First and foremost , I am greatly indebted and greatful to almighty Allah for having enable me

to take up such a collective and academic endeavors. I extend my complete gratitude to

Allah and His prophet; without whose guidance it would not have been possible for a feeble
intellect like mine to complete this gigantic work.

Furthermore, I am indebted to the selfless and devoted personal interest and effort of Irshad
Bhutto, Toqeer Abbas Mr Hyder Ali rajput , Mairaj bhagat , Javeria Babbar ,Dr Saida
,Sualeha Saher and Mahrukh who not only helped me in completing this book but also
provide me with a rare opportunity to learn more. obligated acknowledgement are due to the
resources like website and articles .

I am also thankful to ky father and brother members who extend their complete cooperation
in the completion of this project.

Finally, any suggestions towards improvement of this book , any unintentional mistake
pointed out the reader will be highly appreciated.

Thank you .

Ali Haider
 CURRENT AFFAIRS 2021

U.S. and Middle East Implications of Recent Peace

Agreements with Israel

On October 23, 2020, the U.S. government brokered a peace agreement between Sudan and Israel. This
news comes a little over a month after the U.S. also brokered peace deals between Israel and two Arab
countries – Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Other peace agreements are rumored to be in the
wings. For international business, this means new opportunities – and a potentially safer operating
environment. We do not see a “downside.”

THE BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS

These peace agreements are, in time, likely to lead to a significant trade between the Gulf states and Israel
– particularly if Saudi Arabia also enters into a peace agreement. This potential was foreshadowed on
September 2 when direct air travel between Israel and Saudi Arabia began. With benefits to each party
from repealing the Israeli boycott, Israel has estimated that trade with the UAE alone could grow to $4
billion a year. From the US business perspective, as well as providing logistical benefits for companies
which supply goods to the Middle East market, these developments are likely to significantly reduce the
compliance risk for US companies which previously arose from trading with Gulf states on the one hand
and complying with US anti-boycott regulations on the other.

For international businesses that invest in the Middle East, including UK headquartered companies, these
developments are likely to create business efficiencies through the opening up of supply routes and the
potential to combine a broader market under the same regional leadership.

THE SANCTION IMPLICATIONS

From a U.S. sanctions perspective, the most interesting agreement is between Sudan and Israel. Sudan
has been on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list (SST list) for years. The SST list includes countries the
Secretary of State has repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism. Countries on the SST list are
subject to restrictions from U.S. foreign assistance, a ban on defense exports and sales, controls over
exports of dual use items, and certain financial and other restrictions. Potentially more restricting, from a
practical perspective, many multi-national corporations, as a matter of corporate policy, do not conduct
business in Sudan because of its inclusion on the SST. The Government of Sudan has been seeking removal
for a number of years and has taken tangible steps to illustrate this desire. In particular, Sudan expelled
Iranian diplomats and closed all Iranian cultural centers in the country in 2014. Further, in October of this
year, Sudan and the United States signed a bilateral agreement to resolve claims arising from the 1998
East African embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. This agreement provides for the payment of $335
million into a fund for U.S. terrorism victims and their families, which will be released to the United States
following the rescission of Sudan’s SST designation and the enactment of legislation that would restore
its immunities to those of a country not so designated.
 UAE-ISRAEL RAPPROCHEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REGION

On August 13, 2020, Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) signed a peace
agreement called the ‘Abraham Accord’, brokered by the US administration. 1 US
President Donald Trump announced that the pact for ‘normalization’ of ties between
the two countries will encompass broader cooperation in the trade, tourism, food
security, technology and energy. This makes UAE the first Gulf state and the third Arab
country to develop ‘normal’ diplomatic relations with Israel after Egypt and Jordan’s
peace agreements of 1979 and 1994 respectively.
The surprise announcement came after months of talks through a mediator, Jared Kushner, senior advisor
and son-in-law of President Trump.2 Creating severe backlash from the Palestinians, the move also
angered several Muslim states across the globe that have denounced the state of Israel over its illegal
occupation of the Palestinian territory.
Statement from Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of UAE after the announcement emphasized that
future annexation of the Palestinian land by Israel will be suspended as a major feature of the
agreement. It read, “During a call with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, an
agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories,” he wrote.
“The UAE and Israel also agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a
bilateral relationship.”3 The two sides have also agreed to open reciprocal embassies and to initiate direct
flights.4
Earlier in June, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had indicated toward establishment of ties with UAE,
particularly in terms of cooperation over the Covid crisis. However, the UAE officials watered down the
claim, describing it as collaboration between private Emirati and Israeli companies. 5This hesitation at part
of the Emirates was probably due to Israel’s announcement to annex all Palestinian territories by July
which would have thrown a spanner in the works. However, the last week’s announcement of
rapprochement between the two sides came after reassurances that Israel would ‘suspend’ the
annexation.
How the world has reacted?
Predictably, the move has garnered severe backlash from several Muslim countries particularly Iran and
Turkey. This development accentuates the internal fissures of the Muslim world where Gulf and Arab
states are becoming increasingly wary of Iran’s regional posture and are perhaps making unlikely alliances
against a commonly perceived enemy which is Iran. Establishing a robust relationship with Israel which is
perceived as an existential threat to Iran and vice versa indicates the deep level of mistrust and
antagonism between Iran and UAE.
Iran has called the move a 'strategic stupidity', while Turkey called it a ‘betrayal’ of the Palestinian cause.
Breaking several days of silence, Saudi Arabia has also stated that it will not follow the UAE in establishing
diplomatic ties with Israel until it signs an internationally recognized peace accord with the Palestinians.6
The European Union (EU) foreign policy spokeswoman, Nabila Massrali welcomed the move
while emphasizing that the EU has always supported the two-state solution to the Palestinian
conflict.7Not surprisingly, the most harsh reaction came from Palestine where President
Mahmoud Abbas rejected the accord outright. His adviser’s statement read, “The deal is a betrayal of
Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa and the Palestinian cause.”8
Why the peace deal?
Having cold-shouldered its previous overtures for establishing bilateral relations, the United Arab
Emirates has now taken a step toward building a close and important relationship with Israel. This bold
move while being slandered all over the Muslim world, has been defended by the Emirates as a strategy
to create ‘more opportunities for peace’ and ‘badly needed realism’.9 UAE's Minister of State for Foreign
Affairs, Anwar Gargash said, “While the peace decision remains basically a Palestinian-Israeli one, the bold
initiative of Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed has allowed, by banishing the spectre of annexing Palestinian
lands, more time for peace opportunities through the two-state solution”.10
Pausing the annexation of the Jordan Valley and the West Bank settlements for a while has been promoted
as the major gain of this peace agreement. While PM Netanyahu made it clear soon after the agreement
that annexation is merely in suspension and not completely off the table. 11If annexation is to continue
sometime later, then why was this peace deal brokered in the first place? There are quite a few factors
and actors at play behind this deal:
This ‘Abraham Accord’ as an offspring of Trump’s ‘Deal of the century’ comes at a crucial time for his
presidential campaign as his approval rating was sinking below 50% mark.12

Trump’s handling of the corona virus pandemic at home and maximum pressure campaign to bend Iran
have fallen flat which has put his re-election to the oval office in serious danger.

The deal also comes as a boon to Prime Minister Netanyahu who is facing corruption charges at home
and the country has seen three inconclusive elections this year.

• Apart from pulling two world leaders out of their domestic political quagmires, the deal in fact is a
formalization of an existing cooperation between Israel and UAE which was not the best kept secret to
begin with.

Many say that the deal is more about limiting Iran’s regional foothold than it is about the cause of
Palestine but it can be perceived as fulfilling both purposes simultaneously.
UAE’s regional and global outreach combined with its economic progress and technological advancement
has been a fruit of realistic foreign policy decisions. This deal is also a result of pragmatic ambitions.
However, as far as its claims to protect the Palestinian cause are concerned, that still remains to be seen.
Many across the Muslim world are concerned that this decision will encourage other Muslim countries to
do the same while the usurpation of Palestinian rights will continue. This deal may have been forged in
hope of resolving the longstanding Palestinian conflict and bringing peace to this region, but there are still
anxious reports emanating from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank which are hard to ignore. Peace for all
and pragmatism may have been at the center of this accord but on the other hand, attacks on Gaza
continue for the seventh straight night as Israeli warplanes strike ground infrastructures.13
Pakistan’s stance on the issue is clear from what Prime Minister Imran Khan said in a recent interview,
“Our stance is very clear…it was cleared by Quaid-e-Azam in 1948 that we can’t accept Israel until
Palestinians are given their rights.”14Pakistan along with the rest of the Muslim world hopes for long term
peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people as emphasized in the statement by the spokesperson at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Pakistan has an abiding commitment to the full realization of the
legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination. Peace and stability in
the Middle East region is also Pakistan’s key priority. For a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, Pakistan
has consistently supported a two-state solution in accordance with the relevant UN and OIC resolutions
as well as international law. Pakistan’s approach will be guided by our evaluation of how Palestinians’
rights and aspirations are upheld and how regional peace, security and stability are preserved.” Whether
this deal can make this happen, is something only time will tell.

Implications of the Israel-UAE Peace Deal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: While normalization between the UAE and Israel is probably not the
game-changer some believe it to be, it does firm up a changing regional environment. The deal
will create a new dynamic on three levels: domestic, regional, and international. Expect more
pieces to fall into place soon as other countries adjust.
The announcement that Israel and the UAE are normalizing relations is less of an earthquake than
it might appear, as Israel and several Gulf states have been moving in that direction. The
breakthrough appears to be the logical outcome of the trajectory followed by PM Benjamin
Netanyahu and the UAE’s Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Zayed, who have had secret diplomatic
contacts for some time. Their agreement is the third peace deal between Israel and an Arab
country, following Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). It will create a new dynamic on three levels:
domestic, regional, and international.
Domestically, the two states’ leaders chose to describe the deal differently to reflect their
different audiences. The Emiratis emphasized that the deal will postpone Israel’s planned
application of sovereignty to portions of the West Bank, making normalization consistent with
support for the Palestinians. The Israelis used the breakthrough to shift attention away from local
economic and political problems, and even as a starting point for an election campaign. Both
sides agreed that the rapprochement is an historic step that can give real hope to the region.
Within the UAE public sentiment has been largely supportive, as would be expected. While an
older generation of Emiratis grew up with a harsh view of Israel, the Palestinian cause has been
less of a rallying cry for those who came of age in the 21st century, a time of great regional
turmoil. Among younger Emiratis, a more pragmatic view of Israel seems to be the norm,
especially as
Iranian imperialism and militant Islam have taken on a larger role in the regional threat
perception in the post-Arab uprisings era.
Beyond the domestic level, the announcement has significant regional implications. Turkey and
Iran both reacted as one would expect. Iranian FM Muhammad Javad Zarif criticized the deal
during his recent visit to Lebanon, describing it as a stab in the back for Lebanon and other Arab
countries. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan threatened to cut diplomatic ties with the UAE
and shut its embassy over the deal. The new alignment threatens both Iran and Turkey and
challenges their regional policies.

Reactions from other local governments have been more measured. Egypt, Oman, and Bahrain
all expressed support. Bahrain is expected to be the next Arab state to recognize Israel, and Oman
has long advocated for warmer relations. In 2018, Oman’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs
Yousef bin Alawi bin Abdulla speculated that “maybe it is time for Israel to be treated the same
[as other states] and also bear the same obligations.” Saudi Arabia has remained quiet about its
relationship with Israel, though there is speculation that the UAE deal might open the door for
the Saudis to follow suit.
On the international level, responses have varied between support and indifference. One
development to keep an eye on is the US-China rivalry in the Middle East. Last month’s leaked
details of a supposed agreement between Beijing and Tehran intensified tensions between
Washington and Beijing, and the Middle East is increasingly looking like a possible theater of
competition between the two superpowers. The agreement between the UAE and Israel, both
US allies, could be interpreted as a counter to the Iran-China deal. However, both countries also
enjoy advanced relations with China, and it is unlikely that leaders in either state would want to
antagonize Beijing. Regardless, any developments that alter the Middle East’s strategic landscape
will have implications on the broader international level, and the responses of leaders in the US,
China, and Russia will bear watching.

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR PALESTINE?

The Palestinian struggle has long been an accepted moto in Arab/Muslim narrations
and continues to be used to this day to mobilize the populace. However, given the
changing Middle East landscape, the power and ability to influence of this slogan is
increasingly diminishing towards complete extinction.
For the Palestinians, their trials and tribulations have only intensified. Even today, Israel continues to
bomb the Gaza Strip on an almost daily basis. Israeli settlement expansion continues unabated. In the
past month alone, there have been plans to add 6205 settlement units on Palestinian land. 1According to
the World Bank, the Palestinian economy is estimated to shrink by almost 8 percent this year as it struggles
in the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic. Unemployment in the West Bank and Gaza is at 18.2% and
48.5% respectively.

The coronavirus pandemic is spreading at an exponential rate in Gaza, which has been described by many
as the world’s largest open-air prison as well as one of the most overcrowded areas on the planet.
Complications arising from lack of Covid-19 testing kits and personal protective equipment (PPE) are being
further compounded by Israeli imposed blockades on medical supplies reaching Gaza. Health officials have
forewarned that since Covid cases in Gaza have reached calamitous stages, it is only a matter of time
before the Palestinian enclave medical system completely collapses.
There is however a thin ray of light for the Palestinian populace. On September 24, an agreement was
reached between the two Palestinian factions: Hamas and Fatah, where the two sides agreed to hold the
first elections in nearly 15 years. Most recently, on November 17, the two sides met in Cairo to discuss
implementation of reconciliation towards elections. Elections have not been held in Palestine since 2006.
Palestine During the Trump Era
There is no doubt that the Trump administration has profoundly changed the political panorama for the
Palestinian issue. While over the years, the United States has always supported Israel - paying mere lip
service to the two-state solution, while giving Israel free reins to do as they pleased – the Trump
government did not hesitate to set the bar high in terms of crushing what little hope the Palestinians had.
After giving false hopes to the Palestinians in the form of an ultimate deal which would resolve the conflict,
President Trump proceeded to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and even moved the US Embassy
there from Tel Aviv, thus cementing his campaign promises of giving great importance to the evangelical
Christians as well as the Jewish lobby in the US. Concurrently, he refused to denounce the illegal Israeli
settlement expansion and instead in the face of Palestinian outcry, withdrew funding to the United
Nations Relief & Works Agency (UNRWA) on which millions of Palestinians depend on for sustenance. His
Middle East plan recognized Israeli sovereignty over Israeli expansion over settlement blocs in the
occupied West Bank. According to the new map, Palestine would consist of boroughs of fragmented land
and capital in occupied East Jerusalem.
During his final year, he also mediated Israeli rapprochement with three Arab states (UAE, Bahrain and
Sudan) in exchange for suspending annexation. Annexation is however continuing to this day and the
Palestinian cause is more isolated than ever.
What Does the Future Hold For Palestine Under Biden?
The results of the US 2020 elections have been taken by many as a precursor of some breathing space to
the Palestinians after four years of unrelenting assault on their rights and aspirations. Already, it can be
seen that in the period before Joe Biden takes office, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is making moves such
as re-establishing security ties with Israel and sending Palestinian officials back to Bahrain and the UAE,
despite their official recognition of the state of Israel. All these steps are an effort to return to the status
quo. Of course, given the devastating situation in Gaza, this also is an opportune time for the PA to collect
the $890 million in tax transfers, Israel has been withholding due to severing of ties in May.
While Biden is a strong advocate of the two-state solution, he has always rebuffed calls for leveraging US
aid to Israel in order to pressure the latter, stating that the idea of cutting of aid to the US ‘only true ally
in the region’ was absolutely unthinkable. 8Though he initially opposed the shifting of the US embassy, he
has clearly said his administration will not reverse this decision and will instead reopen the US consulate
in East Jerusalem in order to serve the Palestinians.9 He has also enunciated on several occasions that
under his supervision, the US will renew all ties with the PA and reverse the cancellation of support to
Palestinian sustenance programs be it for economic development or humanitarian assistance.10 However,
these are also conditioned only if the PA stops welfare payments to the families of Palestinian prisoners
and terrorists who have been slain by Israeli forces.
On the subject of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, the new US President is a
unwavering adversary and has clearly depicted that he believes this lobby is “wrong”.11 With reference to
the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan rapprochement with Israel, Biden has encouraged it and urged other Arab
states to engage in bolder steps toward normalization with Israel.12
Conclusion
All thing considered, there will be a radical departure from unconditional, open advocacy for Israel
towards some consideration of Palestinian rights in terms of tone and diplomatic approach. However, it
is also very clear that President Trump’s policies of appeasement of the Israeli far right will not vanish with
a new US administration. Now more than ever, Palestinians need to present a united stand and thus create
a political strategy which goes beyond dependence on an American policy towards a Palestinian solution
and can counter Israeli disregard for any semblance of peace or adherence to international law.

TALIBAN-US PEACE DEAL: AN APPRAISAL

After nearly two decades of protracted war, bloodshed and all the baggage that war carries, the US and
the Afghan Taliban finally signed a peace agreement on February 29, 2020 amid hopes that the country
returns towards normalcy. Signed between the US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban leader
Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in a ceremony attended by officials from over 30 countries and
organizations, the agreement came after 18 months of extensive negotiations between the US and the
Taliban, not to mention numerous hurdles including a brief collapse of the process in September 2019.
The deal itself revolves around four main issues: (i) temporary ceasefire, (ii) withdrawal of foreign forces
within a fourteen month period, (iii) talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, and (iv)
assurances that the Taliban will not participate in or aid others in threatening the security of the US and
its allies.1
President Trump, congratulating his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper
on the deal, noted that he had faith in this agreement since "everyone is tired of war." And yet, as some
analysts have noted, despite popular parlance of a “peace deal”, none of the stakeholders – i.e. officials
from the US, Afghanistan government, and the Taliban – have referred to the Doha agreement as a peace
deal. Yet, there is cause for some optimism.2 The agreement has received mixed reviews. Although the
deal has been welcomed by many quarters, it is imperative to note that it is only a first step in the right
direction, because the most difficult challenge is to find common ground between the Taliban and the
Afghan government. Far from perfect, the agreement remains vague on certain issues as many fear that
a US withdrawal might lead to deterioration in the situation and to circumstances where the Taliban might
regain control. However, the fact that the deal addresses the core issues of the Afghan conflict so pivotal
for peace, makes this agreement the only genuine way to end the war. Unfortunately, this agreement has
come at a heavy price. The long drawn out war in Afghanistan has borne a huge material and human cost
for Afghanistan, the international community as well as the region, resulting in death and destruction,
thousands of casualties as well as millions of refugees. The agreement has highlighted what Pakistan has
been saying since the beginning of the war, that peace could only be achieved through a negotiated
settlement. Hence, it was refreshing when US Defense Secretary Mark Esper echoed this sentiment,
noting: 'Peace will not come through military means; rather, safety and security for the United States, our
allies and Afghanistan will be won when all Afghans lay down their arms, sit beside one another and decide
their future together. A political solution is the best way forward..’. One only wishes the US had realized
this 18 years ago when it invaded Afghanistan.

Core Issues of the Peace Agreement: A Glimpse

Temporary Ceasefire

From the very beginning, a reduction in violence leading to a ceasefire has been one of the main
components of the peace deal. With the exception of a brief 3-day ceasefire in June 2018, the Taliban
have continued to use violence as a means to further their goals. While the group did exhibit a reduction
in violence between February 22 and 29 leading to the peace deal, immediately following the deal, there
has been a comeback of violence. In a statement on March 2, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said
that, “the reduction in violence has ended now and our operations will continue as normal ... and that the
group will not attack foreign forces but operations will continue against the Kabul administration forces.”3
The Taliban's rigidity and refusal to cease attacks against Afghan security forces continue to be a major
stumbling blocks in the way of long term peace. The Taliban rationale for attacking ANSF on the pretext
that the deal was only limited to foreign forces does not hold weight. The Taliban will initially have to
ensure a visible reduction and ultimately cease all means of violence. It remains to be seen whether the
group will move towards a permanent ceasefire which will be a determining factor towards the
completion of a future political roadmap for Afghanistan.

US Withdrawal
The entire premise behind the Taliban's insurgency has been the withdrawal of US forces from
Afghanistan, which has been met in the agreement. Under the accord, during the next 135 days, US troops
will be reduced to 8,600 after which a complete withdrawal will take place in the next fourteen months.
However, this will depend on the state of affairs in Afghanistan, security situation, the Taliban's
commitment towards the reduction of violence, ceasefire and the outcome of the intra-Afghan talks.
Moreover, while the Taliban have continued to emphasize the withdrawal of US forces, at the same time,
the group has echoed that they would like to have friendly ties with the US and want the US to come back
and help build the country through reconstruction and development - a clear departure from previous
views.4 Hence, this clearly highlights that the Taliban are in fact open to some sort of US presence in the
country.
Intra-Afghan Talks
A major sticking point and stumbling block in the way of a peace deal has been the Taliban's refusal to
engage with Kabul, which they regard as a “puppet government” of the US. However, after the signing of
the agreement, this narrative holds no substance since the group has not only engaged with the puppet
master - but in fact has signed an agreement with them. Hence, the Taliban's rationale for refusing to
engage with President Ghani is problematic. Inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue and reconciliation is the need
of the hour, particularly in the current state of affairs where there is political uncertainty due to the
election results. President Ghani and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah simultaneously declared victory in September
2019.5 On March 9, 2020, both candidates held separate inauguration ceremonies, in which President
Ashraf Ghani took oath as President for a second term from Afghanistan's chief justice in Kabul, whereas
Abdullah Abdullah took oath from a senior cleric - thus plunging Afghanistan into deeper political
uncertainty. 6 This development, without a doubt has further put Afghanistan's future in serious doubt,
especially in terms of the historic US-Taliban peace agreement, and Intra-Afghan talks which were
scheduled for March 10, 2020. This shows that Afghanistan's dilemma has always been internal divides,
stemming from lack of national and political unity. One only hopes that the political turmoil does not
manifest itself in a bloodshed.

While the international community has stated that it is now time for Afghans to take ownership of their
internal affairs, this is a recipe for disaster. For the past three decades or so, Afghanistan has suffered
from internal divisions, be they political or ethnic. At this stage it would be highly irresponsible for the
international community to leave it to the Afghans to solve a crisis that has been unresolved during an 18-
year war.
The international community must play its role in ensuring intra-Afghan talks instead of shifting this onus
onto the politically divided Afghans. Although President Ghani was not included in the peace agreement,
whoever is sitting at the helm of affairs in Kabul must be included in future intra-Afghan talks to ensure
that they are inclusive and representative; Ghani may be considered a puppet, but he does represent a
segment of Afghanistan. Any leader calling the shots in Kabul has the potential to be a spoiler and can
obstruct the peace process. Thus, one lesson that should be learnt from the annulment of the US -Taliban
“agreement in principle” is that the inclusion of Kabul is a necessary condition for peace and stability in
Afghanistan. Moreover, the aim should be to focus on an interim inclusive political setup where all the
different political factions including the Taliban, Ghani and Abdullah are included.
The Taliban have been open to such an option, expressing repeatedly that (unlike the past) they do not
want a monopoly of power, but want to find a solution through peaceful means and dialogue, with the
aim that once foreign forces withdraw there should be no intra-Afghan conflict. This indicates that they
may be open to a power sharing set up in the future. During the Moscow talks in February 2019, when
the Taliban had been deliberating upon a possible interim setup, which had been supported by several
other political figures, and which could have paved the way towards effective elections, President Ghani
had opposed this notion. Such a setup could also have played a part in easing the Taliban’s rigid stances
on other issues such as US troop withdrawal, and changes to the Afghan constitution. Ghani had played
an instrumental role in 2018 when he offered a comprehensive peace plan to the Taliban and oversaw
the Eid ceasefire of June 2019. Instead of creating hurdles, he should assume the role of a champion of
peace and ensure the success of talks as well as an inclusive political setup where everyone gets a piece
of the pie.
CT Assurances from the Taliban7
Attaining assurance from the Taliban has for the most part been achieved from the beginning.
The Taliban have on several occasions stated that they will not allow their soil to be used against
any country, including for attacks on the US and its allies.8 The Taliban have not been collaborating with
any terrorist group, and this has been stated repeatedly by them. Just by wanting to become a political
entity, in fact, the Taliban have signaled their intent to not host terrorist groups. Assurances have been
given, such as those by Sher Abbas Stanakzai, that the Taliban will not tolerate any terrorist group or allow
terrorism to harm its neighbors, including that by groups like Daesh. For the US, while there are reasons
to doubt these assurances, there should be some comfort in the fact that hosting a terrorist organization
will harm the goals of the Taliban who now see themselves as political actors in their own right. The
Daesh/Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), after all, has openly opposed the Taliban and preached an
agenda of a global caliphate, which is contrary to the Taliban’s local struggle. Both groups have been at
war and many international stakeholders like China, Pakistan, Russia and the US, welcomed and
encouraged the Taliban’s fight against the ISKP.9
The presence of Daesh in Afghanistan, is probably the most lethal concern since it poses a grave danger
to the survival of the Taliban as well as Kabul. Only a week after the peace deal, a Daesh group opened
fire on a memorial ceremony in Kabul on March 6 killing 32 people and wounding dozens. Several
politicians including Abdullah Abdullah who were also in the audience escaped unhurt. 10 But if all the
stakeholders including the US, Taliban and Kabul combine forces, they can resist the ISKP efficiently. Even
after this peace agreement, it is the ISKP that has been responsible for violent activities.
Hurdles
Despite overwhelming optimism, there are still major stumbling blocks that show how fickle the
situation in Afghanistan really is. The deal, in addition to discussing gradual withdrawal of 14,000
US servicemen11 in exchange for Taliban commitment to shun dealings with terrorists, also dealt
with an exchange of prisoners and for the Taliban to begin talks with the Afghan government. It
stipulates that both the government and the Taliban will release political prisoners before talks
begin on March 10 in Norway – with the numbers of prisoners in the thousands and the
implications of freeing them, the Afghan government has shown its reluctance to proceed on this issue.
This could then be a major stumbling block in the peace process.12
President Ashraf Ghani in fact has noted that this decision is to be made by Afghanistan and not the US.
Kabul, effectively, simply does not see this condition as part of any agreement. The US has likely been
aware of the effect such stipulation would have as well, with Mike Pompeo noting that talks between the
government and the Taliban are necessary, but that they would be “rocky and bumpy.”13 In fact, the
Taliban have since said that if the 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the government were not released,
there will be no talks, even as the Afghan President has noted that release of prisoners is not a condition
but will be a subject of discussion in the negotiations. The Taliban reaction has been strong, as they have
noted that they will resume fighting Afghan forces.14
The Afghan state is notoriously weak, and the current government only came to power amid much
hostility and a poor voter turnout. On the other hand, the Taliban have gained strength and power, and
thus there are concerns that the conditions of this deal could lead to a further escalation of violence and
show of Taliban supremacy.15 For its part, Pakistan has supported the peace process in Afghanistan, but
warned of “spoilers” that could derail any such process, without elaborating on what entity he referred
to. As Pakistan Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi noted, swift talks between the Taliban and the
Afghan government are essential, since people desire peace.16
Despite the modest steps and lowered expectations, it is worthwhile to note that it took US special envoy
Zalmay Khalilzad more than a year to get this deal after several rounds of negotiations. That should be
seen as a positive step in the end.17 As one commentator notes, the agreement between the US and the
Taliban is, “both truly momentous for happening at all and severely modest for what it contains.” 18
Perhaps that is all one could hope for at this stage.
This is the best option for peace the Afghans will get, and they should not let this opportunity pass by. The
US also needs to ensure that it withdraws responsibly, without showing undue haste. It is the US
responsibility to ensure some measures that contribute to peace and stability, such as the creation of an
inclusive political setup. This is a fragile and long process, which requires the utmost care and
commitment, and will depend on the outcomes of the upcoming intra-Afghan talks. These are baby steps,
but baby steps that have given cause for cautious optimism.

