afghanistan. This has not changed with
Biden at the helm. The US has requested the Imran
Khan government to facilitate US troop withdrawal
by September 2021. Incidentally, this is 20 years to
the day that the US approved the carpet bombing of
Afghanistan, which was done with geo-strategically
located Pakistan’s help.
Pakistan ranks as one of the world’s ten most
climate-vulnerable countries. Being home to the
world’s fifth largest population (220 million), this
vulnerability has immense human dimensions.
Pakistan’s economy remains heavily dependent on
agriculture. The country also faces serious water
shortages has densely populated coastal spaces, and is
susceptible to floods and droughts. All of which
underscore its fragility and makes the initial delay in
inviting Pakistan to the summit rather worrisome.
Before Pakistan had been formally put on the virtual
‘guest list’, US-based South Asian affairs expert
Michael Kugelman tweeted about how this
represented a misstep, for the aforementioned reasons.
Perhaps the Biden White House came it its senses
after doing a bit of homework. After all, TIME
Magazine in its January 2020 cover, included the PM
among the top five global leaders committed to the
environment. Following the US withdrawal from the
Paris Agreement on Climate Change, under former
president Donald Trump, Washington has a lot of
catching up to do on this front. By contrast,
Pakistan’s landmark “Billion Tree Tsunami” project
has won international acclaim, including at the World
Economic Forum (WEC). Foreign office
spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said that the
US virtual moot was bringing together the “leading
global polluters” at a single platform to work out
strategies to protect depleting natural resources and
biodiversity levels. Not an international climate
forum to decide future decisions on environmental
conservation after all. Pakistan’s Green Stimulus
package has also been applauded by global experts.
Launched in the wake COVID-19, it aims to protect
nature while offering green jobs to the ‘guardians of
nature’. At a lecture that this scribe attended in
Boston, Dr Kathy MacKinnon, Chair of the
International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas
 welcomed the move, saying: “This is an excellent
model for linking economic development with a new
deal for nature.” The Climate Change Ministry of
Pakistan in a tweet on its official page asserted:
“Pakistan has passed a crucial milestone on the road
to environmental protection by meeting the
overarching @UN Sustainable Development Goal 13,
which calls for urgent actions to combat
#ClimateChange and its impacts, 10 years ahead of
the deadline, reveals the UN SDG Report 2020.”
Despite being eventually invited to the virtual summit,
Imran Khan should begin looking towards hosting its
own climate change moot — possibly in
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
collaboration with China — including both the
developed nations as well as those from the Global
South. After all, Pakistan’s go-green polices are
being picked by up other countries. Saudi Arabia, for
example, recently announced a 10 billion tree
plantation programme. It is the right time to build
consensus and those vulnerable to climate change
must take the lead in sharing experiences and
offering technical assistance where possible. Pakistan
is well placed to do just that. (Daily Times, April 20,
2021)
Pakistan-Russia relations
After a 19-hour visit to New Delhi for meetings with
high officials,The Foreign Minister of the Russian
Federation, Mr. Sergey Lavrov was in Islamabad for
a two-day official visit, the first high-level visit from
Moscow since 2015. The visit was dubbed a “new
chapter” in Pak-Russia relations that reflects Russia’s
inclination towards Pakistan, especially after the
recent Afghan Peace meeting hosted by Moscow to
neutralise India’s growing tilt towards the US in
various counter-China and counter-Russia initiatives.
The Russian Foreign Minister was received from
airport by his counterpart, Shah Mahmood Qureshi.
After conducting delegation-level talks with the
Foreign Minister of Pakistan, he met Prime Minister
Imran Khan and Chief of the Army Staff, General
Qamar Javed Bajwa. During these meetings,issues
relating economy, strategic and military cooperation
as well as regional dossiers were discussed. Sergey
Lavrov was accompanied by the Russian Presidential
Envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov. In the joint
press conference, the Russian Foreign Minister
expressed his resolve for collaboration with Pakistan
in defence, security and energy.
He also highlighted Russia’s aspiration to offer
Pakistan special military equipment and help in its
counter-terrorism efforts. The growing bilateral
relationship between both the countries in diplomatic,
Page No. 04 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
political, economic and military spheres are very
crucial in the rapidly changing political, strategic and
power dynamics of the region. Both countries also
share a commonality of approach towards the
regional and global issues including Afghanistan that
is an area of mutual concern for both because of its
deteriorating security situation. North-South Gas
Pipeline and helping Pakistan Steel Mill to eradicate
its financial crisis were also the key points of the
discussions during this visit. Futhermore, Russia is
also supplying Sputnik V vaccine to Pakistan in its
fight against COVID-19.
On March 18, 2021, Russia hosted a one-day
regional peace conference, the “expanded troika”, in
Moscow, inviting Pakistan, the US and China to
facilitate dialogue between the Ghani-led Afghan
government and the Taliban.This was a rare meeting
where all the countries were on the same page
regarding the Afghanistan issue. Russia is playing its
role in facilitating the opposing parties in
Afghanistan to come to an agreement, especially to
end the civil war in Afghanistan through an inclusive
dialogue. Pakistan and Russia anticipate another such
meeting for establishing lasting peace in
Afghanistan.One more Afghan-specific meeting is
scheduled with Turkey relating Afghan peace process
on April 24 which Taliban have refused to attend. On
the other hand,the US has finally announced
withdrawal of its forces by September 11, nearly
twenty years after its invasion. All the countries in
the region are keen to play an active role in the peace
process in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the US
troops. Russia also hosted several meetings of the
extended “troika” related to Afghanistan. One of
these meetings was held on March 18, 2021. In this
meeting representatives from Russia, China, US and
Pakistan along with representatives from High
Council for National Reconciliation, important
Afghan political figures and Taliban representatives
were present. Turkey and Qatar were guests of
honour during these talks. Both Pakistan and Russia
support Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process
for regional peace and stability.
During the visit of the Russian Foreign Minister,
there was a desire to finalise the North-South Gas
pipeline that has been renamed by both sides last year
in November as “Pakistan Stream Gas Pipeline
Project.” The project is estimated to cost around 2
billion USD with an annual capacity to transport 12.4
billion cubic feet of gas from Karachi to the north of
the country.This is one of the biggest collaborations
between Pakistan and Russia since the former Soviet
 Union helped build the iconic Pakistan Steel Mills
Industrial Complex at Port Qasim in 1973.Apart from
renaming the pipeline, there was agreement about the
distribution of shares that Russia will get 26 percent
of the shares from this project. Islamabad will look
after the interests of Pakistan, while Moscow will
handle the logistics and financial affairs. In order to
meet the growing energy demands, the government
of Pakistan in 2015 signed an agreement with Russia
to construct this 800 km long pipeline passing
through Sindh, Punjab and then taking the eastward
route. The initial point of this gas pipeline is closer to
Nawabshah in Sindh ending at Nankana Sahib in
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
Punjab. It is expected that the pipeline will be
operational by July this year. This important project
will help Pakistan to fulfill its energy needs in a
better manner and will provide a big market to the
Russian companies. In terms of strategic
cooperation, Russia will support Pakistan in
acquiring new military equipment to strengthen
Pakistan further to fight terrorism. The Russian
Foreign Minister also announced to have joint
military and maritime exercises with Pakistan.
Pakistan and Russia also share interests in Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation. Both countries have
deep-rooted military and strategic ties as well.In the
rapidly changing international and regional security
milieu, Pakistan is adjusting and exploring new
avenues for new alliances and relationships to secure
its regional and global interests. The new phase in
relations between Pakistan and Russia is a good
omen in this regard. (Daily Times, April 19, 2021)
Artificial Intelligence and Human intelligence
The day may not be too far away when we may
be faced with the challenge of rivaling with Artificial
Intelligence (AI). We Will be forced to determine if
AI is help or hinderance?. A very large number of
organizations and companies around the world are
focusing on AI because it promises to transform the
world. Some forecasts say that in a few years’ time,
this technology could outpace human intelligence.
Huge amounts are being spent and research being
prioritized for possible benefits and risks of AI. In
fact, AI is not a new phenomenon as it has been in
practice in one form or the other since the early fifties.
There have been movies on robots performing
various tasks like humans and we have been reading
fictions depicting the future world. Now, the topic is
real and popular. But what is AI? Simply stated, AI is
the science and engineering of making computers and
machines that would think as intelligently as humans.
Page No. 05 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
It is accomplished by studying how human brains
think, learn, decide, and solve problems and
developing algorithms to enable the machines to act
as humans. Intelligent computers process large
amount of data, information and pictures and they
learn and improve without any special programming
to do so. A subfield of AI is machine learning, which
is an application AI. It provides systems the ability to
automatically learn and improve from experience
without being explicitly programmed. It focuses on
the development of computer programmes that can
access data and use it to learn for themselves.
Machine leaning again has a subfield called deep
learning which processes huge amount of data to
detect relationships and patterns that humans are
often unable to detect. Deep means the number of
layers. AI and machine learning is enhancing the
hardware and software within computers and smart
phones thus making our lives easier with every
update. “An average individual looks at his/her
mobile phone for more than 2.5 hours and makes
about 35,000 decisions in a single day”, writes Ralf
Lianasas, a tech writer and digital marketing expert.
Mobile phone marketeers study behaviours of mobile
phone users to find out customers’ needs. Mobile
phones are now designed to conduct AI tasks
efficiently. Only three per cent phones had this
capability in 2017, but in 2020 it was 35 per cent.
According to various studies, an average smart phone
has around one dozen sensors like accelerometers,
GPS, microphone, camera, etc. For years, mobile
phones have been gathering data on us through these
sensors. The camera, AI and machine learning
algorithms are capable of recognizing owner’s face.
May be one day, the 35,000 decisions or at least some
of them that the owner makes will be taken over by
the phones.
Now more and more mobile phones incorporate
processors with deep learning based on neural
networks. A neural network seeks to initiate
functioning of the huma brain. This network can
detect patterns and make decisions based on them.