INTRA-AFGHAN TALKS: A RAY OF HOPE

Statements coming from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, President Ashraf Ghani, and the
Taliban indicate that the highly anticipated and much awaited intra-Afghan talks
between the Taliban and government may finally be taking place. These are, after all, a
key component of the peace process that has been designed in order to bring stability
to Afghanistan.
Abdullah Abdullah, the head of the newly established government, stated on June 8, 2020, during a track
two forum organized by the Heart of Asia Society, that an understanding has been reached regarding the
start of intra-Afghan talks.1
President Ghani’s spokesman stated that talks were expected to begin in July. 2 However, and more
importantly, the Taliban have also expressed willingness for the commencement of intra-Afghan talks.3
This is a significant development considering the fact that they have refused to engage with Kabul in the
past, including in recent weeks. According to the US-Taliban agreement, intra-Afghan talks were meant to
begin on March 10, 2020, and it had since been unclear if these would ever begin.
While no specific date has been given, it is evident that the groundwork has already begun in
anticipation of the much needed talks. Prior to the announcement of this welcome development,
another significant change had occurred. This was after several months of negotiations, as a bitter feud
finally ended Afghanistan’s political uncertainty when a compromise was reached between President
Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah who had both been vying for the same position. Abdullah has now been
appointed as Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation (HCNR), which is to spearhead the
Afghan peace process. His appointment is also important as the internal political feud had led to the
neglect of the country at a time when it is suffering from a pandemic as well as a delay in the intra-Afghan
talks as scheduled in the US- Taliban deal of February 2020.
The deal had included a prisoner swap between the government and the Taliban, which also became a
contentious issue. It was followed by a 3-day ceasefire which took place during Eid celebrations from May
24-26, 2020,4 which was reminiscent of the one that took place in June 2018. Moreover, despite sporadic
hurdles in the beginning regarding the release of prisoners, President Ghani’s decision to release 2,000
Taliban prisoners as a good will gesture, has played a positive role in accelerating the desire of both sides
to engage with each other in talks. Apart from developments within Afghanistan, there have been other
moves as well, including the appointment of Muhammad Sadiq, Pakistan’s former Ambassador to Kabul,
as Pakistan’s special representative on Afghanistan, 5 followed by General Bajwa’s unexpected visit to
Kabul on June 9, 2020, where he held meetings with the Afghan leadership including President Ashraf
Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah.6 The visit not only demonstrates Islamabad’s commitment to the peace
process, but also reflects improvements in the highly strained Pak-Afghan relationship that has been
traditionally entangled in a vicious blame game.
While nearly all major stakeholders have appointed special representatives for Afghanistan,
Pakistan had never had such a position despite being so closely involved in Afghanistan.
Ambassador Sadiq’s appointment is a much needed step by Pakistan considering the Pak-Afghan
equation. While the appointment has come fairly late, it has been welcomed, and has brought
hopes that this newly created position will help both countries chalk out solutions to their
differences in a constructive manner as well as extend efforts to facilitate the peace process.
After all, Pakistan and Afghanistan have numerous issues to sort out, and it has often been taken
for granted that a better bilateral relationship will help pave the way for regional stability.
Relationships and large projects with China and the Central Asian countries, connectivity through
CPEC, and matters of trade, are all issues that re-energized Pak-Afghan relations will go a long way to
improve.
While news of intra-Afghan talks is no doubt a much needed move in the right direction, it is only the
beginning of a highly sensitive and complex process that will require patience and compromises from all
sides. After all, as the recent past has shown us, the highs can quickly be replaced by the lows. For instance,
the last ceasefire saw a pause in attacks from both sides. This was followed by calls to extend the ceasefire,
but instead, fighting resumed between the two following the end of the three-day truce, with both
accusing each other of initiating the first attack.
While the ongoing exchange of prisoners is setting the ground towards intra-Afghan talks, a number of
hurdles continue to stand in the way. Although the Taliban finally appear to have abandoned their
previous rigidity of not engaging with Kabul at all, their reluctance to abandon or reduce violence against
Afghan forces continues to be a stumbling block in the way of peace. Sustained efforts on all fronts must
be carried out before optimism can take over.
Due to the language/clauses of the US-Taliban deal in which there was mention that international forces
would not be targeted, the Taliban have halted such attacks against international forces. However, they
continued to target government forces. For any meaningful progress towards peace, they will have to
revisit this strategy, and realize that they can no longer rely on violence as a means to further their goals.
If the Taliban truly want peace, they must honor their commitment across the board and not differentiate
between those they can kill, and those they cannot. Their justification for attacking government forces is
in the end rather weak, since no attack can be condoned. Moreover, they must begin to see the
government as an equal stakeholder. If they can accept the US – their erstwhile primary enemy – it is not
far-fetched to imagine that they can, and should, also accept the government as an equal.
This is a historic opportunity for the Afghans to rewrite history. For the Taliban, this presents a unique and
timely moment as well since the group has gone through war fatigue, and must also desire an end to the
decades of bloodshed. In fact, it can also present itself as a responsible and mature stakeholder and secure
for itself a legitimate place and position in the Afghan polity, which is not something that was always on
the cards. At the same time, Ghani and Abdullah also have a chance to play active and meaningful roles
to deliver peace to the masses who have waited for far too long and gone through much violence and
trauma. All the ingredients for a peace deal are in place; it is up to the stakeholders to now show
themselves as both ready and willing to work hard for it to succeed.

Moreover, the US being a major stakeholder and signatory of the deal has a responsibility as well. It must
push all sides to fulfil their side of the agreement and ensure a credible and workable agreement, an
agreement that is acceptable to all stakeholders, and one that is for the benefit of the Afghan people. As
has been witnessed in the past, haphazard and hasty compromises that are prone to collapse need to be
avoided at all costs. Instead, Washington will need to play a proactive role, ensuring it allows the Afghans
to come up with their own plans, and know when to intervene and put pressure on all sides, particularly
the Taliban regarding a reduction and eventual halt in attacks. Washington will have to make sure that
the Afghan government does not create hurdles in the implementation of the agreement such as causing
delays in the exchange of prisoners or in the intra-Afghan talks as it has done in the past.
An important concern that has been missing so far from the entire discourse about the peace process has
been any question of national and social healing as well as national reconciliation and reintegration.
Afghanistan needs concrete steps on these fronts. Political and national reconciliation have time and again
continued to pose challenges in pursuing peace talks with the Taliban, thus highlighting that the biggest
threat is not external but internal. Strategies involving civil society, government bodies, and external
support, must all accompany any political moves for peace. The ownership and desire for this must come
from the Afghans themselves, and the political leadership must provide the support, basis, and platform.
Afghans have to try and overcome the past, as bloody and difficult as it may be, and sometimes forget
previous enmities, focusing instead on creating a new history for themselves that has to be based on
inclusiveness. For this to happen though, Kabul and the Taliban have to move beyond petty politics and
think about the people of Afghanistan who have suffered for far too long, and whom they both claim to
represent. The need of the hour is for all Afghans to unite and call for a peaceful and stable future. Without
this, the potential that keeps being touted – of minerals, of strategic geographical location for the region,
as conduits for South and Central Asia, will all be moot points.
While the results of intra-Afghan talks will only start to show themselves later, it is important to recognize
their occurrence as historic. After all, this will be the Taliban meeting the Afghan government for the first
time since 2001. Important questions need to be answered, primarily about what will be the desired
outcome of the talks. Are these talks about talks, or is there a concrete agenda? Will there be a
continuation of the current political set up? If so will the Taliban be accommodated politically? Or will
focus be on a proposal that was floated during the Moscow talks of 2018, in which all the different Afghan
political factions supported the notion of an inclusive political (interim) set up, or a power sharing set up?
In this case, the only difference being that it would not be temporary, but rather it could follow due course
and serve a 5-year term, and continue to have Ghani and Abdullah in it along with giving representation
to the Taliban as well as other factions. Another option could be to have elections, but considering the
current state of affairs, and the history of the past two elections, this would not be favorable. Thus, all
these questions about Afghanistan’s politics, society, and security are important and require answers and
solutions. It is hoped that the talks provide some. The future of Afghanistan depends on the intra-Afghan
talks.

INTRA-AFGHAN DIALOGUE: BREAKING THE ICE

 After nearly nineteen years of bloodshed and instability in Afghanistan, there is now
finally some concrete positive news. After months of uncertainty and waiting, the
Afghan Government and the Afghan Taliban officially met for the first time in direct
talks on September 12, 2020, in what has been described as “a truly momentous
occasion,”1 initiating the highly anticipated intra-Afghan talks.
The agreement signed between the US and the Taliban in February 2020 had earlier paved the way for
the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan by May 2021. Intra-Afghan talks were also a pivotal
part of the agreement and were scheduled for March 10, 2020, before which both sides had to complete
the exchange of 5,000 Taliban prisoners for 1,000 members of the Afghan forces in 10 days. However, the
Ghani-Abdullah feud created significant uncertainty and caused delays in the release of Taliban prisoners,
while the Taliban’s refusal to end hostilities also led to the postponement of talks.
The beginning of intra-Afghan dialogue is a positive step, since it was never an inevitability. Hosted by
Qatar, the talks were preceded by an opening ceremony that was attended by 15 major stakeholders.
Conspicuous in their absence were Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, and Russia. The Taliban were represented
by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and the Afghan government by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of the
High Council for National Reconciliation (HCNR).

During the ceremony, several statements were made by the multiple stakeholders, including the Taliban,
US, the Afghan government, and Pakistan. Mullah Baradar stated that his group envisaged an Afghanistan
that was sovereign, independent, united, developed, and a free country with an Islamic system in which
all sections of people can live in peace and harmony and no one feels any discrimination. Dr. Abdullah
Abdullah called for a 'humanitarian ceasefire', while stressing on the need to adhere to democracy, the
country’s constitution, freedom of speech, rights of women and minorities, rule of law, and civil and
political rights.2 Both leaders thus gave attention to issues of human rights, and pointed to necessary areas
of development that their country needed to address.
For his part, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged Kabul and the Taliban to seize the opportunity for
peace further, stating that “the choice of Afghanistan’s future political system was for the Afghans to
make”.3 This once again indicates that there is consensus that the responsibility and burden for
determining the future political set-up was on both sides party to the intra-Afghan talks. Representatives
from other countries also expressed their support for a peaceful solution. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah
Mahmood Qureshi presented a four-point peace plan which stressed on: supporting the Afghan peace
process while respecting the consensus that emerges from intra-Afghan talks, learn lessons from the bitter
Afghan history and ensure that Afghanistan does not become a space for elements who would harm
others beyond its borders, deepen economic engagement, reconstruction, and ensure a timeframe for
the dignified return of refugees to Afghanistan.
Following the initial ceremony contact groups were established from both sides representing the Taliban
and Kabul who met for direct discussions. These primarily revolved around attaining a ceasefire as well as
agreeing on a future political set up acceptable to both sides. So far, however, all interactions between
the two groups, which have been limited to specific concerns of rules and regulations, and concerns about
logistics, has led to limited progress, demonstrating the obstacles that they will have to overcome to reach
substantive results.4 That neither side can overcome even the minor issues highlights that this will be a
complex and long-drawn process, and deep cleavages and several long-standing issues of mistrust and
suspicion will need to be overcome for the talks to be meaningful for the future of Afghanistan.

That said, there has been no better opportunity to hope and plan for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan
with a credible political setup, but this also requires participants and observers to keep their expectations
in check. While there is no doubt that the ongoing intra-Afghan talks are a historic opportunity for the
Taliban and the Afghan government to rewrite history, it must be understood that the interaction is an
ice breaker at best. And the importance of this should also not be undermined – given how long it took
for them to reach this stage. The fact that both sides, particularly the Taliban have agreed to sit face-to-
face with the Afghan government whom they have often referred to as a puppet regime is a breakthrough
in itself.
The intra-Afghan talks then are the beginning of a long and arduous process. And they have also been
planned in this way. The meeting in Doha was the first in a number of meetings that will be needed for
both sides to come to terms with each other as well as each other’s stances on different areas of Afghan
political, social, and cultural life. Their interaction is significant also because it is an opportunity for both
erstwhile warring sides to begin to establish trust. Indeed, the first reasonable expectation of an outcome
should be to establish a credible channel for communication as well as trust building. Once that has been
achieved, other pivotal matters can be discussed more substantively. Unless and until mutual trust is
established, talks will not be able to proceed, let alone be successful.
As the process is now underway, there must also be further conversations in Afghanistan about what it
lacks. After all, Afghanistan – and thus intra-Afghan talks – should reflect the multitude of voices and
opinions that offer a healthy discourse to develop and enable different points of view to come to the fore.
Since the very future of the country is being decided, it can only be successful if representatives from all
sections of its population are also included. For instance, representatives from the civil society, political
parties, as well as vulnerable segments of the Afghan society are important stakeholders whose voices
would add significant value and necessary conversations to the talks. In the first round of talks, there were
only three female members on the side of the Afghan government – this needs to be rectified in future
sessions.
Such real and valid issues however should not undermine the significance of the two sides
meeting. In the past, Kabul has been divided on the issue of peace and meeting the Taliban, and
the fact that Dr. Abdullah was there heading a team and that too with female members, is a sign
that Kabul may finally be united, serious and ready to negotiate with the Taliban. The same can
be said of the Taliban as well, as their willingness to engage with Kabul shows a desire to find
solutions to end the war in Afghanistan. The time now is for cautious optimism, as the road ahead
is fragile, complex, and full of hurdles. If history has taught us anything in the last two decades, it is that
progress will be achieved only if both sides exert flexibility and learn to adapt and compromise.
While building trust is important as a start, an eye must also be toward even more sensitive issues such
as bloodshed and violence, which will have to be addressed. The focus in all these needs to be on national
healing and reconciliation in a country that has faced decades of trauma. Indeed, the trauma is the result
of complex and multifaceted issues coming from various quarters, which have also prevented any national
unity in a fractured Afghan polity. The willingness to even accept other stakeholders as legitimate has
been missing for so long that the major threat to peace has been internal rather than external. With the
intra-Afghan talks, that fundamental hurdle has been overcome, however tentatively.
Given this history, it would not be wise to expect immediate results, since any concrete outcomes will
only emerge much later. And while the plan should be to move towards attainable goals and thus take
the necessary steps, the holding of the talks itself should be appreciated. After all, this is the first time
that the Taliban and the Afghan government are meeting face to face since 2001. And without their
consensus and arrival on the same page, important questions critical for the future of Afghanistan on
sensitive and contentious issues cannot be answered.
Agreeing to a ceasefire is the most important, but also an immensely difficult pre-condition for a sustained
process of peace. This must be at the top of the agenda for the intra-Afghan talks since a prolonged
ceasefire for the duration of the dialogue is essential. The Taliban have voiced support for peaceful
solutions, and they now need to show their commitment on the ground by reducing and ultimately halting
violence. According to the UN, Afghanistan has witnessed its highest levels of violence during the past five
weeks in the last half-decade.5 Moreover, according to the Afghan government, more than 12,000 Afghans
have been killed and 15,000 others also wounded since the US-Taliban agreement in early 2020.6 This is a
serious concern, since the talks could well collapse if the violence does not end. Recently, President Ashraf
Ghani also called on the Taliban to agree to a humanitarian and nationwide ceasefire. 7 Since the Taliban
are engaging in talks, they should find it prudent to agree to Ghani’s calls for a ceasefire and not see it as
a sign of weakness or surrender.

Rather the narrative should be one of honouring the Afghan people who have suffered for so long and
show the Taliban as stakeholders who desire peace in the country. This will create massive goodwill
amongst the masses for the Taliban. The Taliban must be convinced that this will work in their own favor
as well, and show to the people and to all naysayers and sceptics that they are responsible and legitimate,
indeed essential elements in the peace process.
While the Taliban claim that they are not aspiring for a monopoly of power, and that they envisage an
inclusive Afghanistan, they will have to be clearer on issues of what kind of government they are willing
to participate in. Similarly, the Taliban’s position on the constitution remains ambiguous. Different
proposals must therefore be put forth, and the Taliban’s position ascertained. Possibilities could include
the continuation of the current political system that could include the Taliban, or an interim setup of the
sort that was supported by different political players from Afghanistan in Moscow. Gulbuddin Hikmatyar
has also expressed willingness to form an alliance with the Taliban,8 and such a set-up could mean that he
could be accommodated as well. The contours and various elements of such potential political setups
should be elaborated at this early stage, so that realistic options are sought.
Beyond political setups, there are other issues that must also become part of the talks. For instance, while
the Taliban talk about honoring women, human rights and Afghan nationalism, their interpretation of
Sharia remains vague. Afghan women have continued to show concerns that the Taliban’s approach would
be a strict and stringent view of the Sharia. The group thus needs to be more open on this front and discuss
potentially controversial issues.
On the other hand, Kabul for its part also needs to continue to honor its commitment to engage in talks
no matter how cumbersome they become. Kabul also has to remain united and not allow personal
differences (for instance the Ghani-Abdullah feud) to jeopardize talks in any way. Indeed, the onus is on
the government to show openness, flexibility, and clarity to the process of engagement. This includes
clarity over the nature and extent of accommodation that it is willing to offer to the Taliban in any future
government.
While the US has indicted repeatedly that it wants the Afghans to take ownership and chalk out
a future for themselves, at this fragile state it would be naïve and irresponsible to stay completely
away from engagement with multiple stakeholders in Afghanistan. The US remains a major party
to whatever the future holds for the country, and in fact it is the signatory to the very deal that
brought the two Afghan groups to the negotiating table. Both the Taliban and the government
have expressed that they would not like foreign control of the talks. And while this is indeed desirable, it
is still prudent that Washington recognizes its own responsibility to ensure successful and effective talks
by playing its role in pushing all sides to follow their respective roles as per the agreement. Indeed, the
US owes it to Afghan people, after almost two decades of war and occupation, broken and unfulfilled
promises, to play its own part in reaching a workable agreement that benefits the country that it now
plans to leave. It must not leave it in dire straits.
The intra-Afghan talks at the moment are an ice-breaker, but still a historic and unprecedented and
necessary step for a stable Afghanistan. They offer an opportunity to erstwhile warring parties to come
together, show willingness to compromise and work together, and do so for the benefit and stability of
the country they all ostensibly want to protect from strife. Even at this early stage – which in itself is quite
momentous – both the Taliban and the Afghan government have the responsibility to prove their
commitment to this common goal. The future of Afghanistan depends on their ability, and willingness, to
be able to work together.

IMRAN KHAN'S VISIT TO KABUL: AN ASSESSMENT

On November 19, 2020 Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan paid a long-awaited day-
long visit to Afghanistan. The intent of the visit was to deepen “fraternal bilateral
relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan,” advance the Afghan peace process, and
promote “regional economic development and connectivity.” 1
The visit came on the heels of a number of confidence-building measures and series of preceding high-
level visits to improve bilateral trust and develop a more conducive environment for peaceful ties that
could transform the nature of this important relationship. Due to common and mutual interests, as well
as the commitment to improve them further – such as by these contacts between representatives of both
countries – bilateral engagement between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been on an upward trajectory in
recent months.
For instance, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of High Council on National Reconciliation visited Islamabad
in September. This was followed by visits of Rahman Rahmani, Speaker of Afghanistan’s lower house of
Parliament and Nisar Ahmad Ghoraini, the Afghan Commerce Minister. Islamabad has also in recent
months made several visits and shown a commitment to peaceful ties and friendship with its western
neighbour.
Following its nuanced approach to expand its engagement beyond Pashtun groups to all ethnic
factions within Afghanistan, Islamabad has also welcomed the visits of Haji Muhammad Mohaqiq
Head of Hizb-e-Wahdat Mardam-e-Afghanistan in 2019, and more recently also the leader of the Hizb-e-
Islami, Gulbuddin Hektmatyar’s in October 2020.
Prime Minister Khan’s visit thus did not come in a vacuum, the groundwork had been prepared with both
countries moving towards a new phase in ties after decades of instability. Prime Minister Khan stated that
the purpose of his visit was to assure the Afghan government that “Pakistan will do everything possible
to help reduce violence and in fact move towards a ceasefire.”2 While there is much goodwill and a desire
to improve the relationship behind Prime Minister Khan’s statement, as it highlights Pakistan’s effort to
address mutual mistrust and improve bilateral relations at a time when Afghanistan is undergoing far-
reaching changes, at the same time it puts Pakistan in a difficult and challenging position.
Pakistan's role in the Afghan peace process has been well-known and extensively discussed. Publically as
well as privately, Islamabad has been pushing both sides in Afghanistan – the government and the Taliban
– to engage with each other in the hope of a peaceful settlement. These efforts have resulted in the US-
Taliban agreement of 2020 and the subsequent and ongoing intra-Afghan talks. Despite the positive intent
in Prime Minister Khan’s commitments to ending violence and moving towards a ceasefire, as noted
above, such declarations bring their own set of challenges. It puts Pakistan in a compromising position:
on the one hand the country is making promises it may not be able to keep, and it is doing so also while
raising expectations in Afghanistan.
If Pakistan is unable to convince the Taliban to end all violence, it is not inconceivable that the
blame for this will fall on Pakistan – as has been the case in the past. For Pakistan, it is important
to be realistic about any pledges made to the Afghan side. If Pakistan falls short on meeting
Afghan expectations in this new phase of an upturn in ties, or is unable to deliver on Afghan
requests, it could once again undermine the hard-earned trust between two sides. PM Khan’s
assurances and promises thus have to be seen critically. However, focusing on singular
statements is also not desirable, since the visit itself is symbolically significant. It was a welcome
and much-needed booster for bilateral relations at a time when both sides should be cognizant
that the relationship has improved after real hard work. Thus, while such high level visits
continue, and the leaderships of both countries express their commitment to peace,
collaboration, and the development of ties on mutual fronts, Islamabad should be cautious when
making unrealistic promises. This is since failure on one front can derail progress in other aspects,
and can give impetus to the narrative in Kabul and the US that Islamabad is in lockstep with the
Taliban and not committed to seeing peace and security in Afghanistan. There are precedents for this
to show that this is not simply hypothetical – for instance, as experienced in the aftermath of Ashraf
Ghani’s visit to Pakistan in 2014, all the positive goodwill and momentum generated amounted to nothing
when Pakistan was unable to meet Afghan expectations which sent the bilateral relationship to a
downward spiral.
For far too long, Afghanistan's stance regarding Pakistan's role in peace and stability as well as the ongoing
peace process with the Afghan Taliban has been somewhat contradictory. Time and again, Afghan
authorities have accused Pakistan of supporting and abetting the Taliban. And yet at the same time they
have solicited Pakistan to play a role in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. Pakistan is thus
walking on a tightrope. In order to avoid unnecessary friction, Pakistan should be seen as supporting the
process, and highlighting that it is to remain an Afghan-led and Afghan-organized exercise. Therefore,
Pakistan must be cautious in what it can do and what it can deliver. This includes such pledges, because
at the end of the day, talking to the Taliban and reaching a compromise is solely in the hands of the
Afghans themselves.
With promises about the peace process, there is a tendency to continue to limit the relationship to
security. The past, including recent decades, reveal clearly that the Pak-Afghan bilateral relationship faces
several challenges and that a key limitation is that it has been viewed primarily through a security lens.
Expanding the contours of the ties to other fields such as trade, regional connectivity, people to people
ties, and not limiting it to the peace process or security alone is thus important for both countries. Now
that Pakistan and Afghanistan are attempting to expand the nature of ties to multiple avenues, care
should be taken to ensure that issues in security do not automatically lead to reduced trade, economic
connectivity, people to people linkages and cultural ties.
As history has shown, it is in any case difficult to broach these subjects and remain committed to
them in a relationship that has been based on one primary concern: security. In this regard, it
was encouraging to see both President Ghani and Prime Minister Khan focusing on the need to
broadening other aspects of their bilateral relationship such as trade and regional connectivity,
with the Prime Minister also adding that, “The only way to help people on both sides of the
border is by peace, trade and connectivity.”3 Most crucially, the official communique or shared
vision issued at the end of the visit indicates the desire from both sides to move beyond the past,
improve the relationship and expand the contours of their bilateral relationship by focusing
primarily on: transparency, mutual and full respect for one another’s sovereignty, preventing
either's territory to be used against the other; inclusive governance; stronger
people/government/security ties, expeditious resolution of the refugee situation and more integrated
economic connectivity, trade and development connecting Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Central Asian
region.4 In order to expedite the agreement, both sides agreed on a time framework to identify officials
to implement the agreed proposals, beginning with December 15, 2020 in which both sides would
commence joint intelligence cooperation. This would be followed by a joint proposal for the return of
Afghan refugees as well as to further regional connectivity between the two neighbours by January 1st,
2021.5
Clearly highlighting that the relationship is moving in the right direction. It is hoped that this positive
momentum is maintained, because as has been seen in the past, the positives can very easily be replaced
by the negatives.
The visit has also come at a time when the Afghan peace process is being confronted by a plethora of
challenges, such as the US decision to further reduce military presence in Afghanistan, the on-going US
presidential transition, as well as the stagnant intra-Afghan dialogue and continuing violence on the part
of the Taliban. Considering the fragility of the dialogue process then, the crucial nature of the visit is
evident to all observers of the region.
Prime Minister Khan’s visit came a day after Pentagon announced reduction in number of US
troops from the current 4,500 to 2,500 by mid-January 2021.6 This announcement has sped up
the timeline agreed between Afghan Taliban and the US in the Doha agreement from mid-2021
to early 2021. It has also indicated a policy-paralysis in the US where a Presidential transition is
underway with outgoing President Donald Trump seeking to end the US war in Afghanistan,
resulting in further instability in the peace process. Furthermore, uncertainty revolves around
the Biden administration’s policy towards the Afghan peace process, the US-Taliban agreement
and even the role of US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. The Taliban, on their part, have expressed
hope that the Biden administration will maintain the Doha agreement. While the transition team
has not revealed its opinions yet, it is believed there will be review process, and while there may
not be an immediate withdrawal from the agreement, a lot will depend on the level of violence
and the Taliban’s efforts towards a ceasefire. Earlier, Biden as Vice President advocated for a
small presence of US troops in Afghanistan for counter-terrorism operations. However, it remains to
be seen if Biden will advocate for a similar approach or chart a new course.
For Pakistan, relations and peace with Afghanistan should not be dependent exclusively on what the US
does or does not do. Peace in Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s intrinsic self-interest. To reiterate, this is also
where a renewed focus on ties beyond security needs to be centralized as Pakistan and Afghanistan
embark on a renewed and potentially positive phase in their relationship. The future of the region
depends on it.

ABDULLAH'S VISIT TO PAKISTAN: A NEW PATH TO PAK-

AFGHAN TIES

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of Afghanistan's High Council for National

Reconciliation (HCNR) paid a three-day official visit to Pakistan from September 28-30,
2020. The visit was a significant event, it was 12 years since he had visited his eastern
neighbor. It was additionally important since it came at a time when both countries
have been struggling with their bilateral relationship.
With the exception of a few brief moments of stability, the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship has followed
a negative trajectory embedded in a vicious blame game, which has proved to be counterproductive for
both countries.
During his visit, Dr. Abdullah held meetings with the civil and military leadership of the country, engaged
with think tanks, Council of Islamic Ideology of Pakistan, as well as members of the civil society. 1 Dr
Abdullah concluded his 3-day visit by expressing his “gratitude to the Pakistani leadership and nation for
their warm welcome, hospitality and a new path in ties.” 2
Given the geographical proximity to Afghanistan and close ethic, religious and linguistic affinities between
the two countries, history has shown that whatever happens in Afghanistan has a direct impact on
Pakistan. This has been even more evident in the last two decades since the onset of the war on terror.
The consequences have been dramatic and monumental, and have affected Pakistan and Afghanistan and
their relationship deeply.

Dr. Abdullah’s visit came at a an opportune time following a number of important and ongoing
developments regarding the peace process in Afghanistan in which Pakistan has been playing a
constructive role for several years now. It appears that major steps are now occurring at a regional and
national level, with internal conversations between the Taliban and the Afghan government which can
potentially lead to concrete results.
On the bilateral front, Islamabad has also been reaching out to the Afghan leadership. In June 2019,
President Ashraf Ghani paid a visit to Pakistan. Since then, there have been a number of bilateral visits
between the leaders of both countries. This included one by General Bajwa to Kabul in June 2020, where
he held meetings with the Afghan leadership including President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah.
Another significant step that has helped improve ties is the appointment of Muhammad Sadiq, Pakistan’s
former Ambassador to Kabul, as Pakistan’s special representative on Afghanistan. This is a new post
created specially to boost ties, and it is rather surprising that Pakistan had not developed such a position
before. After all, other major stakeholders have all had special representatives for Afghanistan, and
Pakistan’s involvement and role has been among the most significant. Although the appointment has
come fairly late, it is already producing positive results.
Pakistan’s outreach to Afghanistan as well as its role in the peace process is believed to have resulted in
Dr. Abdullah’s visit. The visit reflects growing stability and mutual trust, if not validation of past attempts
at reconciling differences. And it clearly demonstrates Islamabad’s commitment to the peace process,
while also showing improvements in the highly strained Pak-Afghan relationship that has been
traditionally entangled in a vicious blame game from both sides.
Pakistan has long been putting forward its case as a mediator in the region, and as an important
stakeholder and proponent of the peace process. Now, after several years of negativity, Dr. Abdullah's
visit is being viewed as an attempt by Afghanistan to overcome the mistrust of the past and embark on a
new partnership with Pakistan. This will also help in Kabul gaining Pakistan’s support regarding the
ongoing intra-Afghan talks.
During his visit, Dr. Abdullah made many important observations regarding the relationship and
the region. Speaking at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, he acknowledged that ties
between the two countries face constant pressures, and that suspicion, mistrust, rhetoric, and
conspiracy theories had been adversely affecting the relations between the two countries.
However, he stressed that the time was right for both states to emerge with a new vision and
approach in their relationship, define their shared interests, as well as address outstanding
issues. He expressed his confidence that both neighbors are on the threshold of a new era in their
bilateral relationship based on mutual respect and sincere cooperation, since Pakistan and Afghanistan
are now primed for a new and improved era in their ties. 3
Predictably, throughout his trip the focus was primarily on the peace process. Dr. Abdullah solicited
Pakistan's support in convincing the Taliban to reduce, and ultimately abandon violence as stakeholders
make genuine efforts for achieving peace in the region. Pakistan has publically, as well as privately been
persuading the Taliban to reduce violence and move towards a negotiated settlement with the Afghan
government. There are numerous examples that show Pakistan’s commitment to the reconciliation
process. For instance, Pakistan not only played a pivotal role in the ceasefire by the Taliban in June 2018
and again in 2020, it also encouraged the group to engage with the US in direct talks. These in fact resulted
in the US-Taliban agreement of February 2020, and subsequently in the ongoing intra-Afghan negotiations
in Doha. Pakistan’s efforts in this regard have been applauded by the US and Afghanistan too. Dr. Abdullah
appreciated and acknowledged Pakistan’s role in making this extremely important part of the peace
process a reality.
It is important for the Afghan leadership to recognize that Pakistan is actively engaging with all
stakeholders, including the Taliban in an effort to convince the group to abandon its hostilities towards
the Afghan state, engage with Kabul in intra-Afghan talks and ultimately reach a compromise. With this,
there is acknowledgement and hope for better bilateral ties which can only improve gradually given the
erstwhile instability. Dr. Abdullah also expressed this desire, which is also important to note since the
peace process is now an essential aspect of the Pak-Afghan relationship. But, it cannot be the only issue
that would dictate the contours of the relationship. Pakistan's role should be to support the process as
well as any outcome that is achieved as long as it is Afghan-led and owned. All Pakistan can do is to
encourage both sides to engage and compromise. It cannot dictate peace. Therefore, it is important for
both sides, particularly the Afghan leadership, to recognize and accept that achieving peace and a
workable outcome that is acceptable to all stakeholders is solely in the hands of the Afghans. Indeed, it is
an Afghan prerogative. While Pakistan’s role is important, it is secondary.
For years, Pakistan has followed a policy of extending support to Pashtun groups alone (including
the Taliban), and this inevitably led to the alienation of other ethnic factions such as the Tajiks,
Uzbeks, and Hazaras. This then caused these groups to view Pakistan with immense mistrust and
suspicion, leading many to consider Pakistan as a spoiler in Afghanistan’s path to peace. Now,
there is a clear and conscious awareness in Pakistan that relations need to be established with
all ethnic and political groups in its neighboring country in the west, and to assure them of all of
Pakistan’s support and sincerity. This was clearly echoed by Prime Minister Imran Khan during his meeting
with Dr. Abdullah, where he clearly stated that “the past was an invaluable teacher to learn from, but not
to live in, both countries must look forward towards the future.”4 This sentiment was further reiterated
by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi who said that “Pakistan has no favorites in
Afghanistan and nor does it wish to meddle in their internal affairs.”5 Referring to their often strained
relationship, Mr. Qureshi also emphasized the need to accept and work on the reality of the bilateral ties
rather than shying away from asking difficult questions. There is indeed a need to add a new chapter to
the bilateral relationship by building a relationship of cooperation and understanding, he noted.6 He
further said that Pakistan had the utmost respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial
integrity of Afghanistan, and emphasized this point by expressing that Pakistan wants to be friends with
Afghanistan, and not masters, pointing to a paradigm shift in the regional dynamics.7 Statements made by
the Pakistani leadership are not only important and necessary acknowledgements, but a clear indication
of the change in the narrative on the Pakistani side.
It will take a lot more than mere words and promises to assure the Afghans of Pakistan’s sincerity. But the
fact that Islamabad is reaching out to the different Afghan factions and not just the Taliban or for that
matter the Pashtuns, warrants recognition. This is a wise and desirable policy in the right direction. This
also needs to be acknowledged and reciprocated by Afghanistan, and it will be a positive step if Dr.
Abdullah’s visit and statements now dictate Kabul’s stance towards Pakistan.
While it may be a cliché, it is worth reiterating that both Pakistan and Afghanistan have the most to gain
from peace and stability in Afghanistan, and the most to lose from instability. Recent history is
demonstrative of this fact. Thus, Afghanistan must let go of the past, and instead focus on the positives
and the future. There are positives that exist – the shared history, culture and religion and more
importantly, the commonalities between individuals and groups growing up together. These are
significant aspects of the relationship that get lost in the murky waters of mistrust. Thus, while the
discourse about refugees turns ugly, it ignores how Pakistan at one point hosted 5 million Afghan refugees,
with whom Pakistan now shares a history of over four decades! These individual and collective stories
must not be allowed to disappear from the narrative of bilateral ties.

Such visits and overtures will thus be meaningless if the intent does not shift and the leaderships of both
countries do not move beyond a problematic past. That will only cause the people to continue suffering.
The strategy now should be for the bilateral ties to use the window of the peace process to also ensure
that the focus is also on other aspects of the relationship such as trade, connectivity, people to people
contact, and cultural connections. It will take a lot more than one trip for this to happen. But the fact that
the Afghan and Pakistani leadership have owned up and recognized the mistakes of the past is in itself a
major development. This should not be underestimated. Dr. Abdullah’s visit is an ice breaker, and can lead
to more opportunities, which must be grasped to rebuild ties on a firm footing based on transparency and
cooperation.
Pakistan and Afghanistan need to understand the new geopolitical realities in which regional dynamics
have changed rather drastically. There are new stakeholders in the mix, and economic priorities and large
projects that have brought together Central and South Asian countries. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan as
a result, also need to rethink their positions vis-à-vis each other and in terms of their place in the regional
context. The positive sign in this regard is that there is some evidence that both countries are on the same
page in terms of recognizing the shifting paradigms. This requires, most importantly, that finger pointing
and conspiracy theories, and blaming the other for all ills inside one’s borders, come to an end. Blaming
Pakistan for all of Afghanistan’s issues is not only naïve, it is also counter-productive, and prevents any
improvement in relations. The Afghan state needs to take ownership of its own responsibilities, be it state
building or establishing peace with the Taliban.
Both countries should define the parameters of their bilateral relationship by working further to overcome
differences between the two states. It is helpful in this regard to note that Dr. Abdullah’s visit is believed
to be the first in a series of visits to different countries to solicit their support in the ongoing Afghan
government and Taliban talks. Dr. Abdullah has asked not just Pakistan, but Washington and every other
country that has a voice at the Afghan table, to press for a reduction of violence with the Taliban and
move towards a peaceful settlement. 8
Pakistan’s role should be pragmatic, transparent and public. This will also mean that whatever outcome
is achieved as a result of the peace process, the Afghans would take ownership and not shift the blame
on Pakistan. In fact, as noted above, the peace process should now be just one issue among many for the
relationship to flourish. Other aspects of the ties cannot be held hostage to the success of the peace
process. Once the withdrawal of foreign forces reaches its final phase, both countries will have to deal
with each other in every aspect of life that neighboring countries are used to – and that should be the aim
for the bilateral ties. Although the burden of history cannot be washed away easily, a pragmatic and
holistic approach needs to be adopted by both to address the key issues and irritants, with the goal to
seek plausible solutions that addresses their concerns and maximizes their interests. In this regard, the
existing Afghanistan-Pakistan Action Plan for Peace and Solidarity (APAPPS) mechanism can be utilized.
Most importantly, the positive momentum generated in recent weeks must be kept alive to foster
cooperation and create systemic, institutional linkages for sustainable collaboration in all fields.
 GWADAR PORT OPENS UP FOR TRANSIT TRADE WITH
AFGHANISTAN

The first economic success of more than US $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor(CPEC) in general, and of Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement
(APTTA)in particular, materialized after a cargo ship named “Diyala” carrying a
consignment for Afghanistan landed on the shores of Gwadar – a deep sea port south-
west of Pakistan in the Balochistan province on January 14, 2020. 1 The trucks at Gwadar
loaded with the chemical fertilizers and transported via the border crossing at Chaman
into Afghanistan marks the first operational use of Gwadar Port for trade activities – a
major success for Pakistan as well as China.
Previously, under the trade agreement, the ports of Karachi and Qasim were used to transit goods to
landlocked Afghanistan. Gwadar had been slow down for last two years. Frequent threats by Baloch
insurgents, bureaucratic hurdles and other governance issues in Pakistan, had halted the progress of
Gwadar Port being operational. However, its use in Afghan transit trade is seen as a beginning of the
economic revival of the project in three major ways.
Firstly, the Chinese investment of US $250 million directly on construction of the port will finally
start paying off through the revenues generated from such transit trade. According to the
agreement signed between China and Pakistan in April 2017, China Overseas Ports Holding
Company (COPHC) will get 91% of the revenues for the next 40 years.2 The revenue from Afghan transit
trade thus initiates the process of such revenue generation.
Secondly, China is eager to extend CPEC to Afghanistan and Central Asian States (CAR’s). A stable and
peaceful Afghanistan is in China and Pakistan’s best interest as more peace will bring more trade and
greater activity at Gwadar port, thus generating more revenues for China and Pakistan. Through this
consignment of transit trade, Gwadar port is likely to bring Afghanistan into CPEC which will boost the
regional connectivity with CAR’s and development.
Thirdly, the halting of the Indian-sponsored Chabahar Port in Iran following fresh United States sanctions
on Iran and with Afghanistan now appearing to prefer Gwadar over Chabahar provides a beacon of hope
for greater volume of future Afghan transit trade through Gwadar.
Although it is a step in the right direction, but there remain many challenges that need to be addressed
to gain maximum benefit out of such a setting. A long-lasting peace in and uninterrupted supplies to
Afghanistan needs to be ensured to reap any major financial benefit out of such an arrangement. There
is a dire need to convince Afghanistan through diplomatic efforts and by other means that trade through
Gwadar remains most viable option for the country, reducing transportation cost, thereby reducing
overall import costs for Afghanistan. India might redouble its efforts to build on Chabahar Port which
needs to be dealt with effectively by both China and Pakistan. As Michael Kugelman rightly states:
“Certainly, [the Chabahar] project faces financial constraints in that Gwadar does not, but there’s too
much at stake for Kabul, New Delhi and Tehran to simply throw towel.”3
Afghan transit shipment can be a major source of revenue, but it is not enough to pay off Chinese massive
investment in the CPEC and long-term sustenance of success for Gwadar Port. Therefore, it is crucial that
Pakistan and China find other avenues of trade and investment in order to attract more economic activity
for Gwadar Port to the likes of Dubai or Hong Kong. Afghan transit trade from Gwadar is only a beginning.
The question now is whether Pakistan and China can build on this success.
CPEC Connectivity to Central Asia
Central Asian States (CAR’s) are landlocked with plenty of natural resources such as natural gas,
oil, ore and gold. It is believed that Gwadar Port and its allied road infrastructure would be
important connection for China to Central Asia via Afghanistan which is also welcoming development for
CAR’s. The relationship between China and the (CAR’s) continues to flourish as Chinese investment rose
to $50 billion including railways, bridges, and telecommunication systems.4 Pakistan has two mega energy
projects under process, TAPI and CASA-1000 with (CAR’s) and through extension of CPEC to Afghanistan,
more avenues for investments have great potentials in the new industrial zones under CPEC. Pakistan’s
location makes it the natural gateway of West Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.
Conclusion
Economic connectivity between China, Pakistan, Central Asian States and Afghanistan offers the most
viable course for trade and transportation. Trade between CAR’s, Pakistan and China through Afghanistan
will save the extra resources and time. Afghanistan remains of immense strategic importance to regional
connectivity, but its internal chaos and political instability along with security challenges have been a huge
obstacle. Political stability and peace in Afghanistan is therefore essential for its neighboring countries
and for the region. After the US-Taliban peace deal on February 29, 2020, Taliban have become a major
partner in the peace process. It is thus in the interest of all regional countries to have a peaceful and
secure Afghanistan.5Economic dependence of the countries and regions will further decrease the threat
of terrorism and developing economic markets and providing job opportunities will prove to be an
effective way to reduce the appeal of extremist ideologies.

20TH SCO SUMMIT: STRENGTHENING COOPERATION IN

FIGHTING COVID-19

The meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) Member States was held on November 10, 2020. Due to the pandemic, the
meeting was organized virtually and it was chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The meeting was attended by leaders of China, Pakistan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Belarus and Mongolia. UN
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also addressed the summit.1
The topics of discussion included regional security, economic development and strengthening of
cultural and humanitarian ties amongst the states. Not surprisingly, the fight against Covid-19
was the major talking point. Leaders of all the countries called for collaboration in controlling the
spread of coronavirus and ensuring sustainable economic growth. To share the results of the 20th
SCO Heads of State Council Meeting, the SCO Secretariat hosted a press conference by SCO
Secretary-General Vladimir Norov on November 16, 2020. The Secretary-General apprised that
the activities of existing cooperation mechanisms in the sphere of health care and sanitary-
epidemiological well-being were intensified while a number of meetings, forums and
consultations were held on the fight against COVID-19. On the adoption of the document titled
‘Joint Response to the New Coronavirus Infection’, he said that it symbolises the factors of unity,
cohesion and mutual support that the SCO member states provide to each other under the “Shanghai
spirit”.2
Highlighting the efforts made by Russia in fighting the pandemic, the Russian President said, “Russia has
donated to its SCO partners about half a million Covid-19 lab diagnostic kits, as well as contactless
temperature instruments. Teams of Russian medical specialists have been dispatched to Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and nine such missions have already been completed.” 3 He also
mentioned that coronavirus forced the SCO to adjust its agenda in order to accommodate a greater focus
on healthcare, but cooperation in other areas did not slow down.
Chinese President, Xi Jinping stated that, “to fight the virus that respects no borders, we must take up the
most powerful weapon of solidarity and cooperation, and rise up to the most imperative task of saving
people’s lives.” He went on to say that, “we should strengthen our joint response to Covid-19, support
each other’s containment efforts, and uphold regional and global public health security. We should
support the World Health Organization’s crucial leadership role, oppose attempts to politicize the
pandemic or mislabel the coronavirus, and jointly resist any political virus. We should put the SCO’s health
cooperation mechanisms into full use, and deepen exchanges and cooperation in epidemic monitoring,
scientific research, and disease control and treatment.” He also assured the SCO member states that his
country will actively consider their need for vaccines.4
India is amongst the worst hit countries due to the coronavirus pandemic. More than 9 million people
have been infected while the death toll has crossed 130,000.5 During his address, the Indian Prime
Minister also pointed out his country’s commitment towards fighting Covid-19. “In this very difficult time
of the unprecedented epidemic, India’s pharmaceutical industry has sent essential medicines to more
than 150 countries. As the world’s largest vaccine producing country, India will use its vaccine production
and distribution capacity to help the entire humanity in fighting this crisis,” he said. 6 However, at a time
when the second wave of Covid-19 is unleashing health and economic devastation across the region and
regional cooperation is the need of the hour, Prime Minister Modi chose to confront China and Pakistan
during other parts of his speech.

Making use of this crucial regional forum, Prime Minister Imran Khan suggested a number of measures
for the SCO member states in order to control the spread of coronavirus. The suggestions included
creating an SCO knowledge-bank of best practices to fight Covid-19 in order to guide us through the
second wave and beyond, working out a strategy and an SCO Action Plan to mitigate the adverse economic
impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the short, medium and long-term and taking a stand that the Covid-19
vaccine must be viewed as a “global public good”, affordable and accessible to all.7
The second wave of coronavirus has raised the threat of the pandemic. Countries that were showing signs
of healthcare and economic recovery are headed back to lockdowns. Nonetheless, the recent progress in
vaccine development has provided hope to humanity. After three major drug companies - AstraZeneca,
Pfizer and Moderna - reported major breakthroughs in vaccine development, the World Health
Organization (WHO) Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stated that, “there is now real
hope that vaccines, in combination with other tried and tested public health measures, will help to end
the pandemic.”8
Chinese vaccine developer, Sinovac, has also been successful in mid stage trials and its vaccine led to a
quick immune response during trials with around 700 people. 9 Late-stage trials of Chinese vaccines are
being conducted in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil and Pakistan.10 Pakistan’s National Institute of
Health (NIH) has started conducting trials in partnership with Chinese companies. Major General Dr.
Aamer Ikram, Executive Director of NIH, said that it is an honor for Pakistan to be among the few countries
participating in the biggest and relatively difficult phase-3 study of a vaccine. He said the vaccine would
be available in the market once its efficacy is proved and the results analyzed.11
The developers of Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine have claimed that it is 92% effective.
Their statement read, “as a result of a statistical analysis of 20 confirmed cases of coronavirus,
the case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates that
the Sputnik V vaccine had an efficacy rate of 92% after the second dose.”12 Sputnik V is considered to be
the world’s first registered Covid-19 vaccine and President Putin stated during his address at the 12th BRICS
summit that the Russian Direct Investment Fund has reached agreements with pharmaceutical companies
in China and India to launch production of the vaccine in these countries not just to cover their needs, but
for third countries as well.13
Despite the claims of vaccine manufacturers, Pakistan Prime Minister’s Taskforce on Science and
Technology Chairman, Dr. Attaur Rahman, cautioned against the suitability of these vaccines. He has
pointed out that Pakistan lacks cold chain to transport vaccine in required temperatures and there is no
evidence regarding the duration of their effectiveness. “In the beginning, it is effective but you do not
know for how many months the antibodies remain in your body,” he said.14
The vaccine might become available in the near future but countries need to ensure implementation of
safety measures along with preparing apparatus for its distribution. Continued cooperation amongst
states is required to overcome this global challenge. The words of the SCO leaders need to be matched by
concrete measures in order to heal the region.

THIRD CHINA INTERNATIONAL IMPORT EXPO: CHINA'S WAY

FORWARD AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PAKISTAN

In 2018, China hosted its first import expo to encourage imports, show its commitment to
an open economy and counter anti-globalization rhetoric of Trump administration. China’s
rising demand and growing consumption provides Chinese importers and global exporters
plenty of opportunities. Sun Lixing, a researcher at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences
opines that, “as an import powerhouse, China should have a bigger say in the global
economy.”1 This would help China in maintaining the international order and extending its
economic cooperation with rest of the world.
This year in 2020, the third edition of China International Import Expo (CIIE) was under doubt due to
coronavirus pandemic. But China’s success in controlling its spread and dedication towards opening its
domestic market for foreign products paved the way for successfully hosting the Expofrom November 5-
10, 2020. In the buildup to the 6-day event, Standard Chartered stated that, “globalization is encountering
a headwind; the international situation faces greater instability and uncertainty, and poses severe
challenges for development in all countries. The opening of the CIIE as scheduled will help maintain
unimpeded trade and a stable supply chain.
The opening ceremony of the third CIIE was held in Shanghai. Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a
keynote speech via video link in which he stated that hosting of the Expo this year demonstrates China's
sincere desire to contribute to global economic recovery amid the pandemic. He added that, “the CIIE is
now an international public good for the world to share, acting as a major platform for international
procurement, investment promotion, cultural exchange and open cooperation”.3
More than fifty thousand private firms attended this year’s event.4 Returnees from past expos as well as
new faces, including nearly 50 Fortune-500 and industry-leading companies, signals a vote of confidence
in China's opening up.5 A wide range of Pakistani products were on display as well. President of Pakistan,
Dr. Arif Alvi addressed the opening ceremony through a special video message. The Pakistani President
expressed appreciation for the organizers of the Expo for arranging the event in challenging circumstances
of Covid-19.6
Consul General at the Consulate General of Pakistan in Shanghai, Hussain Haider said, “the first and the
only expo dedicated to imports, CIIE provides tremendous opportunities to businesses from all over the
world which serves as a very significant engine of trade promotion and development”.7
One Pakistani exhibitor said that, “this is the third time that we've attended the Expo. We have received
tremendous responses in the first and second editions of the CIIE. We got great responses this time, too”. 8
Over the period of six days, Pakistani companies showcased products such as textiles, sporting goods,
surgical equipment, furniture and agricultural products.9
Due to Covid-19, many Pakistani companies missed out on the opportunity to display their
products, but there is plenty of encouragement for Pakistani exporters going forward. Both
Chinese and Pakistani authorities are keen to encourage export of Pakistani products to China.
Amid challenges and uncertainty, the commitment from both sides to facilitate access to Pakistani
products in Chinese markets is an uplifting development.
Following the CIIE, Pakistan-China Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCJCCI) Everest International
Expo Pvt. Ltd. organized “Offline/Online Pakistan China Industrial Expo 2020” from November 13-15, 2020
in Lahore. It attracted over 1,000 participants from both the countries. Agreements worth millions of
dollars are expected to be reached between Pakistani and Chinese industrialists as a result of 448
matchmaking meetings. The event was launched in an innovative model of “Online + Offline”. All exhibits
were physically showed, while B2B meetings were held online via terminal equipment which was installed
on every booth.10 Such innovative events reflect the eagerness of Chinese and Pakistani traders to explore
new avenues and capitalize on CPEC.
Since 2018, the government of Pakistan has taken considerable measures to reduce the current account
deficit and bolster exports. Pakistan’s strong all-round ties with China should be reflected in the trade
volume between the two countries. For several years, the balance of trade was strongly in favor of China.
But after the signing of FTA II and completion of multiple CPEC projects, the outlook is expected to improve
for Pakistan.
China has not only extended support to rest of the world in the fight against coronavirus, but has also
countered anti-globalization trends and is proving to be the main driver behind global economic recovery.
In his keynote speech at the International Seminar on the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations, State
Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that, “in the face of increasingly complex and serious global
challenges, no country can stand aloof or deal with them alone. Multilateralism is the only way forward.”11
This year’s CIIE served as yet another contribution by China to Pakistani and global economy.

CYBER WARFARE IN OUTER SPACE: A CLOUD ON THE

HORIZON

In March 2020, the US Air Force commissioned a “digital twin” of a satellite to conduct
a wide range of simulated penetration tests to detect its cyber vulnerabilities. This
testing will also cover hacking of an entire satellite system - an orbiting satellite, on-
ground control station and transmission links between them.1Taking into account the
growing US dependence on space-based assets for the majority of its military
operations at strategic, operational and tactical levels, this testing was authorized by
the US Congress under “section 1647” of “the National Defence Authorization Act,
2016.”2 Furthermore, the satellite attack scenarios will be the focal point of the second
exercise of the US “Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS),” expected to be held
in June 2020.3Ensuring the security of space-based assets against potential cyber attacks
is not only a matter of concern for the US and other 192 states, but also for the global
space economy which is expected to reach US$ 1 trillion by the year 2040.
More than 9,000 objects5 have been launched into outerspace from the time when the first
satellite was launched in 1957. Currently, 5780 space objects are present in orbit, out of which
1142 are in geo-synchronized orbit (GSO). Since 2011, a gradual surge has been observed in the
launching activities, but an alarming increase in the last three years is a matter of great concern.
A total of 453 and 581 space objects were launched in 2018 and 2019 respectively. A total of 354
objects were launched in just first quarter of 2020.6 This number is expected to increase with the
expanding industry of cost-effective small satellites which will not only enhance the connectivity
to billions of devices, but also offer various new, effortless and extremely interlinked nodes for
the hackers. Keeping in view market incentives, manufacturers are paying little attention to
incorporating standard security controls, leaving a great number of encryption loopholes. The
integration of emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), quantum computing and
machine learning with space communications will add fuel to the fire. Researchers are already
testing an “intelligent network technology” which will make satellite operations more efficient,
fast, adaptive, and above all more autonomous. It will enable the satellites to do a quick
assessment of internal and external dynamics for resolving technical issues and emergency
situation with minimum ground assistance.8 Unlike 20th century satellites, this advance generation of
intelligent and digitalized satellites will be safe from inadvertent orbital accidents, but at the same time
more vulnerable to cyber attacks, leading to a new kind of survivability paradox in outer space.
New methods of cyber warfare will revolutionize the entire spectrum of counter-space operations.
Currently, states rely mainly on kinetic capabilities including an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile for physical
destruction of space-based assets. Furthermore, they also bank on the electromagnetic/directed energies
(lasers) and electronic warfare (spoofing, orbital jamming and terrestrial jamming) to destroy, disrupt, and
control the satellite transmissions. The lack of attribution will make cyber warfare a desired mode of
counter-space operations in the future for states as well as non-state actors.9 However, the speed, cost
and technical sophistication of these cyber attacks will depend on the level of damage an attacker want
to inflict on an adversary. A cyber attack can cause complete destruction of a satellite through orbital
denial and rerouting. Furthermore, a distributed denial of services (DDOS) attack can make satellites
dysfunctional by damaging its sensors and electronic systems. Cyber attacks can corrupt communication
through deletion and modification of important data stored in a satellite as well as ground control
stations. Advancement in cyber technologies will make the interception, alteration and rerouting of
satellite transmissions much easier. Cyber attacks that disrupt the crucial satellite operations like Global
Positioning System (GPS) will engender far reaching impacts on the military operations at strategic,
operational and tactical levels because the majority of weapon systems, maritime operations and aviation
depend on it. Cyber warfare in outer space will also damage the credibility and integrity of Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.
States are now recognizing the magnitude of the cyber threats in outer space, many great powers
like US, China and Russia are incorporating the cyber security of space-based assets in their
national security policies and strategies. The recent US Cyberspace Solarium Commission Report
2020 proposed a framework of “Forward Defence” and “Layered Deterrence” in cyber space. 10
Acknowledging the significance of these emerging threats, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) has also included the cyber domain in the draft of its first outer space strategy.11All these initiatives
are positive developments, but they are operating in isolation and lacking an international consensus on
an integrated approach to tackle the dark clouds threatening international peace and stability.
The cyber-outer space nexus is in a formative stage today and its future will be determined by the
transition of great power competition in geo-economics to astro-politics. The private sector is also a major
stakeholder in the securitization of cyber threats in outer space. The existing legal regime is insufficient,
even the mandate of the United Nations initiative like “Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on
Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International
Security” does not include cyber security in outer space. This new format of threats in new strategic era
requires an extensive legal arrangements like treaty, voluntary guidelines and confidence building
measures (CBMs) within the broader framework of international arms control and disarmament regime.

IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON ECONOMY OF PAKISTAN

The pandemic termed the COVID-19 (coronavirus) has exponentially spread across the
globe since the first case was reported in Wuhan China in late December 2019. The virus
has led to more than 3.1 million cases and 215 thousand deaths across the world. 1 And
the numbers are rising. In order to ‘flatten the curve’ of growing numbers of infected
people, governments around the world have been forced to impose complete lockdown
of their societies and businesses.
The main concern for the Government of Pakistan (GOP) has been the economic impact the lockdown will
have on the poor segments of the society, and fragile economy on the whole. The Pakistani Stock Market’s
benchmark KSE-100 Index has plunged by over 25% in March, and the rupee by over 6%. Pakistan’s
economy is projected to face a loss of up to 4% of its GDP due to disruptions in trade, potential decline in
FDI and remittances, and fluxes in other sectors such as aviation, tourism and hospitality, caused by the
lockdown imposed in the country. The dire economic effects can already be seen, with widespread
lockdowns freezing most normal activity, export orders cancelled and vast numbers of daily workers
suddenly jobless. 2
Pakistan's forex reserves slumped 12% in the month of March amid virus outbreak, from $12.8
billion to $11.2 billion. This decline is due to multiple factors, including panic selling of debt and
equities, and reserves are expected to fall further in coming weeks according to State Bank of
Pakistan (SBP). The policy rate decrease of 2% announced by the SBP led to a total of about $1.5 billion
leaving Pakistani Market Treasury Bills (MTBs) and Pakistan Investment Bonds (PIBs). The World Bank
(WB) has projected a 23% decline in remittances for Pakistan, totalling about $17 billion in 2020 compared
with a total of $22.5 billion in 2019 due to the economic crisis induced by the pandemic, and lockdowns
in most cities abroad.3
As demand in economies across the world stagnates with the spread of the virus, Pakistan’s exporters will
see significantly fewer orders for their products from buyers abroad, at least for the next few months.
USA and China are Pakistan’s major export partners, any economic downturn that these economies may
face, would directly affect countries exports as well as the GDP. 4
The World Trade Organization (WTO) projections show that world trade could contract by 13% in an
optimistic scenario, and by a third of its value in a pessimistic scenario. Global markets are down 35%,
credit markets have seized up, and credit spreads have spiked to 2008 levels. According to the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the economic uncertainty that this has sparked will
likely cost the global economy $1 trillion in 2020 and lower the world GDP to 2% from earlier projected
3%. The economic slowdown in some of the richest economies of the world has caused unprecedented
damage: in the US and Europe. In China too, any hopes of a quick recovery are being dampened as the
possibility of new outbreaks cannot be ruled out. 5
The rapid spread of the Covid-19 virus in Pakistan since February 2020 has brought economic activity to a
near halt. Most of the country has been placed under a partial lockdown. The closure of non-essential
businesses and domestic supply chain disruptions are having a significant impact on wholesale and retail
trade and transport, storage and communication, the largest sub-sectors of the services sector.6 UNCTAD
also placed Pakistan among the countries which would be the hardest-hit by the global pandemic of
coronavirus, causing a $2-$3 trillion financing deficit in 170 developing countries over this year and next,
therefore a need for a raft of measures for their relief.
Pakistan, so far, has seen a steady increase in cases with the government of Pakistan confident that the
lockdown it has put in place has slowed the pace of growth of virus in the country, with about 14,885
cases and 327 deaths as of April 28.8 The response measures that the federal and provincial governments
have implemented included quarantining more than 3 thousand zaireens (religious pilgrims) from Iran,
creating quarantine setups at tablighi (preaching) centres, closing borders with all neighbouring countries,
international travel restrictions, social distancing measures, and lockdowns of differing scales across all
the provinces of the country.
On the whole, the government’s economic team has responded admirably by announcing a stimulus
package worth Rs1.25 trillion, partly made up of fiscal measures such as tax breaks and concessions to the
industry. This package also includes the largest social protection effort in the country’s history worth
nearly $1 billion and targeting over 12 million households across the country under the Ehsaas Emergency
Cash Program.9 Additionally, SBP has introduced a refinance facility to incentivize businesses not to lay off
workers. The month of Ramazan, during which remittances spike every year, may still provide significant
remittance inflows.10
The immediate challenge for the GOP is to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, while minimizing
economic losses and protecting the poorest. In the medium-to-long term, the government should remain
focused on implementing much needed structural reforms to boost private investment sustainably.
However, in dealing with the global economy, a more structured approach should be adopted. Solely
personalized attempts at economic diplomacy seldom work, which is why the Prime Minister’s well-
intentioned appeal to donors for restructuring foreign debt 11 needs to be followed by a concerted effort
on the economic diplomacy front.
Dwindling exports will be accompanied by a drop in the import bill, as demand at home falls as a result of
lockdowns in major cities. There will also be some relief from the recent fall in global crude oil prices.
Existing partnerships need to be strengthened, and new ones based on evolving principles of the global
economy must to be forged. Ongoing efforts must be complemented with further structural reforms to
ensure that the stabilization measures lead to a sustainable growth path for the country.
 COVID-19 AND THE PROGRESS ON SDGS

The Covid-19 pandemic has shaken the world to the core, disturbing the agendas for
development, like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), commonly known as the
Agenda for Development 2030. On July 7, 2020, UN Department of Economic & Social
Affairs launched the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020 which gives an insight
into the progress on the 17 global goals as determined by the United Nations in 2015.
The report gives a very detailed and comprehensive overview of the progress on each
goal and also how the pandemic has affected the progress on each one of the global
goals.
The SDGs Report 2020 reveals that even before the Covid-19 pandemic, progress on the achievement of
the SDGs was uneven and the world was not on the path to achieving the SDGs by 2030. There have been
some gains, like the decline in the spread of contagious diseases, the increase in the access to safe drinking
water; women empowerment as well as the participation of women in leadership roles has seen progress
in the past few years. The table below reveals the key findings.
However, on the flip side, the increase in food security, deteriorating environment and the
presence of general inequality world over, requires a lot of attention. The report reveals and is
categorical that the change, as envisaged is not taking place, specifically at the pace required to
achieve the desired results. Despite the fact that Covid-19 affects every person and every
community, but it does not do so equally. The poorer nations, which already lag behind in achieving the
SDGs have been the ones hit the most.
However, the present inequalities have further been exposed, especially among the most vulnerable
groups like migrants and refugees, the poor segments of the society and among many others, those
employed in the informal economy. The effects of this pandemic are very disproportionate across
societies and the need for strengthening health systems on an urgent basis along with help and support
for the more weak countries should the urgently undertaken. For this to materialize, multilateral
approaches are the answer. The report also points out serious gaps in the availability of data for SDG
monitoring. The pandemic is further jeopardizing the production of data, which is central to the
achievement of the SDGs.
The SDG Report 2020 gives an insight into the pre-Covid situation and also gives an assessment on how
the pandemic will affect the progress on each one of the global goals. 2 Starting with the first goal, ‘No
Poverty’, the report states that the world was already off the track when it came to ending poverty by
2030 and Covid has pushed plus 71 million people into poverty in 2020. Progress on second goal, ‘Zero
Hunger’ also reveals that food insecurity was on the rise and with the pandemic, the likelihood of 40 to
85% small farmers being hit by the pandemic has come up, including the locust threat as well as the threat
of heightened conflict. The third global goal, ‘Good Health and Wellbeing’, reveals that there was some
progress in health related areas in the pre pandemic days, however, the pandemic has revealed the
weakness of the health systems, and specifically the disruptions in vaccinations as well as the lack of health
systems for many citizens of the world. Progress on the fourth goal, ‘Quality Education’ was already poor
and the pandemic has exacerbated the problem manifold and reversed years of progress as children
remained out of school due to the pandemic.
The progress on fifth goal, which is ‘Gender Equality’ also, remains poor and the pandemic has
increased the risk of violence against women. Goal number six of the SDGs, which is ‘Clean Water
and Sanitation’ shows little progress as millions remain without water and sanitation services,
and the pandemic has revealed that three billion people worldwide, lack hand washing facilities,
the major and most effective method against Covid-19. The progress on goal seven, which is
‘Affordable and Clean Energy’ also, remains poor, pre-pandemic and presently 789 million people
lack electricity. The gains on Goal number eight, ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’ reveal that
global economic growth was slowing down and GDP per capita decreased to 1.5% from 2.0% in
2018. Therefore, the world faces the worst economic recession and GDP per capita is expected
to decline by 4.2% in 2020, further affected by the pandemic. Goal number nine, ‘Industry, Innovation
and Infrastructure’ has also suffered due to the pandemic, although growth in this domain was already on
the decline due to tariffs and trade tensions. The pandemic has caused the steepest decline to the aviation
industry in this context. Goal number ten, ‘Reduced Inequalities’ also shows little progress although
income inequality was falling in some countries but the pandemic has caused more hardship to the very
vulnerable groups like migrants, refugees, children, women and persons with disabilities. Goal number
eleven, ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’ has also shown unsatisfactory results. Goal number twelve,
‘Responsible Consumption and Production’ shows that the world continues to use natural resources
unsustainably and the pandemic offers an opportunity to develop recovery plans. The progress on goal
number thirteen, ‘Climate Action’ has been unsatisfactory but the pandemic may result in a 6% drop in
greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2020.
The progress on goal number fourteen, ‘Life below Water’ shows that the threat to marine life continues
but the reduction in human activity due to the pandemic may give a chance to marine life. Moreover,
progress on Goal number fifteen, ‘Life on Land’ shows that the world is lagging behind on targets to halt
biodiversity losses. Goal number sixteen, ‘Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’ shows poor progress as
civilians continue to be killed and Covid-19 further threatens global peace and security. The last of the
SDGs, goal number seventeen, ‘Partnership for the Goals’ also shows mild progress as the pandemic
makes the decline in global foreign direct investment up by 40% in 2020.
Every crisis that the world has confronted has disturbed the agendas for development and prosperity and
Covid-19 is no different, but is in fact, more lethal than the global financial crisis of 2007-08. The effects
of every crisis are different, but the present crisis has a triple impact on the world, specifically as it hits
health, economy and employment, all at once. SDGs can also be called the roadmap for development and
while it is yet to be ascertained what the effects of Covid-19 will be on this development agenda, the
future does not look very promising. According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
global development in terms of health, education and living standards could drastically fall for the first
time since the year 1990, when measurements actually began to be noted.3 However, this year the setback
to the progress on the SDGs is very far reaching and its effects are yet to be determined.
Among all the negative facts, Pakistan has seen progress on one of the goals and the most
important is the achievement of goal thirteen, which pertains to urgent actions to combat climate
change and its impacts. Pakistan has achieved this goal ten years ahead of its deadline. The initiatives
undertaken by the country are the10 Billion Tree Tsunami Program, Clean Green Pakistan Initiative, Clean
Green Pakistan Index, Protected Areas Initiative (15 new national parks), Ecosystem Restoration Fund for
facilitating green growth and policies, among others.4
The realization that the world is confronted with multipronged challenges which cannot be overcome
without global cooperation is a must to understand the connection between achieving the SDGs and the
pandemic, as the SDGs are a blueprint for dealing with global problems. The affects of this pandemic are
far reaching and require multilateral efforts by big and small powers alike. The world is engaged in fighting
the common goal, which is defeating the coronavirus. Although the grim crisis is still unfolding and as
mentioned earlier, the true, realistic and accurate impact of this ongoing pandemic is yet to be
ascertained, the solution lies in the multilateral approach. Therefore, the progress already made on the
SDGs must be maintained and along with this, the global community must undertake measures to reverse
the degradation of nature and undertake measures to avert climate change. As the report points out,
focus on data collection is key, in order to determine true progress on each of the global goals. With only
ten years left to achieve the SDGs, the world must consider that global unity is the only way to achieving
sustainable development in a troubled world.

COVID-19: IMPACT ON BRI AND CPEC

The outbreak of coronavirus has halted business operations across the globe. With
governments issuing lockdown orders, normal commercial activity slowed down with
only essential items being traded. In such a scenario, infrastructure development and
greater connectivity have been pushed behind in the policy agendas of governments all
over the world. In the case of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), projects have
been disrupted with local labor forced to stay at home and Chinese manpower facing
travel restrictions.
It is still unclear when the regional and global economic activities return to normal which also creates
uncertainty regarding the viability of these projects. Similarly, other trans-border corridors and Maritime
Silk Road of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are also faced with delays and cancellations. Despite the
challenging circumstances, the Chinese are pushing BRI forward by gradually restarting development work
and building the “Health Silk Road”.1 Beijing is confident that BRI will lead global economic recovery once
the crisis is resolved.
Sharing his thoughts on COVID-19 in an interview in March, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah
Mahmood Qureshi said “I don’t think it’ll have an impact on the CPEC in the long run. But in the
short run, yes, there could be a slight slowdown. As soon as we are over the hump of dealing with
the coronavirus, I think we’ll be back on track.”2 Both sides are eager to complete the project and are
hopeful that the pre-COVID-19 situation will return soon.
In the wake of global shortage of medical supplies, Chinese prowess in manufacturing was apparent. Many
countries turned to China to arrange medical equipment and protective gears. However, China, the
world’s factory, has also taken a huge hit after strict lockdown measures were imposed in January 2020.
The world’s second largest economy contracted 6.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2020. In comparison,
Chinese economy grew by 6.4 per cent in the first quarter of 2019. 3 Being a major global producer and
consumer, these figures are unsettling for the rest of the world.
Likewise, Pakistan’s economy is also facing challenging circumstances. Pakistan is host to BRI’s biggest
project – CPEC - but the country faces economic losses worth $ 8.2 billion due to coronavirus.4 The
situation in other BRI partner countries is not very different as the global recession is taking hold. Despite
minimal impact of coronavirus in Central Asia, the future surrounding BRI projects in that part of the world
is also uncertain. According to an expert from Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Dr. Roman
Vakulchuk, “Future trajectories of BRI development will depend on how fast China can tackle domestic
economic difficulties and mounting international pressure. The longer it takes, the consequences for
Central Asia will be harder and more difficult.”5 China’s footprint in Europe has been on the rise since the
initiation of BRI but the devastation caused by COVID-19 in Europe is likely to reshape the future economy
of the region. Addressing the EU’s heads of government, the President of the European Central Bank
Christine Lagarde, warned of a 15 per cent contraction to the Eurozone’s GDP as a direct consequence of
the pandemic.6 Western European countries will shift their focus on strengthening local industries and
have substantial resources of their own to limit the economic consequences of COVID-19 thereby limiting
room for Chinese investments. In contrast, the Central and Eastern European countries will likely
strengthen their cooperation with China to offset the damages due to prolonged suspension of economic
activity and secure future economic interests.
According to an Oxford University historian, Peter Frankopan, the major pandemics in the past like the
Black Death were caused by travellers and “in today’s world, where we are all tied together by
transportation networks, there is no place to hide”.7 He asserts that the outbreak of SARs in 2003 was
contained successfully because China’s transport infrastructure was not as vast and its international
integration was much less.8 Hence, there is a possibility that after the devastation caused by coronavirus,
countries across the globe will shift their strategies and enhance scrutiny of their economic partnerships.
Khudadad Chattha points out that “supply chains around the world have come under stress as a result of
this same interconnectedness in this crisis. We can see a situation where governments around the world
are spooked by this factor and decide to roll back some forms of globalization and trade.”9
For developing countries like Pakistan, the economic impact will be much more severe than the likes of
China and US. The governments in developed countries have the fiscal space to sustain crisis such as these,
while countries like Pakistan can face other severe challenges like hunger and widespread unemployment
without any benefits. A country arguing for debt relief from international institutions to cover its
expenditures is not in an ideal position to undertake mega infrastructure projects at the same time. BRI
projects in other Asian countries and Africa will also struggle as the local capacity to carry out such projects
will diminish. Major chunk of Chinese investments under BRI in Africa are driven by the abundance of
natural resources in the continent. Instable oil markets, louder calls for green energy transition, greater
focus on tech industry and changing trade patterns in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak will influence
China’s investment decisions. Although China’s support to the continent in the fight against COVID-19 has
further cemented diplomatic relations with African countries and may encourage Beijing to increase the
share of socio-economic projects under its BRI in Africa.
After taking charge as Prime Minister, Imran Khan initiated adjustments in the CPEC portfolio to better
suit Pakistan’s development needs. The present government also opted against risky investments under
CPEC due to the economic crunch faced by the country. In times when the economy has come under
unprecedented stress, it will not be a surprise if the present CPEC portfolio is reevaluated to accommodate
a major portion of Pakistani labor and experts in order to account for joblessness due to the lockdown.
Since its inception, CPEC has helped Pakistan’s economy drastically. It removed bottlenecks that
hampered economic activity and generated thousands of jobs for youth in Pakistan. Pakistan’s investment
outlook improved considerably and the country began to attract investors from different parts of the
world. In the later stages, CPEC began to focus on social sector development which was a critical step in
order to sustain the success of this mega initiative.
In March 2020, President Arif Alvi visited China to express solidarity with people of China and extend
cooperation between the countries in the fields of agriculture and healthcare. A recent MOU signed
between the two countries states that CPEC has, “entered a new stage of enrichment and expansion with
increasing cooperation areas, expanding cooperation scale and growing cooperation projects.”10 The
broad scope of CPEC allows it to progress despite curtailments.
Taking economic realities into consideration, both Beijing and Islamabad should look to shift the focus on
other areas such as healthcare, education, Chinese language learning, technology and agriculture. This
time can also be utilized by both sides to improve institutional and political challenges that have impeded
progress of CPEC projects in the past. Once the situation normalizes, work on CPEC projects can be carried
out more smoothly and the countries can make up for lost time.
Former US President John F. Kennedy once said that, “in a crisis, be aware of the danger-but recognize
the opportunity.” The time-tested friendship between China and Pakistan is probably facing its toughest
test nowadays. By altering the strategies and making the correct adjustments, CPEC can help Pakistan in
absorbing the social and economic burden and also pave way for a prompt recovery. The delays in CPEC
projects are inevitable, but it can still attain many of its objectives. Pakistan’s historical and deeper ties
with China will help CPEC to survive COVID-19 but Beijing will face greater challenges in other parts of the
world.

COVID-19 AND PAKISTAN’S FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES

Following and even before the World Health Organization (WHO) formally declared
Covid-19 as a pandemic, restrictive measures such as lockdowns have been declared all
over the world in order to contain the contagion. As of May 13, over 4 million cases
have been recorded with a death toll of over 294,487. The numbers are increasing with
no end in sight. Covid-19 is an unparalleled, severe health and economic crisis. It is
unique in nature because of two main things. Firstly, it is an amalgamation of a health
pandemic, while bearing all the signs of an economic crisis. Secondly, its effects on both
the demand and supply side of all economies, regardless of their nature are shocking.
The global impact of Covid-19 can be classified into three groups: human suffering, severe global
recession, and soaring unemployment due to financial and corporate sector hardships. Given the way it
has hurt both public and private sector businesses, created rapid aversion among investors and placed all
major financial bodies under stress, the world is on track to bear witness to a global regression the likes
of which have not been seen since World War II.
The World Bank has called this epidemic a ‘perfect storm’ for the South Asian region.1 In order to
slow the spread of the virus, countries in South Asia have implemented mandatory quarantines/
lockdowns/ curfews along with taking all measures they can with the purpose of enabling their health
systems to cope with anticipated overloads.
A World Bank report estimates that regional growth for South Asia will fall to a range between 1.8 and 2.8
percent in 2020, down from 6.3 percent projected six months ago.2 As with the rest of the world, tourism
has come to a halt, distribution chains have been disrupted and inflows and outflows of capital have been
paused, with no projection of resumption in sight. Furthermore, the inflow of remittances, which are a
significant part of all South Asian economies, has been discontinued to a vast extent. Moreover, the hard
truth is that because of the prevalent inequality in this region, it is highly probable that the people at the
low end of the spectrum will be the most severely affected. Primarily so, because implementation of social
distancing for them is difficult. This along with a lack of access to basic health facilities, loss of jobs and
spike in food prices means that thousands of people will be further pushed below the poverty line.
In prevision of this crisis, governments in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have already approved stimulus
packages geared towards support for the most disadvantaged classes in their countries. These are in
conjunction with emergency funding for businesses to cope with the current crisis.
Pakistan and Covid-19
On February 26, Pakistan recorded its first case of the coronavirus. As of May 13, there were 35,303
confirmed cases with 761 deaths. Similar to many other countries, the Pakistan Government has been
enforcing various forms of lockdown. While Karachi faces the strictest actions in the entire country, cities
in other provinces have implemented less stringent measures. The reason being a complete nationwide
lockdown would have deep-seated economic ramifications which the country will not be able to handle.
Disruptions caused by Covid-19 have placed an unprecedented strain on the country’s economic activity,
thereby putting pressure on Pakistan’s fiscal position. The State Bank has adjusted GDP growth from an
earlier estimate of 3.5 percent to 3 percent. Meanwhile, the Asian Development Bank has also decreased
Pakistan’s projected growth rate from 2.9 percent to 2.6 percent. Official evaluations approximate an
early loss of PKR 2.5 trillion with expected layoffs between 12.3 to 18.5 million people.
In Pakistan, almost 25 percent live below the poverty line.4 Many people are daily wage earners, whose
means of income has been completely stopped because of the lockdown. The large number of repatriates
from the Gulf will only add to the unemployment figures. The International Monetary Fund has already
estimated the unemployment rate projection for the country to be 6.2 per cent for 2020. 5 Moreover,
remittances make up 86 percent of the secondary income balance of the country. According to official
sources, foreign remittances have already halved in the past two months and are anticipated to decrease
by $1 billion to $1.5 billion per year if the situation persists. Ten to eleven thousand households are
expected to be directly affected.6
In order to fight the pandemic, the government set up a National Command and Operation Center (NCOC)
at the start of April. Additionally, in an appeal to international monetary institutions and community on
April 12, Prime Minister Imran Khan unfolded his “Global Initiative on Debt Relief” for developing
countries including Pakistan, to meet the unprecedented health and economic challenges posed by the
pandemic. UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres’ was quick to support the Prime Minister’s initiative
terming it an important part of the response to the coronavirus pandemic.7Furthermore, the government
is also set to launch ‘We Care’ drive for protection of medical personnel. The aim of this campaign will be
to bridge gaps between hospital administrations and the government and will also include the provision
of protective equipment, training, counselling and stress management facilities. In a major diplomatic
outreach, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Pakistan embassies across the world have
approached the heads of States and international monetary institutions to join Pakistan in this initiative.
Moreover, in order to facilitate the repatriation of Pakistani workers from around the world. A Crisis
Management Unit within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also been formed.8
Impact of Covid-19 on Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Choices
Given that unilateralism is on the ascendant, and multilateralism losing relevance, the world could move
more towards regionalism. Consolidating Pakistan’s economic relations with China will assume further
significance.
• Indian government has used Covid-19 to enhance its repression in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IoK).
Moreover, a systematic profiling of Indian Muslims is creating a dangerous environment that could morph
into genocide or mass killing of the Muslims in India. Even though, a number of sane voices have appeared,
some from the Gulf and some from within India exposing BJP’s true face, this has not been enough to stop
the Modi government’s brutalities.

Peace in Afghanistan is also of crucial value. Neither Pakistan nor our region can afford a civil war in
Afghanistan and its attendant consequence of more refugee flows towards Pakistan. The Government of
Pakistan should continue to reiterate its stance, especially in the light of the brutal terrorist attacks that
have taken place in Afghanistan recently.

In view of the massive influx of repatriates, one big challenge the Government of Pakistan faces, is the
retention of jobs and extension of visas for overseas Pakistanis, especially in the Gulf. This also brings into
question the extreme dependency, Pakistan places on remittances from the Gulf.

The return of pilgrims from Iran has caused initial spread of the virus. Officials are said to blame Iran for
80 percent of the disease spread.9 Geographical proximity and the need for a peaceful neighborhood,
however, require that this factor should not be further amplified more than what it is and smooth things
out with Iran. As it is, increasingly the transmission of the disease is local. Moreover, the ironing out of
any tensions between the two countries is important, given that Chief of the Army Staff General Qamar
Javed Bajwa on May 12 spoke to his Iranian counterpart regarding the latter’s cooperation in dealing with
Baloch militants allegedly operating from Iranian soil.

Pakistan has little fiscal space to support its huge population, catering to their basic needs. According to
a World Bank report, Pakistan and Sri Lanka would be the worst affected countries in this
pandemic.10Managing our debt profile is necessary. The initiative of the government on debt relief was
timely and well appreciated. The debt relief for one year is welcomed. However, servicing of debt would
remain a challenge.

Export orders have mostly been cancelled or pended. An urgent shift would be required by our
manufacturers towards what our market needs at this time rather than importing it. This
is an opportune time to accord incentives to domestic manufacturing, with necessary protections against
cheaper imports.

Dependence on technology has increased manifold. That also means yet greater dependence on the
technologically developed countries. Hence, need for greater technological education and development
at home.
Choices
In the given circumstances, Pakistan should continue to endorse global efforts to combat the Covid19
pandemic, promote collective efforts within the regional forums like OIC and SAARC, practice livelihood-
centered economic policies, and work on strengthening bilateral relations with regional countries.
Overseas Pakistanis
i. The Government has done a commendable job in repatriating our overseas Pakistanis. However, we
need to develop a health security strategy for migrants so as to safeguard the overall health of emigrants
upon their return to Pakistan. In due course, a strategy would be required to absorb this workforce into
our economy, especially if the oil glut continues and Gulf countries continue their layoffs.
ii. On May 2 190 out of 483 passengers who were brought to Karachi through special flights from Dubai,
Sharjah and Colombo and on May 4, 105 passengers repatriated from UAE to Pakistan test positive for
Covid-19.11 Hence, it is important that the Government of Pakistan engage with foreign governments to
first check all passengers who are meant to fly out and second in the event that they test positive for
Covid19, they should be facilitated in the country where they are presently.

iii. The foreign office with assistance from all concerned ministries should ensure minimum job loss of
overseas Pakistanis by engaging and cooperating with foreign governments, in the Gulf and Europe.

iv. Government and relevant departments should encourage and facilitate cottage industries in improving
their production to meet local demands by import substitution. Cottage industries are an important
component of Pakistan’s economy and would help in rehabilitating the

returnees. There is a need for sound policies, secure financial & legal environment to stimulate investment
& other capital inflows in this regard.
Economy
v. Pakistan should continue to lobby for prime minister’s initiative for debt relief and coordinate with
other developing countries to strengthen support for the voices calling for further debt relief. The IMF
under its Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) scheme approved a loan of $1.4 billion for Pakistan in addition
to giving Pakistan $1.5 billion relief in the form of delay in repayment of loans to bilateral creditors. 12
However, our economy will require a longer term economic reprieve and debt relief since one of the
biggest problems Pakistan faces is lack of fiscal space.

vi. One major issue for Pakistan would be unemployment. The projects under the China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor (CPEC) assume critical importance, in terms of providing jobs and income. Overall
bilateral relations with China are now more important than ever. The Pakistan Government should also
seek relaxation in payments that are due to China for bilateral debt and repatriation of profits on CPEC
projects. Additional support from China will further boost Pakistan’s economic recovery in the months to
come.

vii. Economic diplomacy may require a whole new approach. Since world is likely to face a massive
recession if not regression, Pakistan would need to evolve its own economic solutions to its economic
problems. Focus should be much more on domestic manufacturing with enough state protections for
import substitution.

viii. New technologies (artificial intelligence, big data computing, drones, etc.) would emerge as the key
tool to not only improve health infrastructure but also influence the entire spectrum of how businesses
would be run in our country and the world at large. While adapting to new technologies, the Pakistan
Government should also build in-house technological resource base. Total reliance on West-based
technological tools is not recommended.

ix. Relations with the US are showing some signs of improvement. Apart from working together
on Afghanistan, the US officials have stated that Pakistan has been placed among the ‘high-
priority’ countries that will receive US assistance for helping contain the outbreak of Covid-
19.13Investments into Pakistan by corporate America and especially by our own diaspora in the US should
be attracted.
x. Given that work from home is the ‘new normal’ at the moment, the requirement for effective software
has increased significantly. Hence, the Pakistan Government should seek to engage with countries with a
stronger IT sector, in order to strengthen its own software industry.
FATF
xi. Amid the Covid19 crisis, the FATF has given Pakistan an extension for another three months.14 The next
review process is expected to take place in September 2020. Pakistan should reach out for diplomatic
assistance from China, Turkey, Malaysia, and other friendly countries well ahead of time.

Kashmir
xii. Despite the threat at hand in the form of a pandemic, India is still adamantly pursuing its Hindutva
policies in occupied Kashmir. This provides an ideal opportunity for the Pakistan Government to continue
to highlight Indian atrocities in IoK in order to awaken the world conscience. In this regard, it is important
to take like-minded countries on board to jointly raise the issue at the global platforms. This will help build
pressure on the Modi regime to stop brutalities in occupied Kashmir.

xiii. An equally worrying aspect of BJP rule in India is the consistent discrimination, lynching, and profiling
of Indian Muslims. Terms like ‘corona jihad’ have been coined to demonize Muslims. A systematic cultural
environment is being created that could instigate extremist Hindus to start targeting Muslims on a larger
scale. The Government of Pakistan must highlight sane voices from within and outside India that are
exposing the Hindu fascism agenda of Modi regime. Even though the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC) issued a statement April 20 urging the Indian government to take note of the atrocities against
Muslims in India, a lot more still needs to be done not only from the OIC but from all multilateral
organizations.15
Health Diplomacy
xiv. Pakistan has launched Pakistan’s Preparedness and Response Plan (PPRP), which is a welcome step to
strengthen Pakistan’s capacity in emergency prevention, preparedness, response and relief, and building
health systems up to December 2020. Necessary international collaboration and reach out through
diplomatic channels will ensure success of the initiative.

xv. Experts have warned that a second phase of Covid19 is expected in fall/winter 2020. Keeping this in
mind, this is a good opportunity to seek technological cooperation with China, South Korea, Taiwan and
Singapore in tracking, identifying and combatting the pandemic.

xvi. Islamabad should ask those countries that have successfully dealt with the pandemic to invest in
Pakistan’s technological efforts to contain the spread of the virus through surveillance technology, 5G
imaging, and so on. Later, Pakistan might expand its technological cooperation with these countries in
other areas.

xvii. All concerned bodies such as NDMA, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of
Commerce in Pakistan should collaborate and exercise effective health diplomacy to specify places from
where ventilators, nebulizers, PPEs and other required equipment can be procured. A better option of
course remains manufacturing them right here in Pakistan.

xviii. The government could facilitate lab-to-lab cooperation with countries which are currently
undertaking vaccine testing. If the second phase of Covid 19 comes, these cooperative arrangements will
be useful.
xix. In case there is a second phase of Covid-19, Pakistan should be well-prepared to enforce SOPs for a
stricter lockdown while ensuring financial relief for most vulnerable segment of the population.