However, currently only 10 per cent smart phones
have built in deep learning capacity, a feature that is
forecast to reach 80 per cent by 2022. Most people
ask if AI can change the world with the innovations
currently in vogue in many countries? In the years to
come, the AI technology could even replace human
intelligence. May be within 30 years, we will have
flying cars, as huge amounts are being invested in
this technology. In the field of autonomous or
self-driving cars, according to Allied Market
 Research, the market is expected to hit $556.67
billion by 2026 which means a compound annual
growth rate of 39.4 per cent. At the same time,
developing completely autonomous cars is not an
easy undertaking because of security and safety
issues. It may take more than 30 years before such
cars come on roads.
According to various studies, China may become
the leading player in AI within a few years. It has an
ambitious goal of spending $150 billion by 2030 to
promote this technology. It is speedily developing its
human resource in AI and many young people are
pursuing a career in this field. China is also working
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
on erecting next-generation cities for autonomous
cars besides aggressively working in 5G networks.
For many years now, robots have been used across a
wide range of industry. With AI, work is being done
effectively by employing robots in other areas like
security of installations and defence fields. However,
developing completely intelligent robots is a gigantic
task, especially, when they must sense and negotiate
the environment in which they are operating. With
the speed of development, very soon robots may be
working alongside humans to complement each
other’s strengths. The US Air Force Research Lab is
working on building robots that will be co-pilots in
fighter jets and will take over if the pilot becomes
incapacitated. Drones that are being developed would
be capable of making decisions while flying over the
target rather than being controlled remotely from the
operation room. There have been significant
advances in curing serious diseases by discovering
appropriate drugs. The AI speeds up the process
because it can identify complex patterns. However,
when all is said and done, there is a danger of
significant technological unemployment because
machines will be as intelligent as humans and they
will take over most professions. The expectation is
that robots will outperform humans. There is,
therefore, a need to explore how this transition from
the present mode of working to AI based modes will
take place. What would need to be done to replace
present human skills with the ones that would work
alongside machines. It is vital to innovate and create
interface with computers and upload our minds to
computers so that human and machine intelligence
can multiply.
In Pakistan, it is heartening to note that there is
now greater awareness of the changes that AI would
bring to us. Some of our universities are now offering
training in AI which would produce the required
human resource to work in this field. Pakistan has
Page No. 06 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
been able take advantage of AI in identifying the
risks involved because of the prevailing pandemic.
Efforts are also on to use AI in the agriculture sector,
and monitoring weather. This would help forecast the
impending disasters. However, Pakistan is far behind
in tapping the benefits of AI. The government, under
the Knowledge Economy Initiative, has allocated Rs
2500 million in the federal budget 2019-20, but it is
still in the air. The amount was to be spent on
research in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and
Allied Technologies. We must focus on the research
and development of AI lest we miss the boat and lag
many years behind in this fast-developing technology.
Seeking Chinese assistance in this field would be a
wise step. (Daily Times, April 15, 2021)
Democracy needs sustained dialogue
Even at the best of times, democracy is a tough
balancing act. It is easy to forget the shared purpose
and destiny that bind a nation together as grievances
and belligerence drive people poles apart. It’s a hard
challenge to protect democratic values and principles.
A vibrant democracy needs constant public action,
engagement, and vigilance. There are powerful
lessons from the violent events in Washington. The
dilution of democracy can happen slowly, over years,
in small gradual pieces: mean-spirited politics,
extreme political polarization, warring partisan
factions and rancorous citizen engagement. These
days there are few things that we can probably agree
on across the political spectrum. One is that open
debate is vital for a healthy democracy. The other is
that inflammatory, divisive, and vicious language can
poison the civil discourse.
The 2020 US Presidential election showed this.
Despite the confrontational tone, the debates offered
voters a contrast between the candidates. But former
President Donald Trump’s false allegations of “stolen
election victory” and “outrageous electoral fraud”
stirred up resentment among his supporters. It incited
them to attack the Capitol Building. As the Trump
experience showed, the system can go off the rails
when leaders attempt to grab power at any cost. The
disrespect for opponents and institutions created
conflict. And ratcheting up provocation, paranoia,
and disinformation broke democratic norms.
Reasoned debates based on thoughtful positions
backed by evidence are important. It’s the free
communication of thoughts and ideas through
dialogue that sets democracy apart from totalitarian
systems. The forceful presentation of contending
political philosophies is essential. But there’s no
question that undiluted propaganda, divisive slogans
 and aggressive language curtail civil discourse. And
unverified claims, lies, and conspiracy theories can
subvert democracy. Politicians and the press have a
key role in removing toxicity from the public
discourse. The even-handed delivery of the truth,
facts, objectivity are crucial to revitalising the culture
of democracy.
Conflict and disagreements are essential parts of
a robust democracy. The competition between
opposing views of government can be fruitful. But
conflict can boil over from being valuable to
damaging quickly, without warning. Personal and
bitter election campaigns and extreme partisan
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
attacks are troubling signs. Reading the warning
signs and managing the change is a significant test
for modern democracies. No-holds-barred negative
campaigning only clouds the actual issues and
challenges we face. Accepting that the manipulation
of truth and facts is as old as politics itself isn’t good
enough. Political contests need a moderation of
language and a change in tone. Incivility and making
enemies of opponents have no place in election
campaigns. Voters must punish candidates who resort
to such tactics at the ballot box. Polls show that the
public expects reasonable standards of speech and
behavior from elected officials. Raising voices in a
debate is acceptable, but personal attacks are not.
There is a higher tolerance for pointing out flaws in
an opponent’s policy positions. But lower tolerance
for deliberately distorting their record. The public
dislikes ridicule, character assassination, and the
questioning of patriotism. Violence and destruction,
whoever commits it, are unacceptable. Despite
political disagreements, democracies need to find
common ground above party, economic interest, and
ideology. Civil society action and engagement is a
key component of the process. It’s the only way to
overcome polarization, fragmentation, and hatred.
More fellow feeling, empathy, and common civility
can help. It can lead to a greater understanding of
diverse viewpoints and encourage compromise
increasingly missing in politics.
Part of putting democracy back on track is
exposing prospective voters to critical thinking and
new ideas. Young voters must also see value in the
idea of a free press, peaceful transfers of power, and
greater transparency and accountability in
government. Debates are the best way to
communicate political positions and differences to
the voters. They can serve as a useful tool to shape
voter’s choices and effecting the electoral outcome.
Many voters, in both parties, are anxious about the
Page No. 07 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
future of democracy and the country. They would
appreciate reasoned debates and civil discourse over
the acrimony and deception currently on offer.
Political leaders have to look beyond political purity
and party ideology. They have to set the example by
instilling a willingness to appreciate arguments and
positions running counter to their own. But
improving politics and strengthening democracy is a
collective responsibility. All citizens must oppose
anti-democratic behavior: using falsehoods in debates
and intimidating and silencing others with differing
viewpoints. The ability to listen and talk to each other
is a vital part of democracy. (Daily Times, April 15,
2021)
Vietnam Redux & Afghanistan
The prospect of an end to the conflict in Afghanistan
has led many U.S. foreign policy experts to ponder
the ignoble conclusion of another war, now a half
century past. Vietnam reportedly offers a cautionary
tale for some Pentagon officials who worry about
reliving the ignominious events of 1975, when the
North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front
(NLF) marched triumphantly into Saigon and the last
Americans, along with some South Vietnamese allies,
struggled frantically to escape by helicopter. Former
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker and
others who worry about the humanitarian and
geopolitical consequences of withdrawing from
Afghanistan warn of a “Vietnam redux” and hear
“echoes of America’s retreat from Vietnam.” They
seem to fear an Afghanistan syndrome, like the
so-called Vietnam syndrome before it, that could
cripple the United States’ ability to intervene
militarily. Just how similar was the war in Vietnam to
the war in Afghanistan, and how similar are their
endings likely to be? What will be the consequences
of U.S. withdrawal for Afghans and Americans—and
what lessons might the United States take from
Vietnam to mitigate them?
GRAVEYARDS OF EMPIRES Vietnam and
Afghanistan are both reputed “graveyards of
empires,” countries fiercely resistant to the will of
even the most powerful outsider. The American wars
in both countries were offshoots of larger global
conflicts: Vietnam was a Cold War front and
Afghanistan a front in former U.S. President George
W. Bush’s “war on terror.” In both cases, local
insurgent forces who fought the United States took
the long view, determined to wait out their
superpower foe. “You have the watches,” an Afghan
insurgent told an American reporter, “we have the
time.” The United States and North Vietnam
 negotiated the 1973 peace settlement directly with
each other, ignoring their respective allies, the
government of South Vietnam and the NLF. In
Afghanistan, the United States is now negotiating
directly with the Taliban, sidestepping its ally, the
government of President Ashraf Ghani. The U.S. ally
in Kabul, like its ally in South Vietnam, controls only
a fragment of its territory, exercises weak leadership,
and is afflicted with political and governmental
dysfunction as well as rampant corruption. The
Afghan military, like its South Vietnamese
counterpart, depends on U.S. financial aid and
support. And just as in Vietnam, the timing of a U.S.
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
troop withdrawal is an essential element of any
agreement. Now, as then, U.S. officials seek a
“decent interval,” in the phrase coined by Henry
Kissinger, national security adviser to U.S. President
Richard Nixon, between the departure of the United
States and the fall of its allied government.
“You have the watches,” an Afghan insurgent told an
American reporter, “we have the time.” For all that,
the two wars are also strikingly
dissimilar—beginning with their entirely
incomparable scale. U.S. troops in Vietnam peaked at
slightly more than half a million, of which more than
58,000 were killed. The United States has committed
barely a fifth the forces to Afghanistan and has lost
fewer than 3,000. Of course, the enemy is
incomparable, too. North Vietnam was a formidable
foe with one of the world’s largest armies and
substantial outside support from the Soviet bloc and
China. The U.S. enemy in Afghanistan is mainly the
Taliban insurgents, a far smaller military force
backed mostly by Pakistan. No great power rivalry
adds complexity or cost to the Afghan war. The war
in Vietnam provoked an outcry at home that would
define a legacy shared by no U.S. war before or since.