ROLE OF W.H.O IN COMBATING COVID

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a public health emergency
in January, 2020 and declared it a pandemic in early March, 2020. The outbreak of
COVID-19 has been instrumental in exposing how badly prepared countries are for a
pandemic. Developed and developing countries alike have been struggling to deal with
this pandemic of epic proportions.
Soon after the coronavirus being declared a pandemic, there began pandemic politics, with the United
States and China at the centre of it; with a lot of criticism of WHO as being responsible for hiding facts and
accusing China of being irresponsible with regards to the virus. At the forefront of this criticism was the
US, which as a consequence also decided to cut funding to the WHO and quit from the organization.
President Trump stated that the Chinese officials “ignored their reporting obligations” to the WHO about
the virus which has killed hundreds of thousands of people globally. He also accused the agency of
misinforming the world about the virus. It may be noted that the largest contributions to WHO come from
the US and are estimated at around 450 million dollars a year.1
Although the organization has remained at the centre of controversy ever since the pandemic
began, it has played a crucial role in the fight against COVID-19 and continues to do so, despite
hurdles. From the beginning, the agency has been instrumental in leading the response to the
pandemic and it initiated action by helping countries to prepare and respond. This was the first step which
identified major actions and resources needed by countries to tackle this virus. This preparedness and
response plan has continued to be updated since after the pandemic began. The organization’s six regional
offices and 150 country offices, work closely with governments around the world to prepare their health
systems for the negative effects of COVID-19, and on how to respond effectively during the pandemic
crisis.2 WHO also set up the Solidarity Response Fund, to ensure patients get the care they need, and
frontline workers get essential supplies and information. Among others, WHO also started campaigns to
disseminate accurate information as well as ensuring the distribution of vital supplies to frontline health
workers. Initially, it dispatched more than two million items of personal protective equipment to 133
countries and later launched a “UN COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force.”3 Similarly, the training of health
workers has also been one of the agency’s top most priorities during the pandemic and it initiated the
OPEN WHO platform for this purpose. Moreover, the search for a vaccine and the bringing together of
leading experts in this regard was also initiated by WHO in February, 2020.
It may be noted that WHO has in the past dealt very successfully with several global health
challenges and amongst them, the most successful endeavors of the agency have been its child
vaccination programs which have contributed to the eradication of smallpox in 1979 and led to
a 99% reduction in polio infections in recent decades, and has been considerably successful
during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic. 4 After the outbreak of
COVID-19, and it being declared a pandemic, WHO had made an appeal for 675 million dollars in
funding from donors but it only received over half that amount. The agency has been
coordinating and cooperating with governments on their national responses ever since the
outbreak. It can be said that the agency has been proactively dealing with the pandemic,
however, for some WHO’s response has been a subject of controversy. Many experts have raised
concerns about the agency’s obsequiousness to Beijing and growing Chinese influence over the
institution. The agency has also been accused of accepting misinformation from the Chinese
government as the outbreak unfolded and also for its allegedly delayed response to declare a
global health emergency. It can be said that no organization can deliver hundred percent
successes during a crisis and the same can be said about WHO as well. With limited resources
and funding cuts, the global health agency has still performed keeping in view its advisory role
and heavy dependence on influential global powers. The timing of the US fallout with the global
health agency is also an important factor which is likely to impact its working in the years to come.
The pertinent questions that have come up during this pandemic are primarily focussed around what kind
of global health response is required from an organization like WHO in case the world is confronted with
a similar crisis in the years to come. The need for a more robust and well coordinated global health care
system is necessary and also that WHO needs to be a more independent and adequately funded
organization. The 2020-21 budget for WHO is $4.8 billion, and most of that budget is non-discretionary
and earmarked for specific activities, requiring WHO to make special calls during emergencies for
countries to contribute additional funds.5 In the current circumstances, with an ongoing global pandemic
and a resulting global economic slowdown, this can pose many difficulties for the agency. Therefore,
pandemic preparedness for the future requires, among stable funding resources, strong partnerships by
WHO with other organizations across the globe. These measures if taken can make the global health
agency more effective and away from controversy and global power rivalry.

US ELECTIONS 2020 AND THE FUTURE TRAJECTORY OF ITS

FOREIGN POLICY
In his first four years in the office, President Trump returned to classic isolationist
policies under his ‘America First’ ideology. His policies dismantled essential elements of
globalization as he stepped back from many international agreements including the
Paris Climate Change, the Iranian Nuclear Deal, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as
well as banning an entire faith from entering in the US.
At the national front, US witnessed deep homespun problems like the black lives matter campaign,
increased racial profiling, Islamophobia, and healthcare problems as well as the distorted response to the
Covid-19 pandemic. Trump’s policies of abandonment have put a question mark on America’s global
leadership role and have made way for other powers such as China and Russia to take prominence
internationally. His policies have created an image of a fortressed America with strict refugee laws, Muslim
ban, and a cold-war like posturing against China.
With a weakened international order due to the pandemic, a global economic recession, and declining
American leadership, the 2020 presidential election will be more consequential than that of 2016. The
upcoming elections will define United State’s future trajectory in the growing multi order world with
competing powers like China and Russia.
Trump vs. Biden – Key Takeaways
President Trump continues to campaign for his second term with “fighting for you”1 banner, while
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is campaigning on ‘rebuilding America’. A second
Trump presidency could put an end to the international alliance system; increase more American
isolationist policies and damage the postwar liberal international order. There is no reason to believe that
President Trump will pursue a more multilateral and cooperative strategy in his second term. However, a
Biden administration would be a reprieve for the current US led international order, with active
engagement on multiple levels such as Climate Change, Covid-19, immigration, and multilateralism, as
well on the US’s foreign policy overtures.
Both the candidates share differing policy choices on many domestic issues. However, there is
convergence in the broader strokes of their foreign policy trajectory, especially towards South Asia, on
issues such as the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, US relations with India, relations with Pakistan and
countering the rise of China. There is little likelihood of any drastic or fundamental shift in the core foreign
policy. Nonetheless, a new Biden administration may reconfigure Unites States foreign policy strategy
according to the priorities of its global engagement.
Relations with Pakistan
The result of the upcoming US election is much less likely to matter for America’s policy towards Pakistan;
the trajectory of the relations will likely remain the same with conditional re-figuration. A new
administration is not likely to disengage with Pakistan, but the policy will, in all probability, be more
conditional than before. With Trump’s second term, however, it is unlikely that there will be a major shift
in US policy towards the South Asian region, especially Pakistan. Pakistan's relations with the US have
widely been described as 'transactional' and 'frenemies'. Although, over the past two decades, relations
between both the capitals have witnessed varying amount of highs and lows, yet both have managed to
continue to engage on issues of mutual interest and importance.
A new administration, whether Trump’s or Biden’s will continue to maintain a partnership with
Pakistan on issues of mutual interest such as counter-terrorism, which is viewed as a shared
security interest. Engagement with Pakistan will be important to administer Washington’s
national security interests to counter terrorism and violent extremism, as the US plans to depart
from Afghanistan. In recent years, the US has understood the necessity for maintaining workable
ties with Pakistan to overcome many challenges in Afghanistan as well as in the region, especially
for creating an environment conducive for an agreement with the Afghan Taliban – the results of
which we have witnessed in progress of the Afghan peace process. It is imperative for both
Pakistan and US to revamp their relations and rebuild them on mutually beneficial grounds such
as trade partnerships and business investments. Restarting Pakistan-US strategic dialogue will be
useful as it covers many grounds other than security cooperation like trade, economic growth,
education, and science and technology.3
Moreover, as Pakistan's relationship with the US has faltered in the past few years, Pakistan has remained
actively engaged in defense cooperation with China and more recently an economic, infrastructure and
development centric engagement. China’s commitment towards building the China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor (CPEC) under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is seen as a game changer for Pakistan. Initially,
the US was ambivalent about the CPEC projects. However, it has become more vocal on its reservations
regarding the increased Chinese influence and has often criticized the initiative as dictated by one country.
4
Afghanistan has remained an important factor of highs and lows between Pakistan and the US. While
initially the Trump administration took a hard line on Pakistan, making it a scapegoat for its own failures
in Afghanistan, it later realized that winning in Afghanistan and peace in Afghanistan without Pakistan is
a difficult task. This led to the change in Washington’s tone towards Pakistan.
India Pivot
There is a strong bipartisan support in Washington on US relations with India. Trump and Joe Biden hold
almost similar views when it comes to close strategic partnership with India. Both the presidential
candidates as well as the capitals consider China as a mutual challenge and have similar views on issues
such as China’s technology theft5, its claim on the South China Sea, and territorial aggression along the
India-China border6. This sets the bigger picture of the Indo-US strategic partnership regardless of who
ever come into power in the US.
However, other aspects of the relationship must not be overlooked. On the issues of human
rights, environment, climate change, and health issues there is a stark difference in the policy
overtures of both the presidential candidates. A Biden administration may take a harder stance
on the issue of human rights violations in Kashmir as manifested by severe criticism by both Joe
Biden and his Vice President nominee Kamala Harris. He has criticized the actions taken by the Modi
government in Kashmir that has made it easier to discriminate and ultimately kick out Muslims from
India.7
China factor
Washington’s growing tilt towards India is a clear outcome of the growing power and influence of China
in the region. US policy makers are concerned over China’s ability to challenge US domination and its
position as the upper power in the world. Moreover, Washington has time and again expressed concern
over China’s holdings of the US government debt8 - which if China plans to sell might cause serious
destabilization in the US economy. These factors have given China a huge advantage to leverage itself
over the US. Policy makers in Washington already view Trumps hard-line on China as a right choice. Under
the Trump administration, US has pushed back against Beijing regardless of the increase in friction in their
bilateral relations. A new Biden administration will face a dilemma of whether to build on the China policy
that he inherits from Trump and exercise the same pressure or seek a reset button.
Afghanistan
While both the candidates maintain contrasting views on various issues, their views on the issue of
Afghanistan remain convergent with minor alterity. Both Trump and Biden have favored withdrawal of
the US troops from Afghanistan. The Trump administration has pledged a complete withdrawal by
November 2020 with less interest in a post-withdrawal Afghanistan. The withdrawal does not follow the
timeline of the peace deal signed with the Taliban in February 2020 which stated that withdrawal of troops
below 8600 would proceed on a ‘conditional’ approach as to pressure the Taliban to reduce violent
attacks.9 Whereas, Biden has announced a more measured policy approach by keeping a minimal
footprint in Afghanistan for the sustenance of peace, 10 while he promises to end the ‘forever wars’ and
‘unwinnable wars’ in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Biden also calls for an end to the US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen and with narrow
focus on Al- Qaeda and the ISIS.11 In his interview to the CBS, Joe Biden made it clear that America
bears zero responsibility if the Taliban return back to power and organizations such as the United Nations
should be put to use to solve problems around the world rather than to send American troops to solve
issues whether of human rights or otherwise.12 During his democratic debate in 2019, Joe Biden pointed
out to the possibility of insisting Pakistan to provide air bases to the US for airlift and support to its troops
in Afghanistan instead of maintaining air bases in Afghanistan post withdrawal.13
Issue of Kashmir
It is quite clear that when it comes to the issue of Kashmir, the US administrations neither want to
intervene, nor support Pakistan’s stance in the practical sense like taking up the issue in the UN or in a
more serious tone with India. The issue has time and again been discussed in Biden campaigns through
the window of human rights abuses. Trump’s indifference for other countries’ internal affairs has been a
sigh of relief for the Modi government as it has overtaken major changes inside India including the
nullification of Article 370, Citizenship Amendment Act, and human rights abuses in Kashmir which largely
got a muted response. However, Biden has strongly criticized the Modi government on the Citizenship
Amendment Act as well as the National Register of Citizens. Many suggest that Biden may not go easy on
the issue of Kashmir with the Modi government.14 Although it is too early to suggest a final approach of
Biden administration’s towards the issue of Kashmir, it is fairly evident as of now that ease of relationship
between Trump and Modi will likely downsize and fade under the scrutiny of the issue of human rights.

HOW WOULD THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY IMPACT IRAN-US

RELATIONS?

With the Democratic candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden emerging victorious
following the election 2020 results in the US, there are expectations of several shifts in
global politics in the upcoming months. Perhaps the only nation observing the outcome
of US Presidential elections more closely than the American people themselves, was
Iran. This is not surprising as the Islamic Republic has been under stringent economic
sanctions during the tenure of President Trump subduing any economic growth and
leaving the Iranian economy in tatters.
According to a World Bank Report on Iran’s economic outlook, the country has been facing the third
consecutive year of recession with its GDP contracting by 6.8% in 2019-20.1 Apart from economic
damages, Iran has also suffered from international isolation through restrictions on its oil imports and
faced an aggressive US strategic policy approach in the region under the Trump administration. Will
Biden’s presidency turn out to be any different?
While the Iranian regime bid farewell and good riddance to their rather eccentric nemesis in the
White House, it would be too soon to celebrate a complete restoration of ties as the damages
done over the past 4 years would take some time to undo. It is also important to note here that
President-elect Joe Biden’s stance is not soft either, particularly with reference to Iran’s nuclear
deal obligations. “Tehran must return to strict compliance with the deal”, said Mr Biden in an
interview with the New York Times back in January 2020.2 However, he is willing to bring US back to the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it is the only suitable way to ensure that Iran’s activities
remain in line with the US policy preferences for the region and beyond.
Easing ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran: Providing Relief & Managing Expectations
President Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran was designed to punish the latter in order
to bend it to his administration’s will while the goal should have been to restore some order and stability
to the region. The new administration under President-elect Joe Biden would leverage easing sanctions
against Iran in return for its compliance with the nuclear deal. The new US administration would also need
to actively work at breaking the unreliable pattern of abruptly abandoning international commitments
and to bring back its European allies on one page with regards to a redefined policy toward Iran.
US return to multilateralism could translate into some breathing room for Iran in order to kick-start the
dormant economic activity in the country which would also mean lifting restrictions on its oil exports
among other things. Professor Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, chair of the Centre for Iranian Studies at the
London Middle East Institute is of the view that the Biden administration needs to lift sanctions first in
order to provide some relief to the Iranian people.3 Foreign Minister of Iran, Dr. Javad Zarif was also of the
view that US return to the JCPOA will only take a few months and merely “three executive orders”.4 Some
Iranian political leaders have even demanded compensation from the new US administration for
weathering the ‘sanctions storm’ unleashed upon them by Trump.5
However, both sides will need to manage their expectations in terms of desirable outcomes. For Iran, this
certainly is a promising development and provides a chance to press the reset button on its ties with the
United States if it manages to reverse violations of the nuclear deal. However, it may need to prepare on
the home front in order to go back on these breaches where the past four years of Trump rule have sown
frustration and bitterness toward United States in particular and the West in general.
Lifting of these sanctions will not happen overnight and might not take place without demands or pre-
conditions which could delay the ease of restrictions owing to the complicated and multi-tiered political
hierarchy within Iran.
Utilizing the Small Window of Opportunity
Iranian Presidential elections are also due in June 2021 and Trump’s harsh policy over the past 4 years and
abysmal economic performance by the government in Iran has poised the conservatives for a possible
victory. With conservative candidates already sitting in majority in the Iranian parliament 6, negotiations
over lifting of sanctions would be an uphill task. In the meanwhile, the Trump administration is not likely
to make the situation any easier as it recently sanctioned more than a dozen Iranian banks to cut Iran off
from the global financial system.7 Thus, President-elect Joe Biden and the Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani have a small window of opportunity to negotiate terms and conditions to restore the nuclear
deal, lift sanctions and to perhaps improve the sorry state of US-Iran bilateral relations- a process, that
could prove to be near impossible if a new and less agreeable government is formulated in Iran next year.
President-elect Joe Biden has also talked about curbing Iran’s regional activities that are contrary to the
US vision for the Middle Eastern region such as use of proxies and militias, alleged support for terrorism
and its ballistic missile program.8 He further indicated that the US administration in the future would not
abandon the use of sanctions to keep a check on Iran’s regional behavior and ambitions. This highlights
how the main thrust of the US approach toward Iran is unlikely to change. However, some modifications
would be made which would be procedural and more predictable in nature. Mr. Biden has also stressed
that use of multilateralism would be the major policy direction particularly in terms of formulating the US
policy on Iran.9
This means that a necessary pre-requisite to negotiations with Iran over returning to JCPOA or
subsequent removal of sanctions would be for the United States to take its regional allies on
board. The EU signatories of JCPOA will be willing to welcome America’s return to the nuclear
deal in exchange for perhaps a few Iranian guarantees of compliance. However, the regional Arab
allies of the US like Saudi Arabia, UAE as well as Israel would be less than willing to let Iran receive any
kind of relief. Even back in 2015, these countries had vehemently opposed the deal expressing concerns
about regional security. These like-minded Arab countries are also likely to present a more unified
opposition to this especially after the normalisation pact recently signed between Israel and UAE. UAE's
ambassador in Washington, Yousef al-Otaiba at a seminar organized by the Tel Aviv university, said that,
“If we're going to negotiate the security of our part of the world, we should be there”.10
Thus, the victory of former US Vice President Joe Biden would definitely mean shifts in US handling of its
Iran policy, however, a complete roundabout in its direction is unlikely at this point. The trust deficit
between the two countries is too deep to be filled in this short amount of time. However, the most
important lesson learnt from the fallacy of Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran is that
punitive measures meant only to inflict misery cannot achieve desirable results. Instead, there needs to
be a well-rounded diplomatic approach in place where two-way communication and compromises must
be utilized to ensure broader and long term stability for the entire region.

US APPROACH TOWARDS ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT

UNDER BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
The US arms control and disarmament policy under the Trump administration saw its
withdrawal from many arms control and disarmament treaties – both bilateral and
multilateral. President Trump was in many ways focused on undoing arms control deals
negotiated during the Obama administration. He destroyed decades worth of work
done on achieving arms control and disarmament milestones between US and Russia.
The biggest casualty was the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between US and Russia that
prohibited the deployment of intermediate range missiles by both the countries. US maintained strategic
restraint with Russia for over 30 years. The New START is also due to expire in February 2021. The New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)that sets limits on number of deployed strategic missiles
could have been further extended for five years but the Trump administration refused to do so, imposing
conditions that could not be met. The Trump administration also withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA), the deal that was negotiated to impose curbs on Iran’s nuclear program. He also
chose to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty that allowed member states to conduct unarmed
observation flights over each other’s territory. Last but not the least is the President Trump’s engagement
with North Korea that despite all the fanfare, summits and handshakes failed to make any progress on the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. He renewed the focus on developing nuclear weapons, initiated
a new nuclear arms race, and eroded the norms against use of nuclear weapons. His administration even
talked about resuming nuclear testing.
What needs to be assessed is what President elect, Joseph Biden’s policy will be towards arms control and
disarmament issues. Can he mend the damage cause by the utter disregard for diplomacy and restraint?
Biden Administration will certainly have to move fast if it is to revive US commitment to existing arms
control and disarmament arrangements.
The top of the agenda has to be the New START negotiated in 2010 between US and Russia. It limits the
number of US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 each. This is the last remaining
arms control treaty between US and Russia. If it is allowed to expire in February 2021, there will be no
limits on development and deployment of strategic weapons in the decades ahead. New START can easily
be extended for up to five years. President-elect, Joseph Biden has pledged to “pursue an extension of
the New START, an anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia, and use that as a
foundation for new arms control arrangements.”1Russian President Vladimir Putin has already stated on
several occasions that he is ready to extend the treaty. In the months leading upto the US elections, both
sides engaged in negotiations. The Trump Administration wanted a freeze on new warheads and further
verification measures. The US also demanded that China should be made part of the treaty. Thus, US
wanted the treaty to be negotiated as a trilateral one. China refused to be drawn into any such treaty due
to its small nuclear arsenal that did not compare with US or Russian arsenal. Russia wanted the treaty to
be extended in its present form. Because of these factors, an agreement was not reached. Post elections,
President-elect Biden will have a very short time to rescue the treaty. But it can be achieved if both sides
are willing and no drastic new terms are demanded.
President-elect Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the JCPOA provided “Tehran return to strict
compliance with the deal. If it does so, I would rejoin the agreement and use our renewed
commitment to diplomacy to work with our allies to strengthen and extend it.” 2Iran's president,
Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have sent clear messages that
Tehran would be willing to fully comply with the deal if both the US and Europe honor their
obligations under the terms of the deal.3 However, there are fierce opponents of the deal in both
the US and Iran and they may have just a few months window to revive the JCPOA between when
Biden takes over and when Iranian elections take place in June 2021. While moderate Rouhani
backed the negotiation of the JCPOA in 2015, the next Iranian president to be elected in June
2021, would most likely be from hardliners. They opposed signing the deal originally and would be
critical of any moves Rouhani and Zarif make for signing what they perceive as a weak agreement with
the US.4 With hardliners in power in Iran after June 2021, prospects of reviving the deal will diminish. The
assassination of top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh on November 27 has complicated the situation
and bears testament that many forces inside and outside the region would like to scuttle the chances of
revival of the nuclear deal. Since the Obama-Biden administration negotiated the JCPOA, there is a good
chance Biden would work to revive the deal. However, the clock is ticking to save the JCPOA.
Denuclearization of North Korea is another challenge that faces the new Biden Administration. President
Trump followed an unconventional policy on North Korea. The early years of his presidency were occupied
with exchanging threatening rhetoric with North Korean leader but over the later years he tried to
personally engage Kim Yong Un and met him three times. However, President Trump’s unconventional
methods did not make any progress on denuclearization of Pyongyang. It was during Trump presidency
that North Korea conducted several nuclear and missiles tests and acquired Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile capability to reach US mainland. Mr. Biden is expected to pursue a more conventional approach
towards negotiating with North Korea, using pressure and what he calls “principled diplomacy”. 5 He said,
“I will empower our negotiators and jump-start a sustained, coordinated campaign with our allies and
others, including China, to advance our shared objective of a denuclearized North Korea.”6 However, the
heightened rivalry between the US and China will hamper any efforts to pressure North Korea. Without
having China on board, which makes up more than 95% of North Korea's trade volume, any sanctions
against the latter would be ineffective. Still, the best approach for Biden may be a multilateral approach
to mitigating dangers from North Korean nuclear program.
As regards the Open Skies Treaty, US formally opted out from the Treaty in November 2020 after
giving a six month notice in May earlier alleging that the Russia was violating the pact. The US
also asserted that the treaty was redundant since the imagery collected during the flights can
easily be obtained quickly from US or commercial satellites at a lesser cost. The Treaty, in force
since 2002 allows the 34 state parties to conduct short-notice, unarmed, reconnaissance flights
over the others' entire territories to collect data on military forces and activities. It was meant as
a confidence building measure in order to reduce the risk of war. The Trump administration is also taking
steps to dispose of the two specially equipped OC-135B planes that were used to conduct the overhead
flights. There may still be hope for re-entering the treaty since Biden has opposed withdrawal saying it
will, “exacerbate growing tensions between the West and Russia, and increase the risks of miscalculation
and conflict.”7 The treaty can be revived but Biden will have to work hard and fast in order to obtain
necessary support within the Senate and Congress. Many Democrats and some Republicans have urged
Biden to rejoin the treaty once in office, so there is still hope for the Open Skies Treaty,
Biden is expected to be an ardent supporter of non-proliferation policy. However, would he be able to
rescue many treaties that have been terminated and those about to expire remains to be seen. His pre-
election iterations certainly give hope: “I will take other steps to demonstrate our commitment to
reducing the role of nuclear weapons.....As president, I will renew our commitment to arms control for a
new era.”8His pre-election statements are promising, but there are many factors that need to be taken
into consideration including the international environment of mistrust and hostility that prevails. US
relations with China and Russia have nosedived. Also, within the US administration there is certain path
dependence. Certain policies that were followed by Trump Administration may not prove easy to reverse.
We can expect positive moves on treaties like the New Start, perhaps Open Skies Treaty, and JCPOA.
However, there will not be a sea change in the overall direction of the US nuclear weapons and
modernization since many of these policies were initiated during the Obama Administration.
 UNITED STATES STRATEGY TO PREVENT CONFLICT AND
PROMOTE STABILITY- 2020
The US Department of State released a report titled, ‘US Strategy to Prevent Conflict
and Promote Stability,’1 on December 18, 2020 that sets forth a framework to stabilize
the conflict-affected areas, prevent conflicts and address global fragility by following
the course of action it set in the Global Fragility Act (GFA) of 2019. 2
The report also takes its premise from the National Security Strategy that came out in 2017 3 during
President Trump's term and talks about the shared vision of US and its allies. The overseeing of GFA
implementation is led by the State Department in close collaboration with the US Agency for International
Development (USAID) and the Department of Defense. The purpose of the new strategy is to develop and
structure a wholesome approach by the government and its different departments and agencies in order
to primarily change the way Washington plans to prevent fragility and stabilize existing conflicts.
The document in itself is the first that the US has produced as a report, to chalk a 10-year strategy
that addresses conflict prevention and post-conflict stabilization in fragile states. Through this
document, Washington intends to overhaul its current approach to conflict and its prevention as
well as post-conflict stabilization around the world. The desire to do so grew out of the
recognition in Washington that large scale stabilization efforts in both financial terms and
otherwise made by the US after 9/11, have cost billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to the US but
have failed to produce intended results.
The Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the Director of
Foreign Assistance are responsible to lead and oversee progress on the GFA at the State Department. At
USAID front, the assistant to the administrator at the agency’s new Bureau for Conflict Prevention and
Stabilization is held responsible for the oversight. The report is a requirement under the US GFA legislation
and was originally due in September of 2020 but got delayed and a summary of the report was issued
instead. The September summary fell short on fulfilling the legal requirements that were earmarked in
the GFA and instead was released as a 6-pager summary of the work that the outgoing Trump
administration had done.4
In the December 2020 report, the State Department along with other relevant agencies has identified four
major priority areas that are necessary to achieve the set goals. The four major areas through which the
United States can advance its security have been identified as: Prevention, Stabilization, Partnerships and
Management. It entails that the US security and prosperity depends on peace, self-reliance, economic and
security partnerships, and breaking of the costly cycle of conflict and instability.
The strategy comes as a requirement to the 2019 GFA. The Act itself lays the foundation for the report. It
outlines four priority strategies;5 firstly, to anticipate and prevent violence before it is too late; second, to
achieve locally-driven political solutions by focusing on stabilization through locally driven solutions to
violence; third, to promote partnerships by collaboration and engagement between the US and other
nations to foster stability; and forth, by assisting both economic and governmental institutions and by
enabling an effective response from the US to cultivate diverse staff through recruitment and training
with the ability to address fragile states and by including conflict risk assessments.
The report emphasizes that the underlined principles can be achieved at different levels through bilateral,
multilateral, as well as public-private level partnerships. After defining its priority areas, the report lays
out a methodical process to monitor the policy outcomes. The document architects a process through
which Washington will be able to designate the roles and responsibilities of certain agencies. It will further
include the decision making process outlining staffing and resource requirements and how it will be
integrated effectively into the existing US development, diplomatic, and defense structure.
The US is remarkably good at pushing reports, evaluations and strategizing its future trends and this new
report fulfils all that. However, the report that has been developed as a result of consultations between
US government departments and with the help of multilateral agencies is unclear and vague on many
fronts including the role of other countries or regional stakeholders. While the report highlights issues
imperative to be addressed, it lacks the right level of action. It constructs a decade long strategy
architecture which can lose its importance with the changing geo-political and geo-strategic order.
Majority of the conflicts around the world are either led by the US itself or if not, Washington remains a
party to the conflict directly or indirectly. To make the amendments and changes the US suggests and
professes in the report, it has to start by putting its own house in order. Unfortunately, while the US
agencies are good at releasing reports and underlining areas of concern by placing the right words, there
are chances of limited to no follow-ups. The Trump administration failed to submit the first report on
time.
The success of the strategy identified in the report rests with how the new administration deals with the
determined principles and the importance it will place on conflict resolution and stabilization in conflict
areas. Only through its actions and not worlds the US can showcase its commitment to sustain a
consultative and collaborative approach that it professes in the report.

US-INDIA BASIC EXCHANGE COOPERATION AGREEMENT: PROVIDING

INDIA A MILITARY EDGE

United States and India recently conducted the 2+2 Ministerial dialogue on October 26-27, 2020. Indian
External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Defense Minister Rajnath Singh held the third
round of the dialogue with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
The two-day visit concluded with signing of three agreements, an MoU and a Letter of Intent between the
two parties.1
1 “Secretary Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Indian Minister of External Affairs
Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and Indian Minister of Defense Rajnath Singh Joint Press Availability at the US
India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue,” Remarks, Office of the Spokesperson, US State Department, October 27,
2020, https://www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-secretary-of-defense-mark-esper-indian-
minister-of-external-affairs-subrahmanyam-jaishankar-and-indian-minister-of-defense-rajnath-singh-
joint-press-availability-at-the/
2 Joint Statement on the Third U.S.-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, Office of Spokesperson, US Department
of State, October 27, 2020, https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-third-u-s-india-22-ministerial-
dialogue/
The talks were aimed to revamp the overall defense and security ties between the two capitals as well as
boost strategic ties in the Indo-Pacific cooperation. The first round of the 2+2 Ministerial dialogue was
held in Delhi in 2018 followed by a second round in 2019 in Washington. The fourth round of dialogue is
planned in Washington in 2021.2
The most significant outcome of the dialogue was signing of the Basic Exchange Cooperation Agreement
for Geospatial Intelligence, also known as BECA. The BECA agreement follows the four foundational
agreements3 that the two parties are signatory to, namely, the General Security of Military Information
Agreement – GSOMA, signed in 2002, the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement – LEMOA,
signed in 2016, and the Communication Compatibility and Security Agreement – COMCASA, signed in
2018.
Indo-US strategic ties have been on a constant rise since 2005 when both countries planned to establish
a global partnership under President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, after the
completion of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative in 2004.4 It was under the NSSP
that Washington and New Delhi laid their first foundational stone to delve into high technology and space,
satellite navigation, and defense technology. As a result, in 2016 US designated India as a Major Defense
Partner5 (MDP) to alleviate its defense and technology relations. It was then that the two countries inked
LEMOA which allowed both the capitals to use each other’s bases for repair and replenishment as well as
military supplies, spare parts, air, land and naval facilities.
Following LEMOA, both countries signed COMCASA in 2018 which allowed them easy inter-operability,
access to encrypted communication equipment and systems, secure networks, transfer of security
equipment as well as provide easy sale and access of high end technology to India in time of crisis.
Following the signing of agreements, Washington elevated India’s status to Strategic Trade Authorization
Tier 1, a provision that provided India with easy access to a wide range of military and dual use technology
license free.6 Moreover, the US political military bureau supported the increase of defense trade with
India from insignificant numbers to over $20 billion in 2020 through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and
Direct Commercial Sales (DCS).7
BECA is being hailed as a ‘significant milestone’ between the two countries as it makes the relationship
more strong, resilient and growing.8 The agreement also comes in a backdrop of three main events;
India’s standoff with China at Ladakh, its falsely claimed air strike at Balakot and US growing anti China
stance. For the US, the agreement comes amid the rising tensions between not just the US and China, but
also at the Line of Actual Control between India and China. The deal not only draws the two capitals closer
against the rise of China, but also establishes increased chances of India’s inclination for another Balakot
with the ongoing crisis in Kashmir, as India will be able to access satellite data from the US to verify its hits
and targets. Furthermore, both the capitals also hinted of joint cooperation and capacity building as well
as activities in third countries in their neighborhood and beyond, as both plan to expand on regional
security cooperation9 signaling a possible Washington backed Indian involvement in Afghanistan post US
withdrawal.
Neither of the two US officials mentioned Pakistan by name and were more circumspect in their remarks.
They referred to their partnership as ‘force multipliers’10 against China and its partners. During the 2+2
dialogue, China was targeted by US and India as a mutual cause of concern for both the parties.11
While all the agreements have individual characteristics, they complement each other and provide India
with a superior advantage in event of a war. The risks posed by the strategic dance between the US and
India are high as the deal opens doors for yet another era of arms race and strategic and security
destabilization in not just South Asia, but also in the Indian Ocean, and the Indo-Pacific. The agreement
will aid and open new strategic avenues for both India and the US in the realm of satellite imagery,
geospatial Intel, accuracy of missiles, navigation, and aeronautical data. It will enable India to access
classified information through the US satellites on its Northern and Western border, an advantage that
will result in significance situational awareness in need of missile strike or a nuclear attack.12 In layman
terms, the agreement with allow the US to share satellite imagery and information of top secret nature
with India that would help New Delhi in its selection of military targets with pin-point accuracy as well as
help India in accumulating critical information for military application complimented by highly accurate
navigation for swift targeting. This will also provide India with the facility to keep a close watch on its
northern and western border with China and Pakistan as well on the Chinese warships in the Indian Ocean.
 INDIA-US MILITARY AGREEMENT: BECA AND ITS
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REGION
The signing of Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) between India and
United States marks the completion of the troika of “foundational pacts” for military
cooperation between the two countries. BECA was signed on 27th October, 2020 after a
decade long negotiation and discussion.
Previously, for enhanced logistic and military cooperation, US and India have signed Logistic Exchange
Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) in 2016 and Communications Compatibility and Security
Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018. These three agreements now merge into the bigger umbrella of the US-
India Global Strategic Partnership.1 In 2002, US and India also signed General Security of Military
Information Agreement (GSOMIA) with similar aims.
LEMOA provided the militaries of both the countries the ability to replenish from each other’s bases and
to access supplies, and spare parts from each other’s land facilities, air bases and ports. It is significant for
Indian Navy as the two countries are collaborating in Indo-Pacific. COMCASA provided India with
encrypted communication equipment so that the air and naval forces of both the countries could
communicate securely during war and peace
BECA has further advanced this cooperation by providing India real time access to American geo-spatial
intelligence which will be beneficial in augmenting the accuracy of automated systems and other weapons
including missile armed drones. In addition to being helpful in fighting wars and identifying the location
of targets, and flying aircrafts and sailing ships, geo-spatial intelligence can also play a crucial role in
responding to natural disasters. By virtue of this agreement, both the countries can also share high-end
satellite images and telephonic intercepts. Moreover, since India is trying to establish its own Geographic
Information (GI) Policy, the significance of BECA is manifold as it would facilitate India in achieving its
national GI Policy goals.
The signing of BECA had been delayed for it was blocked by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
government over concerns raised by security forces on the protection of classified information.3 The other
main concern revolved around providing US access to classified laboratories in India.4 The skeptics argued
that such agreements were eroding the strategic autonomy of India. The decade long negotiations aimed
at addressing these internal concerns. However, the very fact that the opposition voices from the Indian
Parliament are still questioning why such a crucial agreement has not been debated on the floor of the
Parliament5 before signing, indicate that these negotiations have left a lot to be desired in redressing these
issues.
Moreover, since the detailed agreement has not been publicly released, the secrecy of the document itself
is sufficient to raise questions as to what extent India has compromised to gain certain information, and
also, to what extent US might be willing to share information with the Indian forces in the first place. Even
the strategic and defense analysts within India are raising serious concerns about the implications of this
agreement. Many argue that BECA has granted US systems entry into Indian military’s digitized space.6
Moreover, it is also feared that it has placed US in a position where it can not only access, but can also
potentially falsify, corrupt or even poison any dataset available on that system.
In addition to internal concerns, BECA has geo-political costs for India as well. First, by signing this
agreement, India has embarked upon a slippery slope where during the next few years, US can start
demanding more facilitation from India. Second, the more India places itself in the US bracket, the further
it goes away from other blocs such as ASEAN, SAARC, SCO, BRICS. Third, India has historically bought its
weapons from Russia and is expecting more in 2021.8 The US has repeatedly expressed concerns over
installing a Russian air defense system in the US hardware located in India. They fear it might provide
Russia with crucial information about US defense platforms.US has previously warned India that such
transactions could attract sanctions,9 or at least result in putting a hard ceiling on military cooperation
between the two countries.
Furthermore, BECA has been signed against the backdrop of India’s standoff with China in Eastern Ladakh.
It is pertinent to note that the exchange of data between the two countries also includes the exchange on
information of Chinese weapons and troops along the India-China Line of Actual Control (LAC).10 It brings
serious concerns for China as this Indian move poses serious threat to regional strategic stability. Instead
of resolving the border dispute with China, India’s obsession with gaining military benefits over it will only
intensify the geopolitical divide in the region which might result in protracted conflicts. By signing this
agreement, India has also invited a new security dilemma in the region which could culminate in an arms
race further deteriorating the regional stability.
Holistically, BECA should be viewed as a succession of events consolidating the US Indo-Pacific
Policy. Related developments to BECA, such as the Quadrilateral Security Group (QSG) with its
upcoming military exercises are also a continuation of the same strategy. Furthermore, India also
recently conducted mini-lateral dialogues with France and Australia,11 in which France unveiled
its Indo-Pacific Strategy. However, such defense agreements are paradoxical to the concept of
Indo-Pacific as ASEAN countries are decidedly non-aligned. These developments are a clear
manifestation of US-Indian pursuit of balancing off China in the region. For this reason, both US
and India have embarked on the joint venture of altering the strategic landscape of the region and BECA
is a step forward in this regard.
Against the panorama of changing geo-political environment of the region, Pakistan has maintained a
well-calibrated policy to cater to the growing Sino-US rivalry by retaining constructive relations with both
the US and China. However, BECA provides India with military and strategic advantage by granting it access
to sensitive information. This places Pakistan and other neighboring countries in a difficult position.
However, “Pakistan has been consistently highlighting the threats posed to strategic stability in South Asia
as a result of provision of advanced military hardware, technologies and knowledge to India.”12 Since BECA
is focused on geo-spatial information, Pakistan's focus should be to reinvigorate Pakistan Space and Upper
Atmosphere Research Commission’s (SUPARCO) capacity, and aggressively pursue its own geo-spatial
cooperation with friendly countries in order to retain the strategic balance in the region. In this milieu,
the collaboration of China and Pakistan on 2012-2020 Space Cooperation Outline13 between SUPARCO
and China National Space Administration (CNSA) is a promising way forward.

US-INDIA STRATEGIC TECH ALLIANCE (UISTA): AN ASSESSMENT

The United States’ National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence

(NSCAI) in its recent report1 proposed the creation of a US-India Strategic Tech-
Alliance (UISTA). The core objective of this US initiative would be to centre its
Indo-Pacific Strategy vis-à-vis emerging technologies for defense and security
purposes around its relation with India.
The National Security Commission on AI, established in August 2018 under the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232),2 is an independent commission established to
identify resources and mechanism essential for the rapid development of AI, machine learning (ML),
and related technologies which are necessary for an all-inclusive defense and national security
requirements of US.3 In its 2020 Interim Report and Third Quarter Recommendations, the commission
identifies India as a “key ally and partner” for building cooperation in the realm of emerging
technologies, especially AI. It has proposed the creation of a US-India Strategic Tech-Alliance (UISTA).
The Department of State would lead the UISTA process in collaboration with the Department of
Defense and Commerce. UISTA will be composed of regular working groups and high-level dialogues
between the two states in seven key areas: promotion of technological innovation; expert human
resource exchanges; strengthen joint research and development (R&D); accelerate security and
defense cooperation; improve data –sharing ecosystem; counteroffensive information operations;
technological standardization and norm building for AI; and any other technological aspect of broader
strategic landscape.4
Currently, the commission has submitted its report to Congress and the US President. The
Commission`s final report in May-June 2021 will provide much deeper insights and specified potential
of this initiative. The formal negotiation process will start after the Congressional and Presidential
approval in 2021.
This tech alliance would be one of the key component of a broader US agenda to keep India “as a key
focal point” for the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. 5 In last fifteen years, US have made countless
efforts for the political, economic, ideological and military integration among Quad members. The
three US-India bilateral agreements namely “the Communications Compatibility and Security
Agreement (COMCASA),” “Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA)” and “Basic
Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA)” hints towards a bigger tech alliance in the form of
UISTA between two major Quad members in the coming years. US is also encouraging Australia and
Japan to enhance technological cooperation with India. The basic objective behind this US
encouragement is to build “mini-lateral relationships” between India and other Quad members in the
areas of emerging technologies. Therefore, India and Japan are coming up with a “Memorandum of
Cooperation (MoC) for Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)” in 2021. The MoC will
focus on AI, block chain, spectrum chain, wireless ICTs, cyber security, 5G technology and submarine
cable.6 In June 2020, India and Australia entered into a “Cyber and Critical Technology Partnership”.
According to the media release of Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs office, this partnership is one
of many measures to not only shape the global technological landscape but also promote a vision of
open technological cooperation in Indo-Pacific region.7
Following the same model of “mini-lateral relationships”, US have established a new trilateral
partnership around emerging technologies with India and Israel, famously known as “T3”. Announced
in September 2020, T3 will ensure the reliability, openness and interoperability of 5G technology. T3
will serve as a base for a bigger coalition of states in the realm of emerging technologies outside Quad
and NATO. Another initiative by the Department of State in the same domain is the “Clean Network
Program,” designed to protect the global critical technological infrastructure from intellectual
property right issues. US and India are also members of a new tech alliance named as “D10.” The D10
coalition is a brainchild of the United Kingdom (UK). D10 aspires to bring together ten democracies
of the world – US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Australia, India, Canada and South Korea for the
global technological supply chain management. 8
The important question from here onwards is not “how” UISTA and all these initiatives will be
materialized but “why” they are conceived in the first place. Interestingly, the idea of UISTA and all
other bilateral and multilateral initiatives by the US and the Western states appear to be
disconnected if studied individually. However, close analysis will reveal that all these arrangements
are like beads on one string. The underlining themes running throughout these initiatives are India,
data sharing, and technological interoperability. All three themes point towards the US goal to
achieve strategic advantage over China and Russia in the realm of dual-use emerging technologies.
The Commission’s report specifically pointed out that US should develop an overarching global
strategy, for military and non-military use of emerging technologies that connects all cooperative
initiatives of US allies across the globe, especially Indo-Pacific region, EU and NATO. With the re-
emergence of great power competition, US is aspiring to unite all partners for the international
standardization of key emerging technologies to ensure the uniform and rapid inclusion of these
technologies into national security capabilities. The report has identified the formation of this global
technological alliance as the most viable option to offset China`s Digital Silk Road and the Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI) over the course of the next decade. The Commission’s report suggests the
appointment of a new “Technology Advisor to the US President” and the establishment of a “White
House-led Technological Council” to oversee this complex process.9
What does this mean for the strategic stability in South Asia? As majority of these emerging
technologies are dual-use in nature, these bilateral and multilateral agreements would enhance
Indian capabilities both in civilian and military domains. Along with LEMOA, COMCASA and BECA, the
UISTA will enhance data collection and analysis, access to advance satellite imagery, target
acquisition capability, hypersonic missile capabilities, and advance encryption of classified
communication for Indian armed force. It will also boost Indian intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities vis-à-vis China and Pakistan in South Asia and Indo-Pacific region.
UISTA will provide a huge boost to stationary as well as robotic applications of military AI. India is
building its military capabilities in the realm of emerging technologies with the help of US and its allies
on the pretext of Chinese threat. This advancement of Indian emerging military technologies could
not only be easily shifted towards Pakistan but also increase the military asymmetry between India
and Pakistan. India would be pushing Pakistan towards an unintended and dangerous new arms race
in South Asia. Keeping in view the long-standing Pakistan-China friendship, this emerging dynamic
would directly as well as indirectly affect the digital initiatives under China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor (CPEC) in Pakistan.
So, what options does Pakistan have? Pakistan must build cooperative framework with friendly
countries across the globe and focus on the indigenization of emerging technologies. The security
institutions and policy makers in Pakistan must understand the importance of available time frame
in this regard. They must realize that all these bilateral and multilateral arrangement of India and US
are at either conceptual or early development stage right now. However, they will become
operational in ten years’ time. Pakistan has no other option except catching up with these
developments before it is too late.

GROWING INDIAN INTEREST IN MALABAR NAVAL

EXERCISE

Malabar-I, the first naval exercise between US and India was held in 1992 as part of a
joint training in basic sea-based operations. The exercises were discontinued in 1998
following the nuclear tests by India and were resumed again in 2002. The exercise has
been an annual feature between US and India since that year and later joined by Japan
in 2015.1 Australia by following the trajectory of the US, India and Japan also joined the
exercise in 2007.
The Malabar exercise entails various naval operations including combat maneuvers and simulated war
games.2 Interestingly, all four countries of Malabar exercise are also members of the Quad or Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue that recently held a meeting on October 6, 2020 in Tokyo, Japan. The Quad members
through Malabar exercise apparently want to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
Quad members perceive China as a threat to freedom of navigation, rule of law, sovereignty, respect for
territorial integrity, free trade markets and peaceful dispute resolution.3
The latest phase of Malabar exercise began from November 3-6, 2020 in the Bay of Bengal in the
Indian Ocean with participation of the United States Navy (USN), Indian Navy (IN), Royal
Australian Navy (RAN) and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).4 In the first phase of the exercise,
advanced and complex naval maneuvers were carried out including anti-air warfare drills, submarine and
surface weapon firing exercises. Australia also participated in the Malabar exercise after 2007 ostensibly
showcasing the growing convergence of interest among Quad states to contain the Chinese in the region. 5
The second phase of Malabar exercise was conducted in the Northern Arabian Sea from November 17-
20, 2020 in the Indian Ocean between the four navies. The statement issued by the Malabar exercise
official said that, “The two aircraft carriers, along with other ships, submarine and aircraft of the
participating navies, engaged in high intensity naval operations including cross-deck flying operations and
advanced air defense exercises by MIG 29K fighters of Vikramaditya and F/A-18 fighters and E2C Hawkeye
from Nimitz.”6
US and India via the Malabar naval exercise appear to be more obsessed with the containment of China.
New Delhi is already engaged with China in a military stand-off in Ladakh. The Hindustan Times maintains
that, “The road to peace in the mountains may lie through the sea.”7 In this regard, defense analyst Captain
D. K. Sharma maintains that Malabar exercise will prove productive for India as, “It will be the best of the
best.”8
According to retired Vice Admiral Pradeep Chauhan, the participation of Quad countries in Malabar
maneuvers have strengthened their naval powers in the Indian Ocean and giving a clear message to China
that India is not alone in the ocean.9 Alok Bansal, a strategic expert opines that the prevailing maneuvers
are essential to make cohesion among the navies of Quad members in the event of conflict and exercise
Malabar will prove more beneficial in each other’s communication model.10
China’s phenomenal economic success and its headway in military modernization have clearly
widened the gap in the military and naval capabilities of China and India. As China’s Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI) further intensifies its influence in the region, India, therefore, is becoming
exceedingly wary of Beijing’s growing foothold in the Indian Ocean.11 Though India has been modernizing
its capabilities and enhancing its maritime power, it is still unable to compete with China's modernization
in the maritime security domain. New Delhi therefore, will try to work with Quad members so that they
could collectively counter China’s presence in the region.12
Meanwhile, Indian sovereignty in its territorial waters has not been challenged by Chinese warships. The
Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has never disturbed the Indian merchant ships in the
regional sea lanes nor has it blocked any choke points so far.13 Chinese Navy avoids entanglement with
Indian naval ships particularly in sub-continental littorals states that are more happy with Beijing’s
presence in the region and are looking forward to benefiting from China economically and militarily. 14
Admittedly, Chinese naval and intelligence foothold adjacent to Andaman Islands has also increased.
However, Chinese maritime agencies assure New Delhi that such operations will not cross the threshold
of war with India.15
India, on the other hand, with the help of the US is committed to embroiling, South Korea, France, Japan,
Australia and Singapore, in the Indo-Pacific region security and India has already inked the military logistic
pacts with them.16 South Asia, arguably, is increasingly becoming a playground for regional and global
players economically as well as militarily; major powers will leave no stone unturned to enhance their
clout in the region.17 Sri Lanka and Maldives, small littoral states in the Indian Ocean, are geographically
well-placed, and are currently under Beijing’s influence. India has been trying to bring these two crucial
littoral states under its influence and has welcomed Defense Cooperation Agreement signed between US-
Maldives in September, 2020. The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, in the following months visited
Maldives and announced that US would open its embassy soon in Male.18
Within three months after signing Defense Cooperation Agreement with the US, Male signed
another agreement of $7.6 million with Tokyo by availing itself of Japanese grant. India castigates
China’s debt-trap policy convincing Sri Lankan policy makers to quit Chinese bandwagon.19 Indian listening
posts to monitor sea-lanes in Seychelles and Mauritius, the other littoral states in the Indian Ocean, is
attributed to reduce Chinese clout in the region.20
Modi unveiled Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) doctrine on February 7, 2016 at the
International Fleet Review in Visakhapatnam and said that, “Our approach is evident in our vision of
‘Sagar’, which means ‘Ocean’. India’s quest for economic prosperity through oceans is a part of our larger
efforts to transform India.”21 He further maintained that, “Navies and maritime agencies of the world need
to work together and engineer virtuous cycles of cooperation.”22
Modi’s SAGAR doctrine shows that New Delhi will try to consolidate its naval power and presumably, will
convince Quad members to further accelerate maritime power in the region to thwart China’s presence.
The Indian Ocean will determine the 21st century. Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan righty says that, “whoever
controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia”. An increasing convergence of interests among Quad members
through the Malabar exercise heads the Indian Ocean towards further militarization. Quad members must
remember the fact that Indian Ocean is already the most militarized ocean connecting important
commercial shipping lanes. A battle for naval superiority in the economically vibrant Indian Ocean will
serve nobody's interest, neither those of Quad, nor the Chinese.

INDIA’S ROLE IN THE QUAD

Quad or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, a group of four democracies including US,
India, Japan and Australia was first proposed in 2007 by the Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe in his ‘confluence of two seas’ speech that later paved the way for the
foundation of the group.1 The formation of the quadrilateral coalition in 2017 has
apparently been attributed to containing growing Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-
Pacific region. India’s preoccupation with Quad has resultantly been accelerating on
account of its skirmishes at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China and perceiving
its encirclement in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) by Chinese presence. 2
Through the Quad, India is committed to countering China’s clout in the Indo-Pacific region,
covering Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the east and the African coastline in
the west. Most importantly, India sees Quad as a viable option to oppose China’s Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI).3 New Delhi is on the quest of seeking uninterrupted access to ports across the
Indo-Pacific region to deal with China’s growing presence. In this regard, New Delhi views
Beijing’s naval base at Djibouti as a threat to its interest in the region.4 India has also been forging
agreements in diverse places including Assumption Island (Seychelles), Duqm (Oman), and Sabang
(Indonesia) to secure its naval routes. Without the support of the Quad, New Delhi appears to be a weaker
party to preserve its national interest in Indo-Pacific region. India, thus, will leave no stone unturned to
capitalize on the Quad as deterrence against China.5
Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar in a recent Quad forum said that, “rebalance of global geopolitics is
already under way; India is stepping out as never before”.6 But India seeks to do a lot more, for instance,
get into the driving seat of the Quad because this could be the core of a new security architecture”. 7
Meanwhile, participation of Australia in the upcoming Malabar naval exercises emboldens India in cajoling
other three Quad members to work in spheres of disruptive technologies, critical materials, cyber security
and healthcare.8
The first phase of the Malabar naval exercise held from November 3-6, 2020 in the Bay of Bengal
culminated in the participation of the United States Navy (USN), Indian Navy (IN), Royal Australian Navy
(RAN) and Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF). The first phase of the exercise witnessed advanced
naval exercises including, anti-submarine, cross-deck flying, and anti-air warfare drills weapon firing
exercises.9 Intriguingly, the Malabar naval exercise heralded the path to the participation of all four Quad
members. Participation by all four members of the Quad in the Malabar naval exercise bore fruitful results
for India as far as countering of China in the region is concerned.10
India is also trying to promote the US worldview of liberal international order embroiling the
Quad countries in Indo-Pacific narrative by castigating China’s undemocratic government. The
US, on the other hand, considers India as major defense partner and has bolstered its defense
partnership by signing Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), the
communications, compatibility and security agreement, (COMCASA) and the Industrial Security
Annex.11 A recently concluded agreement on June 4, 2020 between India and Australia on ‘Mutual
Logistics Support’ allows both countries to consolidate their defense partnership, and upgrading the
‘Comprehending Strategic Partnership’.12Signing of Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA)
deal on October 27, 2020 between the US and India is aimed at sharing the US satellite and sensor data
with India to contain China. China opposes the BECA deal and views India as disposable proxy of the US
to counter China.13
China has keenly been watching the Quad forum. China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi maintains that, “In
essence, [the Indo-Pacific strategy] aims to build a so-called Indo-Pacific NATO underpinned by the
quadrilateral mechanism involving the United States, Japan, India and Australia,”14 It is pertinent to
mention here that Indian policy makers ought to bring home the fact that China does not want to maintain
the US Cold War mentality of creating alliances, instead, China believes in a win-win situation. It is
pertinent to mention that China is the leading trade partner of the Quad members who are economically
more dependent on it. China, on the other hand, has lesser economic dependence on Quad members.15
Joining of the Quad by India ostensibly violates its so-called non-aligned policy and bolsters the US Cold
War mentality of forging alliances that by and large does not serve the region’s interest. The 21st century,
unlike, the 20st century is a globalized century, an era of economic interdependence and win-win situation.
New Delhi needs to be weary of the US great power competition with China where the former appears to
be making the latter as a scapegoat in this game. China’s rise a global power is inevitable; it would be in
India’s national as well as regional interest to mend ties with rising China. States can change friends and
enemies but they cannot change their neighbors. China being a next door neighbor of India would prove
more beneficial than distant US.

CHINA-INDIA BORDER STANDOFF: AN OVERVIEW

China and India are once again engaged in a military standoff over the border dispute
in the region of Ladakh. The scuffle between the military personnel of both countries
on May 5, 2020 along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is not new. The recent standoff
came at the heels of Indian declaration of Ladakh and Sikkim as its Union Territory in
October 2019.1
Border tensions between China and India are not a new phenomenon. Previously in 2017, the two states
engaged in a conflict in Doklam, when Indian soldiers in Sikkim took Chinese border guards completely by
surprise when they crossed into Bhutan and physically blocked Chinese road construction crew from
extending a track towards LAC.2 All crises in the past one decade were diffused successfully by the
intervention of higher political leadership on both sides.
The Recent Stand-off
On May 5, 2020, Chinese military started taking positions on LAC along four main locations, three along
the Galwan River and one along the Pangong Lake. The strategic significance of these two points is
different for both China and India.
The mountains in the Pangong Lake which the army calls fingers are numbered as fingers 1 to 8. On May
12, 2020, Chinese soldiers started moving into the Pangong Lake area between finger 8 and finger 4.
According to the Indian claim, the LAC has boundaries with finger 8, but on ground Indian military
physically controls area only up to finger 4.3
Similarly Chinese side claim that the LAC passes through finger 2 but their military post was present at
finger 8.4
Chinese PLA’s patrol teams normally patrols behind finger 8, but because of narrow passage, finger 6 is
the only point from where Chinese military vehicles can turn around when they are on the move. Since
the Chinese forces are able to spend a considerable amount of time on the Indian side of the claim line
before they are detected, the Indian army decided to build a new observation point at finger 8 that would
give Indian soldiers a bird’s eye view of the area and spot Chinese patrols as soon as they enter the area.
In May 2020, a large number of Chinese border patrol reached the area near finger 6 which is a strategic
point for Chinese soldiers. The Chinese have now stopped the Indian soldiers moving beyond Finger 2.5
This is an eyeball-to-eyeball situation which is still developing. So the quest in this area is of strategic
advantage over one another by capturing the fingers. The issue in Pangong Lake area has a military
significance only. The party having strong military control will be in a better strategic position in the area.
Issues in the Galwan Valley
It is pertinent to note here that the issue in the Galwan Valley has both military as well as political strings
attached to it. Purportedly, the Indian Border Road Organization (BRO) has undertaken the task of
constructing border roads over the past few years to improve India's military access to remote points on
the LAC. The construction of the 255-km Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldie (DSDBO) road, which provides
access to the Depsang area and Galwan Valley while ending near the Karakoram Pass, has raised concerns
for China and the safety of its BRI-CPEC route given the Indian opposition to the project.
According to Indian media reports, China has deployed around 5000 troops on the western ridge of
Galwan Valley to counter Indian aims of connectivity with the Karakoram Pass into Xinjiang through
extension of DSDBO road. 6 It is pertinent to note here that there is a clear difference in Karakoram
Highway and Karakoram Pass which can be understood on the map only. (See Map 3)
The DSDBO has an air landing strip used by Indian Air Force for C-130 landings. This landing strip is
important for the Indian Army for air deployment of equipment and troops in the area. Also, the DSDBO
Road itself is strategically important for the Indian Army deployments and reinforcements in the event of
a conflict. Any Chinese advancement in the area will be a threat to the Indian control of the Siachen
Glacier.
India’s political aims in this region cannot be ignored as every military strategy is designed to get political
advantages. Indian aim was to connect DSDBO road with Karakoram Pass into China by building a bridge
on Shyok River and then extending a patch to the Karakoram Pass in the Valley as seen in Map 4. This
patch of 5 km is considered to be the strategic lifeline of India as with this connectivity, India with the help
of US, will be able to politically pressurize China in the Xinjiang region which is now becoming the hub of
BRI-CPEC activity. Following its recent unconstitutional steps in Indian Occupied Kashmir, India seems to
be taking steps to buttress its advantage in the disputed region. Former Indian army chief, V.K. Singh has
said that the entire Kashmir belongs to India. Referring to part of Kashmir in Pakistan, he said that it is a
part of India and has asserted that it will come to India on its own.
The recent Indian developments in this region are an effort to have a direct access to Gilgit-Baltistan in
Pakistan after claiming the territory of Aksai Chin.
It is in the best interest of both China and Pakistan, that India should be firmly dissuaded from considering
to enter in Gilgit-Baltistan to fulfill its long-stated goal of unifying Kashmir in pursuit of a unanimous
parliamentary resolution passed in 1994. China has also been vocal about retaining Aksai Chin which is
the essential link between Tibet and Xinjiang. China’s national highway 219 passes through this passage.
Aksai Chin is therefore central to China’s territorial unity and the one-China principle. Whether it is line of
control or line of actual control, the Indian aims and its territorial disputes with its neighbors hold the
potential for disturbing the strategic balance in the region.
In the background of rising aggression by India, there have been concerns of Indian false flag operations.
In fact, India has once again threatened air strikes inside Pakistan, like the one in Balakot in February 2019,
to materialize its military plans in the region.8 Such actions would be nothing but disastrous.