By the time the Paris peace negotiations began in
earnest in 1972, that war was deeply and
irredeemably unpopular in the United States.
Domestic pressure left Nixon and Kissinger, his chief
negotiator, little choice but to settle quickly for the
best terms possible. In part because of the rift
Vietnam opened in the American social fabric, the
United States has fought in Afghanistan with a
volunteer army, employed far fewer troops, and
sought to keep casualties low. There have been no
war taxes to rile the public, no street demonstrations
to rattle decision-makers. Media coverage has been
limited and boosterish. Polls show that a solid
majority of Americans think the war was a mistake,
doubt that progress is being made, and want to get
Page No. 08 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
out. But unlike Vietnam, the present war has not
aroused opposition potent enough to force discussion
of a withdrawal.
GETTING OUT Oddly, the major impetus for
extrication from Afghanistan has come not from
strategic thinkers or antiwar protesters but from a
chief executive who is a foreign policy neophyte and
who often behaves quite erratically. As a candidate
for the U.S. presidency, Donald Trump expressed
concern about costly, never-ending wars, such as the
one in Afghanistan, and vowed to terminate them.
When he took office, his advisers persuaded him to
authorize a small increase in U.S. troops instead.
Now, with the departure of establishment figures
such as former U.S. National Security Adviser H. R.
McMaster and former U.S. Secretary of Defense
James Mattis, Trump has again set out, in his words,
to extricate the nation from these “endless wars” and
“bring our folks home.” The foreign policy
establishment and some more hawkish senators, such
as Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South
Carolina, have sought to obstruct or at least delay the
president’s plans and sustain the commitment in
Afghanistan. The ignominious end to the war in
Vietnam haunts this discussion. Many Americans
retain indelible images of North Vietnam’s
devastating final offensive against the South, the
complete collapse of the Saigon government and its
army, and the desperate, belated efforts of Americans
and South Vietnamese to escape the onslaught. For a
nation accustomed to victory in war, such memories
are searing. Would a withdrawal from Afghanistan
look like Vietnam and have similar consequences for
Afghans—and Americans? At this point, the details
of the agreement under negotiation are unsettled. The
Taliban seeks an early withdrawal of U.S. troops; the
United States favors a process that could take up to
three years. U.S. negotiators seek guarantees from the
Taliban that terrorists will not again use Afghan
territory as a base from which to strike the United
States. There is no way to ensure that the Taliban
would keep such a pledge, but the group apparently
has its own concerns about al Qaeda and the Islamic
State (also known as ISIS), both of which have nests
scattered across Afghanistan, and might seek to
curtail their activities for its own reasons. The
agreement includes a provision for a cease-fire,
which would likely hold only as long as the various
parties in Afghanistan want it to—perhaps not long.
In Vietnam, the Saigon government broke the
cease-fire before the ink on the 1973 agreement was
dry; North Vietnam was not far behind. We can’t
 know what will happen in Afghanistan when the
United States withdraws. One possibility is that the
country will revert to a Taliban-dominated
nation-state and a patchwork of ethnic groups and
warlords, just as before 2001. As North Vietnam did
in the South after 1975, a Taliban government might
try to impose its ideology on the part of Afghanistan
it controls, in this case re-creating an Islamic state
similar to the one it ran before it was deposed, with
all the obvious implications for human rights and the
treatment of women.
HISTORY LESSONS Using historical analogy to
inform policy decisions is tricky at best and perilous
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
at worst. Nonetheless, Vietnam may offer some
useful lessons for postwar Afghanistan. For instance,
Nixon deluded himself into thinking that the promise
of economic aid and the threat of renewed bombing
would give him leverage over North Vietnam after
U.S. troops withdrew. In reality, the Watergate
scandal and fierce opposition in Congress and the
country to any form of reintervention tied his hands.
Even without Watergate, Nixon would likely not
have been able to forestall North Vietnam’s victory.
In Afghanistan, similarly, the United States will have
little influence on events on the ground after it has
left. The reintroduction of troops seems highly
improbable; the most the United States might do
would be to attack terrorist bases with bombs and
missiles, as it has done in Syria and elsewhere.
Vietnam should remind us of the costs of wishful
thinking in the final stages of war. Vietnam should
also remind us of the costs of wishful thinking in the
final stages of war. In the spring of 1975, U.S.
Ambassador to South Vietnam Graham Martin
stubbornly refused even to plan for withdrawal, for
fear of encouraging the enemy and discouraging the
South Vietnamese—a stance that made the U.S.
departure more chaotic than it might have been. A
quiet, well-planned, orderly withdrawal from
Afghanistan would look much different from a
Vietnam-like exit under extreme duress. And it
would militate against the “Afghanistan syndrome”
that many foreign policy analysts fear. Another
lesson from Vietnam is the critical importance of
consulting with U.S. allies well in advance of
departure. Nixon’s announcement of U.S. troop
withdrawals from Vietnam just hours after informing
allies of the decision deeply antagonized several of
those governments. Australia, the most zealous U.S.
ally at the start of the war, responded by disengaging
from Vietnam even more rapidly than the United
States. The Trump administration should avoid
Page No. 09 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
repeating this mistake; unfortunately, its track record
in dealing with allies does not bode well in this area.
American officials would also do well to follow the
courageous example of U.S. President Gerald Ford in
welcoming South Vietnamese refugees by providing
for the emigration of those Afghans who have been
most closely tied to the United States—again, no
simple task, especially given the current
administration’s hostility toward immigration.
Because the war in Afghanistan has largely been
invisible to most Americans, the domestic political
effect of the withdrawal will likely be less dramatic
than with Vietnam. A flap in Congress over who lost
Afghanistan seems improbable. The most the
withdrawal might do in terms of domestic politics is
widen the intraparty rift between Trumpian
nationalists and mainstream Republicans and sharpen
the already discernible public weariness with costly
and interminable conflicts abroad. A survey
commissioned by the Eurasia Group Foundation in
2018 shows that a majority of Americans favor a
more nationalist approach that prioritizes urgent
needs at home over costly campaigns to remake the
world in America’s image. This represents a shift in
attitudes away from public acceptance of a more
interventionist policy in the aftermath of 9/11 and
exposes a widening gap between the views of the
public and those of foreign policy elites—a gap that
leaders will have to address when framing future
policies.
The options before the United States today are
familiar ones. Washington could escalate in hopes of
winning the war; it could persist just as it has so far,
inviting a prolonged stalemate; or it could put an end
to a failed venture that has lasted 18 years and whose
long-term costs may run to trillions of dollars. The
choice seems obvious. The United States must
abandon its fixation with abstractions, such as
credibility or the fear of appearing weak, and act
instead on the basis of common sense. The most
enduring lesson of Vietnam—and Afghanistan—may
be that there is no good way out of a bad war except
to end it. (George C. Herring, Foreign Affairs)
Pakistan's Lawfare Dilemma
Lawfare is defined as the theory and practice of
the use of international law as an instrument to
advance one's own interests. Orde Kittrie’s book on
‘Lawfare’ defines it as the use of law as a weapon of
war. As per Aurel Sari, the world has retreated from
liberal internationalism and Kantian multilateralism
 into an era of big power camp politics. In this era of
geo-economic jostling for global and regional
pre-eminence, the kinetic use of force in wars has
been replaced by grey zone and hybrid warfare. Such
an environment is propitious for strategic use of law
to gain advantage against an adversary.
In a globally integrated world with
institutions like the UN and its judicial organ the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) along with the
International Criminal Court (ICC), expertise in
international law has assumed vital importance.
Lawfare could be used in a defensive or offensive
mode. Examples of defensive lawfare include use of
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
human shields by ISIS to exploit Western countries’
compliance compulsion with International
Humanitarian Law (IHL). Offensive lawfare with an
elegant variation on Clausewitz’s phrase is “the
continuation of politics with legal means”. Examples
include the denial of legal protections to terrorists in
sanctuaries. These sanctuaries can be in the realm of
physical, virtual (internet, media, and global financial
system), social, and legal. Domestic laws like the
Anti-Terrorism Act 1990 in the US that imposed civil
liability on individuals as well as organizations
supporting or indulging in terrorism are an example
of offensive lawfare.
UN Resolution 1267 imposing a sanctions’
regime against those supporting Al-Qaeda and
Osama bin Laden is another example of offensive
lawfare. Together with Resolution 1373, that called
for prevention of terrorist funding and support, these
two constituted an offensive lawfare strategy against
terrorism. A state which accepts international law is
bound to abide by those obligations. Countries that
sign these obligations but fail to bring their domestic
laws in compliance with international law earn
international censure and isolation. Pakistan’s
discomfiture at the hands of the Financial Action
Task Force is also a result of the above policy
dissonance wherein international law obligations
were accepted by Pakistan but domestic laws were
not enacted to ensure compliance. Pakistan’s record
in lawfare is far from enviable as it has failed to
frame countries like India that violate international
law with impunity in Indian Illegally Occupied
Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJ&K) or Occupied Kashmir.
Some of the weaknesses include the lack of proper
expertise, inadequate resources, and absence of a
central hub coordinating national lawfare efforts.
Pakistan’s greylisting in the FATF is also related to a
weak understanding of international law strictures
emanating from UN Resolutions 1267 and 1373. The
Page No. 10 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
Kashmir dispute and India’s egregiously flawed
human rights and international law violation record
merited a vigorous lawfare response from Pakistan
which has not materialized due to the above capacity
deficit. International Humanitarian Law stipulates
that unconsented and effective occupation by an
occupying force that does not have sovereign title to
the land constitutes occupation. By the above
standards, the Indian army is an occupation force in
Occupied Kashmir. Pakistan, however, has failed in
its offensive lawfare goal of getting the Indian army
branded as an occupation force in Occupied Kashmir.
To achieve the above end, factual criteria as defined
in international law to declare the Indian army as an
occupation army needed to be highlighted in the form
of a formal invocation to the UN Security Council.