PENTAGON REPORT ON CHINESE MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS:

AN ASSESSMENT

Pentagon recently released its annual report to the US Congress on China’s military
build-up titled, “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of
China 2020,”1 a tradition that the Pentagon has embarked upon for the last two
decades. The report encapsulates various ingredients of China’s military plans - land, air
and sea - to become the "world-class military" by the end of 2049 - a goal first
announced by General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2017. 2
The report reflects the military balance between Washington and Beijing since the release of the National
Defense Strategy in 2018. It makes claims regarding China’s desire to multiply its stockpile of nuclear
warheads in the next decade, and alleges that the Chinese military has already equaled or surpassed the
US in a series of key areas, including warheads designed to carry atop ballistic missiles that can reach the
US mainland. The report further claims that Beijing is well on its way to become a match for the US or
even exceeds the power of the US armed forces as it now controls the largest navy in the world, with
roughly 350 ships and submarines compared to 293 for the US.
In an attempt to unveil China’s growing military muscle, the report highlights the strategic
insecurities of the US that come with the rise of China as a dominant military power in the world,
a title that the US has held since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, in order to achieve that
domination, China has to be able to project power worldwide and that means bases - maritime, land, and
air - around the world. To facilitate such superiority, the report accuses Pakistan and other countries of
providing China locations for military logistics facilities, a claim rejected by both Islamabad and Beijing.3
For policymakers in Washington, what is striking are the efforts made by Beijing to restructure the PLA
into a force better equipped for joint operations through improving its overall combat readiness and by
encouraging new operational concepts as well as expanding its overseas military footprint. The report
suggests that Pakistan and China see each other as an amenable ally. Both share a long history of
cooperation, economic partnership, and a large market for arms sales and trade with potential for growth.
Moreover, with the support of China, Pakistan can step-up in South Asia against India. This is seen as an
alarming concern not just for India but also for the US. Through Pakistan, China is also finding a better
showcase for its security and surveillance technology4 in a place once defined by its close military
relationship with the United States.
Building on the same narrative, Pakistan’s eastern neighbor, India, has called Pakistan as the ‘chosen one’
through which China is building its military logistics facilities in the region that will allow Beijing’s military
forces to project and sustain military power.5 Partnership between Pakistan and China is viewed from the
prism of insecurities by not just Washington but also New Delhi, who routinely chastises the relationship
as militaristic in nature and a replacement of the position once held by the United States. New Delhi fears
that in a wave of a conflict between China and India, Islamabad will open up on India’s north-western
front to aid Beijing.6 While India criticizes Pakistan’s partnership with China, it has chosen to ignore its
own reliance on the US in order to become a strong arm in the region.
India believes that Pakistan and China are tying CPEC to the latter's military ambitions through
building infrastructures under the shadow of an economic partnership and is of the view that
some of China’s biggest projects in Pakistan have clear strategic implications. 7 India shares the same
apprehensions as the US and hence views China’s expansion as a threat. New Delhi fears that with access
to Karachi and Gwadar ports in Pakistan for turnaround facilities for its submarines and warships, China
has the ability to maintain a strategic upper hand and dominance in the region and is further consolidating
its presence in the Indo-Pacific.8
The Pentagon through this report has also tried to put forth an expose on Beijing's atomic firepower. The
US government has tried to warn the world of Chinese ambitions to take over as an unreliable superpower
that is trying to flex its military muscle under the umbrella of economic and infrastructure developments
throughout the globe. The analysis of Beijing's nuclear arsenal is the first of its kind and is seen as an
attempt by the US to get China to engage in discussions on nuclear arms control. The report further
projects China's ambitions to double and modernize its nuclear forces, which naturally comes as a red flag
for Washington. In its current arsenal, China has an estimated 100 warheads on land-based ICBMs capable
of threatening the US, a number that is expected to grow to roughly 200 over the next five years.9
The report falls nothing short of blame games and finger-pointing by the US on its proclaimed
new arch-rival. It highlights China as an expansionist power with an appetite to maintain its
presence not just on the Korean Peninsula but around the globe. It accuses Beijing to reach the
same powerful influence as the US with the application of near-term strategies and asymmetric
strategies which are focused on a very specific threat in a very specific place, an element that has
nonetheless, increased the Chinese level of threat to US assets in recent times. The report
reiterates and overstates China’s capacity to devote a considerable amount of resources to its
armed forces due to the substantial size of its economic and manufacturing base. It suggests that
with such capacity at hand, China is marching towards military domination in a targeted way,
with an increased focus on power-projection capabilities along its borders and around the globe.
Washington fears that in case of a military escalation, the geography China is embracing upon
will work heavily to its advantage. And to win, the US might wind up feeling the need to attack
Chinese missile launchers on mainland soil as well as its command and control networks. An
antiphon that will only result in an escalation with a certain response by China with attacks against
the US bases in Japan or beyond. Such a scenario would be highly fraught with danger and not easily or
confidently won by wither of the party.
The Pentagon report has come out at a time when the US is not only going through internal clashes but
upcoming elections where President Trump stands at a weak wicket. Strong anti-China rhetoric may as
well be the green card in his campaign to regain momentum and support by deviating attention from
internal issues.
Many of the claims made in the report have been denounced by Pakistan and the Chinese Foreign
Ministry. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has called the report ‘biased’.10 Furthermore, China lodged a stern
remonstration to the US after the release of the report that recklessly distorts China’s image as a
responsible global power.

TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS SET TO ENTER

INTO FORCE: PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is all set to enter into force
as Honduras became the 50th country to ratify the treaty on October 24, 2020. The
treaty will thus enter into force 90 days later on January 22, 2021. This is a timely
opportunity to assess what the treaty is about, what it means for non-proliferation
regime and for efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.
The head of one of the chief campaigners of the treaty, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons (ICAN), Beatrice Fihn said that this was, “a new chapter for nuclear disarmament. Decades of
activism have achieved what many said was impossible: nuclear weapons are banned.” 1While UN
Secretary General, Antonio Guterres said that, “It represents a meaningful commitment towards the total
elimination of nuclear weapons, which remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations.”2
The Treaty was adopted on July 7, 2017 after years of campaigning by 122 countries at the UN General
Assembly. It is the first legally binding instrument for nuclear disarmament in decades. The need to
negotiate such a treaty came from realization of the catastrophic consequences of deliberate or accidental
use of nuclear weapons as well as a mounting sense of frustration that key nuclear disarmament
commitments made by the nuclear-weapon states in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were not
being fulfilled.
Under the terms of the TPNW, states-parties are, “prohibited to use, threaten to use, develop, produce,
manufacture, acquire, possess, stockpile, transfer, station, or install nuclear weapons or assist with any
prohibited activities.”3 The treaty bans the use or threat of nuclear weapons use. It also prohibits
signatories from allowing "any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices"4 on their territory. The terms for joining of a nuclear weapons state are that it
must eliminate nuclear weapons before joining or must present a plan for doing so within 60 days of
joining. Presently, 84 states have signed the treaty and 50 have ratified.5
While the treaty enjoys support from non-nuclear weapon states, states possessing nuclear weapons have
either boycotted the treaty negotiations or expressed reservations. The five recognized nuclear weapon
states (NWS) the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France, have not signed the treaty.
It is unlikely that they will do so in the foreseeable future. These states have maintained that it will detract
from disarmaments and other nonproliferation initiatives like the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and would undermine the NPT.6 The NPT would be undermined
if states have a choice between the two treaties.
Proponents of the TPNW treaty argue that it closes a gap in international law regarding nuclear weapons.
While non-nuclear weapons states are prohibited from developing nuclear weapons under the NPT, five
states – US, Russia, China, France and UK are recognized as nuclear weapons states. Nuclear weapons are
thus not banned by NPT. TPNW supporters argue that, in fact, it reinforces the NPT and its commitment
for disarmament under the Article VI. It endorses the norm against nuclear weapons that will help action
against nuclear risk and promote disarmament.
The treaty can pose a problem for some states that are part of collective security alliance systems
or come under nuclear umbrella of a nuclear weapon state. At least five NATO states have, since
the 1950s, hosted US nuclear weapons as part of the collective security strategy. These include
Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.7 In many NATO states like Netherlands and
Germany, there are civil society organizations and their political representative that are staunch
supporters of the TPNW.8 There are fears that public and domestic support in some of these countries
may prevent them from hosting nuclear weapons as part of the NATO strategy. Also, if the supporters of
TPNW come into power and sign the treaty, NATO could face a crisis.
While it makes sense for states that have signed the NPT and have forgone the right to develop nuclear
weapons to sign the TPNW and advocate a total ban on nuclear weapons, the nine states that possess
nuclear weapons including the 5 NPT NWS are unlikely to sign the treaty. Neither are security allies like
Japan and South Korea of nuclear-armed states, and NATO states are likely to sign at present.
Some NWS have actively campaigned for states to withdraw support for the TPNW. The US, the UK, and
France issued a joint statement on July 7, 2017, a day after the treaty was adopted, opposing the treaty,
saying “it is incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the
peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years” and “risks undermining the existing international
security architecture which contributes to the maintenance of international peace and security.” 9 The US,
in fact, is one of the leading opponents of the treaty and has been vocal about its opposition. In October
2020 it issued a non-paper and an accompanying letter that was sent to many states. It stated, “we
recognize your sovereign right to ratify or accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
(TPNW), we believe that you have made a strategic error and should withdraw your instrument of
ratification or accession.”10 It also claimed that five NPT recognized nuclear powers and NATO stand
unified against potential repercussions of the treaty. The non-paper claimed that the TPNW is,
“dangerously counterproductive” to the NPT.
China issued a supportive statement in principle on Twitter on October 24, 2020 saying, “China has always
been advocating complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, which is
fundamentally in line with purposes of (the treaty). China will continuously make relentless efforts
towards a nuclear-weapon-free world.”11
Pakistan also has a similar stance on TPNW. Pakistan, “is committed to the goal of a nuclear
weapons free world through the conclusion of a universal, verifiable and non-discriminatory,
comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons.”12It maintains that, “It is indispensable for any initiative
on nuclear disarmament to take into account the vital security considerations of each and every State.”13
Since the TPNW did not take into consideration the security interests of states like Pakistan, it did not take
part in its negotiation and maintains that it cannot become party to this treaty.
Israel, one of the nine NWS that possesses the weapons but has never publicly admitted having nuclear
weapons, is not a signatory to the TPNW. It has opposed the treaty and boycotted its negotiation in the
UN General Assembly.14 Similarly, North Korea did not participate in the negotiations of the Treaty and
has not yet signed it.15
India also opposes the TPNW. It voted against a UN General Assembly resolution in 2019 that welcomed
the adoption of the treaty. India abstained from voting on the UN General Assembly resolution in 2016
that formed mandate for states to commence the negotiations in 2017. 16 While it says it supports the goal
of a nuclear weapon free world, it “believes that this goal can be achieved through a step-by-step process
underwritten by a universal commitment and an agreed global and non-discriminatory multilateral
framework.”17
Thus, the NWS at present do not support the treaty or intend to joint it. The treaty in itself would not
eliminate nuclear weapons. However, it can help create a norm that would delegitimize nuclear weapons
and their use. At the same time, the treaty creates problems for NWS states like US, their NATO allies,
especially those countries that have hosted nuclear weapons for US, and also for their security allies like
Japan and South Korea. It also creates a moral impediment for countries that are indulging in massive
nuclear modernization, pursuing new nuclear weapons, and indulging in a new nuclear arms race. The
efforts for nuclear disarmament embodied in the TPNW are noble and admirable in principle. However,
complete nuclear disarmament would remain a utopian concept unless the great powers like US and
Russia are willing to abrogate their reliance on the weapons, and legitimate security concerns of smaller
states like Pakistan are addressed.

LETHAL AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS: WHERE DOES THE INTERNATIONAL ARMS

CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT REGIME STAND?

At the recent “Tsentr 2019 Maneuvers,” the Russian armed forces successfully conducted
combat operations through a fully autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for the first
time. An army UAV Orlan-10 targeted the communication lines, control centres, and air
defense systems of mock enemy “at its own.” 1 Meanwhile, the Chinese Academy of
Sciences announced a successful development and testing of an autonomous underwater
vehicle (AUV) named “Sea-Whale 2000 Drone.”2 United States is also integrating artificial
intelligence (AI) into its weapon systems through the “Pentagon`s Joint Artificial
Intelligence Centre.”3These advancements could be game changers at the strategic,
operational and tactical levels for respective militaries. According to US Defense Secretary
Dr. Mark T. Esper, “whichever nation harnesses AI first will have a decisive advantage on
the battlefield for many, many years.”
The technological advantages have set off a new global AI arms race, posing a serious threat to
international peace and stability, particularly in the absence of a binding international treaty to regulate
research, development, production, testing, deployment, and use of Lethal Autonomous Weapons
Systems (LAWS).
Within the international arms control regime, the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or Have Indiscriminate
Effects (CCW) is currently the most significant international legal instrument that has a mandate to
deliberate on issues relevant to “the emerging technologies especially in the realm of lethal autonomous
weapons systems.”The CCW State Parties have convened three annual “Informal Meeting of Experts” in
2014, 2015 and 2016. However, the CCW High Contracting Parties unequivocally decided to upgrade this
informal setup to a formal “Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on emerging technologies in the area
of LAWS” during the2016 CCW Fifth Review Conference “(CCW/CONF.V/10).” 5Since 2017, the GGE on
LAWS has not only convened meetings on an annual, basis but also successfully achieved consensus on
final reports. The areas covered by these GGEs include6:
i. Characterization of LAWS to develop common conceptual understanding and interpretation.

ii. Consider issues related to “human – machine interaction”.

iii. Review the positional militarization of emerging technologies.

iv. Explore the challenges posed by LAWS to international humanitarian law (IHL).

v. Discuss various potential options to address the challenges to international security and peace due to
LAWS.

Despite progress made by the CCW on emerging technologies in the realm of LAWS, there are still
numerous challenges.
The first and the most fundamental challenge is the self-contradictory and confusing position on
the applicability of IHL. The 2019 report of the GGE on LAWS states that IHL continues to apply
to LAWS and states must ensure that “potential use” of these weapons “should be in compliance with
IHL”. But in a next point, it states that IHL is not applicable to machines.7 This could be interpreted as IHL
is just applicable to the ‘human component’ of human-machine interaction and not to the ‘machine
component’.
There are various combinations and forms of human-machine interaction with blur boundaries. How
much autonomy and human involvement could be there and at which level? How and who will decide
that which component ends where? The 2018 GGE on LAWS prepared a “Sunrise Chart” with five points
of human involvement but could not reach a consensus on the “operationalization” of this design (Figure
1).8The 2019 GGE report further stated that in case any weapon system is not covered under the CCW and
any other international treaty, the decision must be taken in accordance with the customary international
law and the “dictates of public conscience.”9 The GGE’s reliance on Marten`s Clause is an extremely weak
legal position and equivalent of simply doing nothing. However, the GGE still recognize that this technical
area requires more clarification, attention and joint working.
The second challenge is how national legal frameworks for LAWS will interact with international law.
According to the traditional practice, states take initiatives to align their national legal frameworks with
international law and adopt international safeguards prescribed by an international regulatory
arrangement, group or commission. However, the 2019 GGE on LAWS has adopted a completely opposite
position. Instead of proposing the establishment of an international regulatory organization or
commission, the state parties agreed to use legal reviews at the national level to decide whether the
development and acquisition of new weapons are prohibited under international law or not, and
discussed the applicability of international with reference to just “potential use.”10 This is a matter of
serious concern because states are at a different level of technological and economic development with
different forms of government, legal frameworks, and national security cultures. Furthermore, a
traditional security dilemma would arise in this situation. The development of LAWS approved by the
national legal framework of one state could be totally unacceptable for other state.
The third challenge is the disagreement among state parties regarding the significance of LAWS in combat
situation. Some state parties argued that such advance weapon systems would facilitate the armed forces.
So, international law should allow their use with certain precautionary measures. However, other states
argued that keeping in view the complex battlefield environment, the use of these weapons are
exceedingly unnecessary and injurious for combatants, as well as the civilian population. These weapons
cannot understand the changing characteristics of actual warfare like crisis decision-making, information
processing, precautions, proportionality, the chain of command, target identification, selection, and
engagement.11
In addition to the use of AI in the development of new weapons, the integration of AI with the existing
weapon systems is another critical challenge. The chairperson of 2019 GGE also covered this area in his
list of proposed questions for GGE.12 How and to what level AI could be integrated with existing
conventional weapons? What will be the level of autonomy if AI would be used in critical command and
control systems? How an existing international arms control regime would deal with the autonomous air
defense systems, automated functions of missiles, automated modes of loitering weapons, autonomous
submarines and naval ships?
These challenges are technically complex and sensitive which require immediate actions. State
parties should explore possible options to reach a consensus on the key areas like
characterization of LAWS, the question of autonomy in human-machine interaction, potential
militarization of emerging technologies in the realm of LAWS and issue of a complete or partial ban on
LAWS before the next CCW Review Conference in 2021. The core reason behind this lack of consensus is
that states are at the exploration stage regarding the research, development, production and uses of
emerging technologies and LAWS. They will take time in realizing the actual potential of these
technologies to establish national infrastructures, relevant institutions, laws, and political consensus.
However, keeping in view the rapid technological innovations, one cannot wait for states to reach this
level of understanding and resolve the challenges discussed above. In the last CCW Review Conference in
2016, the state parties took one step ahead and shifted the LAWS from informal discussions to GGE
process. Now they have the opportunity to take a leap forward and transform this debate of “potential
use” of LAWS to formal treaty negotiations or an additional protocol of CCW in 2021CCW Review
Conference.

ESCALATING CYBERWARFARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

As Iran marked the 10th anniversary of the Stuxnet,1 its nuclear facilities were again hit
by a large number of cyber attacks which Behrouz Kamalvandi, Spokesperson of the
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) also confirmed. 2 However, these attacks did
not cause any substantial damage as Iran blocked them on time. With increasing
technological development and digitalization in the last decade, the number of
cyberattacks against critical infrastructure has increased in the Middle East. The
escalating cyberwarfare will breed further instability in the crisis ridden region.
What makes cyberwarfare in the Middle East more dangerous and distinct from the rest of the
world is the sophistication and exclusivity of cyberattacks. Stuxnet was designed to infect the
computer systems connected to the specific “programmable logic controllers (PLCs)” at Iran`s
Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Stuxnet targeted specific models of PLCs which were
exclusively manufactured by Siemens. In addition to 30,000 computers, 1000 centrifuges at the
Natanz uranium enrichment facility were damaged. 3 The core objective was to deter Iran from
achieving the nuclear weapon capability by inflicting irreversible damage to Iranian nuclear
program via cyber-weapon. Wiper was another dangerous malware that hit the computer systems of
the National Iranian Oil Company and Iranian Oil Ministry in April 2012. Wiper was designed to completely
and systematically destroy the data stored in the hard drive of the infected computer system. Afterwards,
Wiper also erased system files causing the entire computer system to crash without leaving any mark of
infection behind.4 Wiper is a sophisticated and unique cyber weapon which led to three fascinating
developments in the Middle East.
4Kim Zetter, “Wiper Malware That Hit Iran Left Possible Clues of Its Origins,” Wired, accessed October 5, 2020,
https://www.wired.com/2012/08/wiper-possible-origins/.
5 Ibid.
6 KimZetter, “Meet 'Flame,' The Massive Spy Malware Infiltrating Iranian Computers,” Wired, accessed October 5,
2020, https://www.wired.com/2012/05/flame/.
7 Ibid.
8 King Mallory, “New Challenges in Cross Domain Deterrence, Perspective,” RAND Corporation (2018), https://www.
First, Wiper led to the development of another malware popularly known as Shamoon. Technically,
Shamoon was a cheap and less sophisticated version of Wiper and mainly targeted the critical computer
systems of Aramco - the biggest Saudi oil giant. Secondly, Wiper gives preference to the files stored in
“.pnf extension” during the erasing process. What makes this entire saga more interesting is the fact that
this extension was not only an uncommon format but also used by the Stuxnet to store its files.5 Therefore,
Wiper was designed either as an antidote to Stuxnet or to trace the computer systems infected with
Stuxnet. This raises serious questions regarding the motive and actors behind Wiper. Lastly, the discovery
of Wiper led to the discovery of Flame worm in Middle Eastern countries, especially Iran. Flame is a giant
espionage worm which installs itself in pieces without raising any red flags. 6 According to various official
and unofficial sources, all three cyber weapons – Flame, Wiper, and Shamoon have made a huge
comeback in the last two years. According to Kaspersky, Flame shares a lot of features with Stuxnet but it
is twenty times more complicated than Stuxnet.7
As the cyberwarfare is gaining momentum in the Middle East, it has also set the concept of “cross
domain deterrence” (CDD) in motion. CDD refers to employing capabilities in one domain of
military operations to deter adversary`s potential act of aggression in another domain. The
United States (US) introduced CDD to achieve its strategic objectives in the post-cold war global
strategic landscape comprised of asymmetric, complex and hybrid threats in traditional (land, air,
sea) as well as new (outerspace, cyberspace) domains.8 CDD would seriously affect the regional
peace as it gives an opportunity to one of the key players in the Middle East to initiate a conflict
by conducting a military operation in one of the five domains. The aggressor will continue to
vertically escalate the violence till it reaches the threshold in that particular domain. At this stage,
the aggressor can escalate horizontally by shifting the conflict to a second domain. In this way, the
aggressor will not only gain the escalation dominance but also vertically escalate an overall conflict
without all-out war in any single domain.9 This strategy was used in June 2019 when US carried out a
cyberattack, instead of an air strike, in retaliation to the Iranian attack on the US surveillance drone in the
Strait of Hormuz. This cyberattack by the US Cyber Command incapacitated multiple computer systems
controlling the Iranian missile launch system10 without giving Iran the raison d'être for a retaliatory strike.
The sophistication and complexity of cyber weapons used in the Middle East requires huge financial and
human resource investment in gathering accurate technical information about the targeted systems. This
intelligence gathering is practically impossible without an insider support. Furthermore, developing a
complicated cyber weapon requires a high level of research and development which is technically
impossible for a non-state actor to possess. Flame and Wiper were reportedly developed around 2005. In
2013, the Symantec Corps reported that the Iranian nuclear facilities were targeted with an early version
of Stuxnet in 2007. The similar timeline, close technical linkages among cyberweapons and geographical
proximity of the targets indicates that Flame and Wiper were designed either by the states that designed
Stuxnet or states that probably got access to the original Stuxnet files.
Targeting the counter-value targets is another recent trend in the Middle East to look for. The financial
sector, sea ports, oil, and gas industry are top targets of cyber warfare. In 2019, more than half of
cyberattacks in the Middle East were directed against the oil and gas industry.11 The significance of Middle
Eastern states in the global strategic landscape primarily depends on their role in global oil and gas market.
Therefore, every cyberattack on the oil industry is a calculated strategic move with far-reaching impact
on regional economy and global energy balance. The selection of counter-force targets like nuclear
facilities and missile control systems clearly indicate the illicit motive of inflicting huge damage to the
national defence of a targeted state. This makes the Middle East a classic case of cyber realism where
cyberspace is just another domain where states have brought their pre-existing conflicts, territorial
disputes, power struggles, blame casting, strategic interests, and security dilemma. The operationalization
of CDD will breed more chaos in each domain. Calculating a threshold level for each player in five domains
at a particular moment on an escalation ladder is extremely risky. Any lapse in escalation control or
misunderstanding in strategic signalling could result in an all-out war.

COMPOUNDING COMPLICATIONS IN YEMEN: AN ASSESSMENT

Yemen has long been a breeding ground for conflict. The poorest country in the Arab
region has become a violent playground for internal, regional and international actors.
Now nearing its sixth year, the war has led to what the United Nations (UN) has called
a ‘countdown to catastrophe’. COVID-19 has further worsened the already fragile and
decimated system which has been under an endless mushroom cloud of drone strikes
and bomb blasts.
Conflict has rendered Yemen’s state system fragmented. At present, the country is largely split between
two authorities: the internationally recognized government under President Mansoor Hadi controls the
south, while Houthi rebels hold power over much of the northern part of the country (which includes the
capital Sanaa). The power division is tainted by shifting frontlines and regional discrepancies between the
Saudis and Emiratis.
Computing the Costs of the Yemen War
According to the UN, by July 2021, more than half of Yemen’s population will have crossed the critical
threshold of hunger. The number of people, one step below starvation will increase from 3.6 million to 5
million.1 Cholera continues to escalate - 180,000 new cases were reported between January and August
of 2020.2 An added pressure is the dearth of aid funds which has led to the UN and other agencies,
including those dealing with food assistance, shutting down in the country. More than 80 per cent of
Yemen’s populace relies on aid and assistance to survive and it is anticipated that this number will also
rise.3 The coronavirus pandemic has further degenerated the situation and the UN predicts that deaths
could surpass 230,000 (a rate five times greater than the global average).
Economic activity has dropped by 50 per cent while the poverty rate is up to 80 per cent.6 3.6 million
people are internally displaced.7 There is no doubt that even if the war ends within the next decade,
Yemen’s development trajectory has been set back by almost 50 years.
The Battle for Ma'rib
Ma'rib is located about 110 kilometers east of Sanaa. The oil-rich province has been relatively insulated
from the war and has become a safe haven for displaced people of the conflict. 8 Ever since 2015, it has
developed into a thriving economic, social and political center and the last stronghold of the Hadi
government in the north. Government forces, supported by the Saudi-led coalition, use Ma'rib as a base
for carrying out military operations against the Houthis.
Ever since the start of 2020, Ma'rib has become the focus of combat since Houthi forces are persistently
pursuing a seizure of the province. Ma'rib stands as a bastion from which not only can Sanaa be retaken
but it also provides access to the oil rich governates of Hadramawt and Shabwa. Since January 2020,
fighting has pushed almost 100,000 people into the governate. Almost 70 per cent of the country’s
displaced population now resides in Ma'rib city and Ma'rib Al Wadi.10
Trump’s Yemen Swan Song
As Mr. Trump gets ready to depart the White House, he is, as a final valediction, attempting to entitle the
Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.11 The maneuver is aimed at intensifying pressure on Iran and
its allies in the region which include the Houthis. If this materializes, it will complicate President elect
Biden’s efforts to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal, which Mr. Trump had abandoned in 2018.
A conclusion of the move would subject individuals and groups who work with the Houthis to financial
sanctions and potential criminal prosecution. The act of securing administrative exceptions from the US
government would work to either deter companies dealing in areas such as commercial shipping and
insurance within Yemen or leave such groups in limbo for some time until the legal paperwork comes
through.
Lawmakers as well as international aid organizations have warned against such a move saying that it will
further exacerbate the humanitarian crisis since it would hamper aid work in a country where more than
24 million people rely on aid to survive - majority of whom reside in Houthi controlled territories.12
Moreover, it would discourage international donors at a time when there is already a crippling shortage
of food in Yemen. Already, this year the UN received less than half of the $3.4 billion aid it had requested.13
Conclusion
The deteriorating situation of the Yemenis appears to be staggering towards a complete breakdown.
During his campaign, President elect Biden had unambiguously stated that he was opposed to US
involvement in the Yemen war. He had also threatened to cut off US weapon sales to the Saudi coalition.
If he follows through on his word, there is a chance - albeit a very narrow one - that Yemen may yet be
saved. Otherwise 2021 is already anticipated to be an exceptionally bleak year for so many in the world.
In such circumstances, Yemen will no doubt be among the hardest hit.