Human rights violations by an occupying force
become war crimes as per international law and
Pakistan has a strong case to prove the Indian army as
an occupation force.
The use of pellets by Indian security forces in
Kashmir is a grave breach of human rights law,
equivalent to a war crime. Similarly, the Indian
army’s forced entrance into private residences,
detention of victims and their torture is a war crime.
As per Article 427 of the UN International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as
Human Rights Watch (HRW), state sponsored
militias should abide by IHL. India is clearly in
violation of the above law in Occupied Kashmir. Just
look at the post-Covid scene inside Occupied
Kashmir. With the poor citizens kept in a constant
state of security lockdown sans internet and other
communications, the Indians are in violation of
Article 56 of Fourth Geneva Convention. Indian
failure to facilitate international relief efforts in a
pandemic zone and their failure as an occupation
force to honour their obligations vis-a-vis health and
security constitute an egregious breach of
international law. As an offensive lawfare option,
Pakistan needs to collect evidence of Indian human
rights violations and document them so as to be
categorized and presented as war crimes in
international fora like the UN Human Rights Council
and General Assembly. Kashmiris should be helped
in invoking the ‘universal jurisdiction’ clause of the
domestic laws of countries like the US, UK,
Argentina, Australia, Germany, Belgium, Canada,
Norway and Sweden. The evidence collection efforts
should be instituted under a legal statute through any
university or its affiliated Area Study Center’s
Charter Act. A vice chancellor can notify a
 committee as a statutory entity for collection and
documentation of evidence which should be funded
as a project by the Ministry of Finance. In an
increasingly polarized international environment
where competing alliances led by China and the US
predict conflictual regional dynamics, Pakistan needs
to build up its human resource and organizational
capacity to mount a robust lawfare offensive rather
than acting passively on reactive mode. Pakistan
faltered on its FATF compliances because of
inadequate international law expertise and a lack of
understanding of sum and substance of the FATF,
thinking that what worked for it in 2012 would also
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
work in an altered 2018 environment. Apart from
capacity building, Pakistan should be careful in
accepting international law obligations that it cannot
fulfill. Capacity building of our international lawyers
and creation of a strong central hub at the national
level for coordinating the lawfare efforts is no more a
strategic choice but a national security imperative.
(The News, April 18, 2021)
Political calculations to settle Myanmar crisis
Since the military forcibly seized control and
forced the exit of the National League for Democracy
(NLD) from the government on February 1, the
socio-political conditions in Southeast Asian nation
Myanmar have again moved towards uncertainty.
The coup, led by the head of Tatmadaw -- the
national armed forces – Gen. Min Aung Hlaing
shortly after Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD won the
election, has become a nightmare for people in the
country. Thousands of people were forced to flee to
the borders of neighboring countries. Some also
asked for protection from armed militia groups who
have been confronting the military junta since 1948.
In fact, in the last decade, democracy in Myanmar
had made significant progress. However, the coup
tradition had not completely disappeared from the
politics of the country of Golden Pagoda – one of the
most sacred gilded Buddhist pagodas located in
Yangon. Until now, the wave of protests against
military coups has continued. More than 560 people
have been killed by the national army. The highest
daily fatalities were seen on March 27, when 141
people were killed. Ironically, this happened when
the Tatmadaw celebrated Armed Forces Day with a
military parade, while more than 5,000 people were
detained, including Aung San Suu Kyi and the
pro-democracy opposition. Instead of subsiding, the
wave of protests has spread as people from all
backgrounds, be that government workers, educators,
Page No. 11 — www.CSSExamDesk.com
health workers, laborers, and workers in Tatmadaw's
defense equipment factories, have joined the
resistance movement against the coup. Some armed
militia groups on the border are also taking part in the
anti-coup movement. The military junta declared a
"ceasefire" against them, but not against unarmed
demonstrators.
Myanmar has a history of coups: Throughout its
decades of independence, Myanmar has struggled
with military coups several times. However, this time
it was staged when Tatmadaw was opening up to
cooperate with the West. Did the Tatmadaw
miscalculate? While defending the coup against Aung
San Suu Kyi's leadership and Myint Swe's
government, Gen. Min Aung Hlaing said it has a
constitutional mandate to save democracy. Aung San
Suu Kyi was accused of fraud in the November 2020
election, political bribery, violations of health
protocols and the natural disaster management law,
and accusations of leaking state secrets due to her
proximity to China. However, the coup, which was
expected to last for a short time, has snowballed into
a resistance movement making Myanmar chaotic and
unstable. Internally, the wave of protests has spread
widely, people have fled across borders to seek
refuge in neighboring countries. Externally, the
international community has reacted to the military
junta's violence. Companies connected to the junta
were frozen, foreign investment was stopped, and
several countries called their diplomats back.
Criticism also came from the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the European
Union, the US, and the UN Security Council. Russia
and China also expressed regrets about the military
junta's repressive acts. Several countries in mainland
Southeast Asia, commonly called Indochina during
the Cold War era, including Myanmar, Laos, and
Cambodia, are indeed no strangers to coups in their
politics. Since independence from British colonialism
in 1948, Myanmar experienced a coup for the first
time in 1962 when Tatmadaw under Gen. Ne Win
overthrew the civilian government. After that, the
political situation continued to change dynamically
and coups occurred again in 1988 and 1990.
Democratization led by the NLD is deeply rooted in
the socio-political structure of the Myanmar civil
government. This is what caused the resistance wave
to get bigger and bigger.
Possibilities in Myanmar: Moreover, the coup
occurred at a time when the people of Myanmar were
facing an economic crisis due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Again, did General Min miscalculate?
 Several possibilities could occur following the
current crisis in Myanmar. First, the military junta
may be subjected to international pressure to stop the
violence. However, this does not mean that the
anti-coup wave will automatically stop since the main
demands for pro-democracy are to cancel the coup
and reject the re-election being offered by the junta.
Will the military junta fulfill these two demands? As
a consequence of this possibility, Min Aung Hlaing
could be prosecuted in the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) for military crimes. Not only crimes that
he has committed since the Feb. 1 coup, but also
human rights violations and crimes committed
Compiled & Edited by Aamir Mahar — www.CSSExamDesk.com
against ethnic Rohingya. Second, the military junta
regime maintains its stance against anti-coup
protesters by using military means. Due to this, the
violence will continue, and casualties will also
continue to rise. This would encourage the
crystallization of resistance against the regime,
including from around 17 ethnic armed militia groups
with more than 20,000 members. Of course, this
could also eventually force the intervention of
international powers and affect regional security.
Third, Myanmar is trapped in the threat of civil war.
The climate of the current coup is different from what
happened in the Cold War era. Civil society's support
for democratization led by the NLD in the past
decade will determine the future of the crisis. As the
only regional organization that brings together
countries in Southeast Asia, ASEAN was tested for
its stance and role in facing a crisis in Myanmar.
Myanmar crises reposition ASEAN: Failure to
respond to the crisis will add to the burdens and
challenges of the bloc, especially to fully realize the
ideals of the ASEAN Political-Security Community,
which was set in 2015. In 2014, the country's
excellent progress in democratization had prompted
support from member countries for Myanmar to
assume the chairmanship of ASEAN. The Myanmar
crisis has repositioned the bloc at a "crossroads." On
the one hand, all member countries are bound by the
non-intervention principle as a code of conduct. On
the other hand, the crisis in Myanmar cannot be
ignored since the impact will affect neighboring
countries, including Indonesia. So, multilateral
diplomacy is the main way to resolve conflict. The
diplomatic steps taken by Indonesian Foreign
Minister Retno Marsudi have been very well taken.
The country's approach to ASEAN countries, China,
Russia, and the UN shows its "free-and-active"
foreign policy stance. As a backbone of Southeast
Asia, Indonesia has a big stake in the democratization
For FPSC, PPSC & SPSC General Recruitment Tests
preparation, contact us here www.CSSExamDesk.com
of Myanmar. Learning from the Middle East crisis
such as Syria, which affected not only immediate
neighbors but far away in Europe as well due to the
surge of immigrants, Indonesia needs to encourage
reconciliation among actors involved in the crisis
since it has a track record in successfully integrating
the values of diversity into its national identity.
However, these efforts must still be carried out
through multilateral diplomacy, both at the ASEAN
and at the UN.
Saudi-Iran talks
Ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran,
ties between Tehran and Riyadh have been
increasingly strained, affecting sectarian relations
across the Muslim world. While before 1979 both
were in the pro-American camp, after the fall of the
Shah Iran embarked on a journey to ‘export’ its
revolution, which obviously did not sit well with the
Arab monarchies. After over four decades, the
relationship remains tense, with proxy conflicts
between the two being fought in Iraq, Yemen, Syria
and Lebanon. However, despite the starkly different
ideologies both camps adhere to, coexistence is
possible, should there be a desire to live with each
other. A small example of this was recently witnessed
in Iraq, where reportedly a low-level meeting
between Saudi and Iranian officials was held to
discuss the Yemen quagmire. There have been no
relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran since the
former broke off ties in 2016 after Riyadh executed
Shaikh Baqir al-Nimr, a Saudi Shia cleric. Though
the talks in Iraq do not constitute a major
breakthrough, they do prove that if both sides wish,
engagement is possible. Saudi Arabia is quite keen to
extricate itself from the Yemen crisis, where it has
failed to dislodge the Iran-allied Houthis. Indeed,
these parleys should be built on and carried forward,
and perhaps the scope can later be expanded to the
greater Saudi-Iranian rivalry playing out across the
Middle East. Iraq can be a good interlocutor as it has
relations with both sides; elements within its
Shia-majority government have deep ties to Tehran,
while as an Arab state Iraq shares cultural bonds with
the Saudis. In fact it is desirable for states in the
region to sort out their own issues. Military invasions
and interventions by outside powers have only led to
increased misery in the Middle East, while Israel is
also keen to play up confessional and ethnic
differences. If Riyadh and Tehran persist, they can
succeed in establishing cordial relations and putting
the hostility of the past behind them. (Published in
Dawn, April 20th, 2021)