RUSSIAN INTERESTS IN THE NAGORNO-KARABAGH CONFLICT

On October 31, 2020, in a letter to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Armenian
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan formally requested the Russian Federation to ensure
Armenia’s security given the escalating conflict with Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh
(N-K) conflict.1
Hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the N-K region (located in South Caucasus) began in late
September this year.2 The conflict is a decades-old phenomenon which technically erupted in the year
1988. Hostilities between the two countries over the N-K region led to a full-scale war which began in
1988 and lasted till 1994.3
The ceasefire after the 6-year war did not result in any peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Low-
intensity conflict continued for years between the two countries which resulted in numerous casualties
on both sides.
According to several sources, since the resumption of fighting in September this year, thousands of people
(civilians as well as military personnel) have died with an even larger number of people being severely
injured and displaced.
So far, four ceasefire initiatives56 have been taken by regional and extra-regional states including the
United States (US), Russia and France (also known as the OSCE’s Minsk Group)7 to stop the hostilities. All
attempts have met with failure so far due to reported violations by Armenia and Azerbaijan, with both
sides blaming each other for violating ceasefires and terming their military actions against one another as
‘counter-offensives’.
Several countries seem to have chosen sides in this conflict either siding with Armenia or Azerbaijan owing
to their respective geo-political, geo-economic and geo-strategic reasons. For instance, Turkey openly
pledged its support to Azerbaijan,8 while Iran (although maintaining a delicate balancing act in the conflict)
seems to have inclinations towards Armenia.9
However, despite being one of the major stakeholders in the N-K conflict and the most dominant regional
power, Russia has maintained a neutral stance in the current conflict and has refrained from siding either
with Armenia or Azerbaijan.
Despite Yerevan’s numerous attempts to lure Russia into the N-K conflict and as per predictions by several
political pundits, Moscow has adopted an entirely different policy approach, where it is constantly called
for halting all hostilities and propagating the notion of solving the dispute peacefully via political means.
Owing to multiple existing complementarities between Russia and Armenia, including the long-standing
military partnership, common religious roots of Orthodox Christianity and common membership under
the banner of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), it was believed by many observers that
Russia might openly side with Armenia against Azerbaijan. However, much to Yerevan’s disappointment,
this has not happened till now.
The question arises, what are the reasons behind Russia’s current approach to the conflict? The simple
answer is interests, pertaining to Russia’s political, economic and geo-strategic objectives.
As the world is experiencing a paradigm shift from a unipolar world order to a multipolar world
order where there are multiple power centres across the globe, Russia has emerged as one of
the major power centres in the world. With its new-found role, it was important for Russia to maintain
neutrality in the N-K conflict and act as a peace-maker rather than a country that fuels conflict. Adopting
a neutral stance was also important for its international image as well, opposed to its ‘aggressor & invader’
image that mainstreamed in 2014 after Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
Furthermore, from the legal standpoint, there are four United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
Resolutions that demand the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the N-K region and other occupied
territories that are recognized as Azeri territory by the international body. Those resolutions are UNSC
Resolution # 82210, 85311, 87412& 88713 passed in 1993. In light of these resolutions, passed by all P5 states,
Russia cannot afford to side with Armenia and violate the norms of multilateralism that it is fighting
extremely hard to protect.
Russia’s restraint from militarily getting involved in the conflict is also due to some technicalities as well.
Russia is a member of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) along with Armenia and other
member states. Article 714 of CSTO entails that member states are obligated to extend all kinds of
assistance to a member state if in trouble.
However, Russia still cannot get involved militarily because the current conflict particularly over the Line
of Contact (LoC – north of N-K) and the N-K region in general does not come under the Armenian territory.
Plus, the territory seized by Azeri military in the current conflict were Azeri territories to begin with (as
per UNSC resolutions), hence does not warrant any third party involvement. Moreover, despite opposing
claims by Yerevan and Baku regarding who initiated the hostilities, Russia is unsure about who was actually
responsible for the eruption of hostilities; hence it cannot take any chances.
In addition, it is also in Russia’s interest not to take any clear sides in this conflict because
choosing a side will be detrimental for its relations with other regional and extra-regional states
such as Turkey, Iran and Israel. Plus, in the recent past, Russia has reconfigured its stance towards
Azerbaijan and has adopted a rapprochement policy vis-à-vis Baku15 which has also led to the
establishment of defense relations between the two countries and complimented its role of a ‘balancer’
in the Southern Caucasus region.
Furthermore, Russia’s maintenance of a non-partisan orientation can also be attributed to thinking among
Moscow’s policy-makers that want to teach Armenia a valuable lesson as the latter, during the recent
past, showed signs of inclinations towards the US agenda in the region while simultaneously wooing the
European Union as well much to the displeasure of Russia.
Russia’s current reluctance to get directly involved in the conflict between Armenia Azerbaijan is majorly
owed to its renewed interest in “un-freezing” of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its peaceful resolution
via political means which not only is in line with its rapprochement policy towards Azerbaijan, but also
makes it a stakeholder in the energy rich region and develops new complementarities with Turkey and
Iran.
It is in Russia’s long term economic and geo-political interest to abandon its policy of implicit support to
the freezing of N-K conflict because not only is it against the spirit of the UNSC Resolutions, but it will
disrupt several energy transport and transit trade projects (such as the Trans-Anatolian Gas Pipeline –
TANAP16, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars Railway Line – BTKR17 and North-South Transport Corridor – NSTC18) that it
has initiated over the past two decades. Prolonging the resolution of the N-K conflict is detrimental to the
realization of Russia’s dream of Eurasian integration as well, plus it will minimize any chance of
interference and involvement of extra-regional powers such as the US in the region, which is practically
Russia’s backyard.

THE IRAN-CHINA DEAL: A NEW STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP IN

THE MAKING?
Iran and China are reported to be in the final stages of finalizing a $400 bn deal for
strategic partnership including massive Chinese investments in energy and
infrastructure projects, closer defense cooperation, intelligence sharing and sale of
discounted oil from Iran to China. Once finalized, the deal will have a major impact on
the geopolitics and economics of this critically vital region.
During a state visit to Tehran in 2016, the Chinese President Xi Jinping had proposed a comprehensive
deal to forge a long-term strategic partnership between the two countries.1The draft for this robust
package of investment and energy partnership is said to have been approved by the Iranian side. The 18-
page long agreement highlighting the various significant sectors of cooperation between a major world
power and a sanction-hit economy in the region indicates a massive shift in the global geopolitical arena.
Terms of the deal have not been made public by China and it still requires the Parliament’s approval in
Iran. But the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif confirmed earlier this month that the two
sides were indeed negotiating a massive deal. 2
What Does the Deal Entail?
Based on a leaked 18-page long document secured by the New York Times, the deal entails
China’s presence in various sectors of the Iranian economy such as banking, telecommunications,
ports, railways and several others. In return, Iran is offering long-term oil supply on discounted rates over
the period of the next 25 years. Pages from the document also indicate proposed Sino-Iran cooperation
on fighting cross-border terrorism and drug and human trafficking.3The most significant aspect seems to
be the proposed defense cooperation framework in the deal including military cooperation through joint
trainings and exercises, joint research, weapons development and intelligence sharing. 4Chinese
investments would total $400 billion over a period of 25 years, with $280 billion in the energy sector while
the rest of the $120 billion to other economic sectors in Iran.5
The deal encompasses both economic and defense cooperation turning it into a massive long-term
‘strategic partnership’ between the two rivals of the United States. Proposed projects to be included in
the deal compose of high-speed railways and subways, free trade zones in northwestern Iran and in
Abadan which marks the entry point of the river Shatt al-Arab into the Persian Gulf and on the gulf island
of Qeshm.
Nature and type of the proposed projects underlined in the agreement seem to be in perfect
alignment with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which shows the Chinese inclination to
increase its presence in the Gulf region much to the detriment of America’s somewhat
diminishing foothold in the region. In a bid to safeguard its cyberspace from frequent Israeli and
American interventions, Iran has also agreed to China’s offer to build the 5G telecommunication network
infrastructure in the country.6
Sino-Iran Deal and US Sanctions
The crippling US sanctions against Iran have severely limited the country’s capability to export its oil while
scaring away potential international investors ultimately backing Iran into a corner. Under President
Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, all roads had been closed to Iran with projections of its economy
shrinking by 9.5% under these sanctions. 7 Combined with these strict sanctions, the coronavirus pandemic
reduced its oil output and revenues from 4 million bpd in 2018 to only 2 million bpd this year. 8 This deal
threw a much need lifeline at Iran which is still grappling to recover from the severe blow of sanctions
plus the pandemic which had halted all internal economic activity as well. Rigid US stance of piling on the
pressure without considering the humanitarian or political implications of its sanctions regime created
room for another global power to showcase its strategic depth translating into this robust Sino-Iranian
partnership. The deal provides a mechanism to evade sanctions whilst boosting e-RMB, China’s new digital
currency against the US dollar.9 Although this is not a recent development as financial gurus have
repeatedly pointed out that US sanctions against trading with Iran in US dollars will benefit China’s Yuan
as it would continue to buy Iranian oil despite sanctions.10
Strategic Dimensions of the Deal: US in Dismay
Being an energy centric economic agreement with several diverse areas of cooperation, the Sino-Iranian
deal has an added strategic advantage for both countries involved, i.e. defying US interests in the region,
thus making it all the more attractive for both countries. With about a 100 different projects on the cards,
the deal is in tandem with BRI’s theme of regional connectivity while the aspect of military cooperation
between the two has certainly caught America’s immediate attention.
China has proposed building several ports in Iran especially at Jask in the Strait of Hormuz11 which means
it will have unencumbered access to one of the major chokepoints of oil supply in the world.
Having maintained a heavy presence in Gulf waters and the entire Middle East for years, this new
development is bound to fluster the US as China has already built numerous ports along the Indian Ocean
from South China Sea to the Suez Canal.
In 2015, China had opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti12 which has worried the US despite
the latter’s heavy military deployment all over the waters of the Persian Gulf for years. This Sino-Iran
partnership comes at a crucial point in time for United States which faces internal turmoil, racial protests
and the devastating impact of the coronavirus pandemic on its health sector. Presidential elections make
the future even more uncertain as Trump’s presidency has surely brought US global leadership capabilities
into question.
Particularly with reference to Iran, Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal was an ill-
advised step that not only strengthened Iranian defiance of US policies but indicated its inability to abide
by multilateral agreements. It also undermined US leadership clout within the European Union (EU) where
signatories of the JCPOA continuously urged US to return to the deal. Thus, this lack of foresight seems to
have placed China into an advantageous position vis-à-vis Iran and the entire Middle Eastern region. Once
Iran becomes an integral part of the BRI project, its regional Arab rivals would also seek China’s
cooperation based on their already existing economic ties. This move could seriously undermine US
influence in the Middle East as the only dominant power.
Sino-Iranian Bonhomie and the Indian Blunders
Indian media is ablaze with fury and speculation over the recent rumors about Iran’s decision to exclude
India from a joint Chabahar-Zahedan rail project citing delays from the Indian side in initiating work.13 In
the backdrop of the new Sino-Iranian deal, this development certainly made for a rather humbling
experience for India which has been displaying unnecessary jingoism and aggression toward the entire
neighborhood. Indian newspapers reported that the Iranian Transport and Urban Development Minister
Mohammad Eslami inaugurated the track-laying process for the 628 km rail project which will extend to
Zaranj across the border within Afghanistan. Debates continued in the Indian media about whether India
delayed the project for the fear of violating US sanctions against Iran although due to urgent need for
development in Afghanistan, it had been granted sanctions waiver from the US administration.
Iran denies leaving India out of the project but since it has been initiated already without India, it has
created a lot of stir within India about the future of the Chabahar port project. Indian fears are not baseless
as Iranian government has often referred to the Gwadar and Chabahar as ‘sister ports’. The Bandar-e-Jask
port which is part of the new deal signed between Iran and China is only 350 km away from the Chabahar
port15 thus it provides China with an excellent opportunity to keep Indian maritime ambitions in check.
Former Indian Ambassador to Iran, K.C. Singh was reported saying that the deal impinges on Indian
strategic relations with Iran while China would have access to the entire Iran-Pakistan coastal line through
Gwadar, Chabahar and now the Jask port. Iran has kept its ties with India separate from its other neighbors
and it enjoys a strong economic relationship with China. The Sino-Indian Ladakh border spat has left India
rattled in its regional ambitions which have been rather aggressive to say the least. Now that Iran has
been brought into the regional connectivity policy of China of which Pakistan is already a significant part,
it has certainly made India wary of what may unfold next in the region.
Pakistan, China and Iran: Prospects for Increased Cooperation
Iran has shown its inclination to participate in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) on
several occasions, calling it an opportunity for regional prosperity. Now that Iran and China are
close to signing a comprehensive deal with features of energy and transport infrastructure that are quite
similar to that of CPEC, it seems quite plausible that Iran could also participate in CPEC projects. Pakistan
and Iran need to utilize this opportunity to enhance their economic cooperation and exploring a way to
revive the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project by inviting China to be a part of this historic connectivity
venture. However, even with the signing of this deal, circumventing US sanctions will be an uphill task and
this does not undermine the stability of the US dollar in the international market. But surely, it marks a
significant shift in global political and economic atmosphere which shows that China is a new and powerful
global player to be reckoned with.
There have been reports of criticism from within different opposing political sections of Iran who have
echoed concerns of the Western media about China’s so-called ‘covert’ intentions behind this deal. There
are several objections and questions being about nature of loans and control of Iran over its ports and
fossil fuel reserves. But Iran has turned to China after the EU signatories of the deal failed to bail it out
financially. These issues will surely be discussed at length in the Iranian Majlis when the deal is put up for
approval. Pakistan has had to face similar questions regarding CPEC from anti-Pakistan and anti-China
elements. But for a country riddled with sanctions, dire economic challenges and serious regional security
threats, this deal seems like the only logical way out of the quagmire.

OIC: UNITED FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT

“United for Peace and Development” was the logo under which the commemoration
festivities of the 50th anniversary of Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) began at
Jeddah on November 25, 2019.1The Golden Jubilee of OIC was celebrated under
patronage of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz of
Saudi Arabia in Jeddah.
This commemoration was an implementation of the resolution that was issued in the 46 th Council of
Foreign Ministers session held in Abu Dhabi in March 2019. In this resolution, the year 2019 was dedicated
to the remembrance of the 50 years of OIC and its achievements in providing a platform for Muslims
dwelling in all parts of the world.
The Secretary General of the organization, Dr. Yousef A. Al-Othaimeen reiterated, “OIC represents one of
the largest international organizations, second only to the United Nations and benefits from the generous
patronage of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose financial and logistical support covered the full range
of the OIC’s activities, all along the past fifty years.”2
OIC is unique in character as the only official body to envisage Islamic solidarity as one of its
fundamental objectives. Adopting principles of social, economic and political harmony for
collective Muslim population all around the globe, OIC has maintained consultative and cooperative
relations with the United Nations for settling disputes and differences among the Muslim countries. With
a vociferous stance on issues of commonality targeting the collective Muslim world, OIC represents a
unifying spirit of solidarity among Muslims living in any part of the world which makes it an immensely
significant international body in which about 24.1% of the world population places their faith.3
Since its inception in 1969 after the arson attack inside Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the OIC has been
promoting values of cultural unity, peace, harmony and vowing to resolve issues that plague the collective
Muslim population. Over the years, OIC has adopted progressive resolutions fitting the new-age problems
of the Muslim World. OIC-2025 program has charted 107 goals with 18 areas of priority for the
organization to focus upon; Peace and Security, Palestine and Al-Quds, Poverty Alleviation, Counter-
terrorism, Investment and Finance, Food and Security, Science and Technology, Climate Change and
Sustainability, Moderation, Culture and Interfaith Harmony, Empowerment of Women, Joint Islamic
Humanitarian Action, Human Rights and Good Governance, among others.
Pakistan enjoys a distinct status within the organization from the very beginning due to its significant
stature in the Muslim world as the only Muslim nuclear power with the seventh largest military in the
world. It also conducts join military trainings with several member countries. Most recently, Pakistan has
sent a dedicated Permanent Mission to the headquarters of OIC in Jeddah.4OIC has endorsed Pakistan’s
stance on the Kashmir cause especially after India’s August 5th decision to revoke the special status of
Jammu & Kashmir with vehement fervor.
However, there remains a gaping margin of improvement regarding practical implementation of OIC
resolutions and coalescing stances of different Muslim countries for addressing collective woes of Muslim
communities all over the globe. OIC has been criticized by many for its role as a mere ‘bystander’ while
Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir and other parts of the world experience human rights’ violations.
Apart from these issues, the changing global dynamics have opened up a plethora of challenges
for the Muslim world. Muslim refugees all over the world are being treated with the utmost
derision and apathy due to land, ethnic and political disputes between home and host countries.
Islamophobia has seeped into the collective non-Muslim psyche all over the world which has
created unwarranted troubles for Muslims everywhere. Poverty, displacement, famine and deprivation
from basic necessities of life are a few among an abundance of issues that trouble the collective Muslim
population all over the world.
It is high time that OIC with its already established networking structure decides to tackle the swarm of
challenges, head on. Galvanization of the differing segments of Muslim countries through the platform of
OIC is vital to the organization’s utility in today’s world. The 18 key areas of priority adopted by OIC this
year are commendably current and relevant in nature. However, it is time to convert these conventions
into concrete palpable actions. Muslim countries grapple with several diverse issues in their respective
regions that require a comprehensive and multipronged approach in dealing with them. OIC would do
well to apply valuable resources to legitimize country specific concerns by bringing them to the collective
attention of all member states and by lending its international platform to individual issues of all countries.
However, an essential pre-requisite to all such steps would be unification of all Muslim countries by setting
aside mutual differences in face of the complex challenges that stand before them.

NEW LAND RULES IN IIOJ&K: PROVERBIAL LAST NAIL IN

THE COFFIN

The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs through an order on October 26, 2020 amended 14
land laws of the Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) and repealed 11
other laws.1 This step is considered as the last nail in the coffin of the process which
began on August, 5, 2019 in which India snatched away the autonomy of the Indian
occupied Jammu and Kashmir by revoking article 370 and 35-A.

IIOJK: Land for Sale

Major amendments have been made in the laws that deal with ownership, purchase and sale of the land
in the Indian occupied Valley. These laws include: The J&K Development Act 1970; The J&K Land Revenue
Act, 1996; The Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976; and The J&K Land Grants Act, 1960.
It must be noted that the most impactful change that has been made is to the J&K Development Act from
which the very concept of “Permanent Resident of the state” has been removed and which has now
created the space for non-residents to purchase land anywhere in the Valley.
The new rules also state that the government may, on the written request of an Army officer not
below the rank of corps commander, declare an area as “strategic area within a local area”. This
land can be used for direct operational and training requirements of armed forces. According to a clause,
“The strategic area will have to be declared and the government may satisfy itself about the reasons cited
for declaring the area as a strategic area and will have such area notified accordingly with such conditions
as may be required.”2
Some of the important acts that the Indian government abolished with regard to land rights include:3
1. The Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1938.

2. The Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950.

3. The Jammu and Kashmir Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956.

4. The Jammu and Kashmir Consolidation of Holding Act, 1962.

5. The Jammu and Kashmir Land Improvement Schemes Act, 1972.

6. The Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Fragmentation of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.
7. The Jammu and Kashmir Prohibition of Conversion of Land and Alienation of Orchards Act, 1975.

8. The Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy (Stay of Ejectment Proceedings) Act, 1966.

9. The Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, Svt.1980.

10. The Jammu and Kashmir Utilization of Lands Act, Svt. 2010.

11. Jammu and Kashmir Underground Public Utilities Act (IV of 2014).

It is pertinent to note here that the two repealed land laws - The Jammu and Kashmir Alienation
of Land Act, 1938 and The Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950 - are of the
great importance as these provided protection to the owner of land under permanent residents
certificate holders. Also, Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act stated that,
“transfer of land in favour of any person who is not a State Subject, is prohibited.”4 In this context, the
state subjects were permanent resident certificate holders as defined in the now abrogated Article 35-A
of the Constitution. Similarly, cancellation of section 20-A of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act also
nullified the restriction on the transfer of the property to any non-State Subjects (non- residents).5
Status of Agricultural Land in IIOJK
The Indian government has also changed the laws regarding the use of agriculture land. Section 133 of
the IIOJK Land Revenue Act, 1996 states, “no land used for the agricultural purposes shall be used for any
non-agricultural purposes except with the permission of the District Controller.”6 Also, sub-section 2 of
Section 113-A adds that an owner who wishes to put his agricultural land to any non-agricultural use shall
do so but after payment of the conversion charges as prescribed by the Board.”7 This clearly shows that
either with the payment of conversion fee or with the permission of district controller, agricultural land
can be used for non-agricultural purposes. This is an attempt to bring foreign investors in the region to
take effective demographic control by all means.
It must be noted that all the laws whether repealed or amended were indirectly linked with sale and
purchase of the land. After eliminating protections, the Indian government will push changes that would
disrupt IIOJK largely self-sufficient rural economy, laying it open to industrial and commercial forces from
outside. Similarly, by the creation of IIOJK Industrial Development Corporation, all powers and legal cover
has been provided to business and real estate corporations to capture the areas selected by the
government to bring rapid demographic changes in the region.8
Reaction by Kashmiris
Reacting to the changes in land laws, the People’s Alliance for the Gupkar Declaration9, an
amalgam of mainstream parties of IIOJK said, “the fresh laws introduced through amendments
are not only against the people of Jammu and Kashmir but undemocratic, unconstitutional and
backward-looking with the only aim to disempower people and change the demography.”10 The alliance
further stressed upon the fact that, “there are no starvation deaths that occur in Jammu and Kashmir, no
farmers suicides have been ever reported and everyone in Jammu and Kashmir has available three
fundamental necessities — food, clothing, and shelter, the position that is now sought to be reversed by
making massive assault on the land law regime.”11
The All Parties Hurriyat Leadership also reacted to the new land laws by issuing a statement “Rather than
pursue a peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue involving millions of humans living in the
uncertainty of a conflict as per their will and to ensure peace in the region, all attempts are being made
to undermine that possibility by the Government of India and instead, a policy of permanent demographic
change is aggressively being pushed - to snatch our land, destroy our identity and turn us into a minority
in our own land.

To conclude, the notification of new land laws is clearly indicative of the trajectory of Indian designs for
bringing systematic demographic changes in the region. May analysts argue that the implementation of
new land laws may be the conclusive step by India in achieving its objective of demographic flooding in
IIOJK.

IOJK & THE NEW DOMICILE LAW: OPENING THE

DEMOGRAPHIC FLOOD GATES

In pursuance of its nefarious design to change the demography of Indian occupied

Jammu and Kashmir (IoJK) and turn the Muslim majority into a minority, on June 26,
2020 the Modi government issued domicile certificates to 25,000 people from across
India including an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer and a senior bureaucrat
from the state of Bihar.1
The move was made following the introduction of “Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (adaptation of
state laws) Order 2020” on March 31, 20202 through an executive order by the BJP government. The
clauses related to domicile are explained under “Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and
Recruitment) Act” according to which any Indian national who has resided in Indian occupied Jammu and
Kashmir for a period of 15 years will be eligible to enjoy all the benefits that were strictly reserved for the
people of Jammu and Kashmir before the Indian government illegally annexed the state on August 5, 2019,
including buying property in the state.
With this, the doors of IoJK have been opened for outsiders to permanently settle in the state.
The nightmare of a much argued demographic change in IoJK is now becoming a reality. The issue
is so grave that it has brought both the pro-India and pro-liberation parties in IoJK on one page.
The leading pro-India party, the People’s Democratic Party severely criticized the issuance of
certificates and said “The PDP has voiced its stern opposition to the domicile rules before. It reiterates
that through such underhand means, the Government of India intends demographic flooding in J&K while
plundering people of their identity and constitutional guarantees”.3 The party further said that the move
to change Muslim character of the state is being taken at a time when everything is being viewed through
the prism of religion. PDP further asserted that “As the agenda unfolds, it becomes clear that along with
the intended demographic change, the target is also the jobs, natural resources, cultural identity and
everything that the people of Kashmir had tried to save by acceding to India with firm constitutional
guarantees.”4 The other leading pro-India party, the National Conference believes that “All the misgivings
raised after the domicile laws were changed in J&K are coming to fore with J&K government’s issuance of
domicile certificates to non-residents of J&K”.5 The party further lamented that the first casualty of this
course will be jobs and the land holdings that were reserved for the permanent residents of the state
previously. The party further stated that the move is aimed at disempowering the permanent residents
politically and economically. It reminded the government of its commitment that the land and
employment rights of the people of IoJK will be protected. Similarly, the pro liberation Hurriyat
Conference faction that is led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq expressed its dismay saying that by initiating the
implementation of a demographic change in Jammu and Kashmir, the Modi government is exploiting its
natural wealth and resources and rendering local people jobless besides taking advantage of the COVID-
19 pandemic as people are struggling with its adverse effects on their daily lives and livelihood. 6
Interestingly, the Hindu parties in Jammu region have also expressed their dismay at the situation. The
National Panthers Party submitted a petition to President Ramnath Kovind requesting him to urgently
intervene to protect the history, integrity and fundamental rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir
“whose existence and identity has been threatened by the introduction of domicile law without
consultation of the legislative assembly of the Union territory”.7
It is now no secret that the Modi government is hell bent to undermine the religious and cultural
identity of Kashmiri Muslims, first by snatching the status of a state of Jammu and Kashmir and
turning it into Union Territory, and now by encouraging the outsiders to permanently settle in
these areas. In doing so, the Modi government is in reality exposing itself that it is only interested
in holding the land of Kashmir and the Kashmiri sentiment has no place in Modi’s grand plan of creating
a Hindu Rashtra. No wonder, Kashmiris today feel even more alienated then they were few years ago. This
is especially true for those leaders and parties who have always advocated state’s accession with India.
Today, they feel betrayed and let down by the Modi government’s irrational policies in Kashmir.
The silence of international community unfortunately is also adding to the woes of Kashmiris. While, the
world attention is focused on dealing with the effects of corona virus, the Indian government following in
the Israeli footsteps is stealthily changing the demography of Jammu and Kashmir in stark violation of
International laws and the Simla Agreement signed between India and Pakistan. Pakistan has been
consistently raising this issue with world leaders and at all international forums. The bigger question is:
Will the international community be able to prevent another Palestine in South Asia?

IOK AND THE NEW DOMICILE LAW: ANOTHER STAB IN THE

BACK FOR KASHMIRIS
If ever there was a doubt regarding India’s intentions of changing the demography of
Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IoJK), the recently introduced domicile law has put
all such doubts to rest.
Months after India bifurcated the state of Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories
and abrogated Article 370 and Article 35 A which guaranteed a special status to IOK and rights strictly
meant for the Kashmiri people, the Indian government has now gone one step further to rub salt into the
wounds of Kashmiri people. Following its long cherished dream of making India a Hindu rashtra where
minorities are treated as aliens and second grade citizens, the BJP government enacted a new domicile
law for IOK the “Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (adaptation of state laws) Order 2020”1 on March 31,
2020 through an executive order.
The clauses regarding domicile are defined under “Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services
(Decentralization and Recruitment) Act”. According to this newly introduced domicile law,
Indians who have resided in IOK for a period of 15 years and students who have spent 7 years
and appeared in class 10 or 12 examinations have now become eligible to be a permanent
resident of the occupied state. In addition to this, children of central government officials who
have served in IOK for 10 years will also be favored in this connection. The law empowers
tehsildars (sub-divisional officers) to issue domicile certificates within their territorial jurisdiction.
According to the new law, the government of J&K union territory may also appoint any other person or
body deemed fit for this purpose.
This notice issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs opened all jobs for people from across the country,
while only level-4 jobs which include jobs like peon, clerks and constables were reserved for the current
J&K domicile holders. Needless to say, the new law, specially the clause related to the jobs, generated a
lot of resentment not only in Kashmir but also in Jammu which is not only a Hindu majority area but also
a strong constituency of the ruling BJP. Leader of Jammu based Panthers Party’s Harshdev Singh staged a
solo protest against the law, whereas other parties of the region also raised their voices including the
newly formed Apni Party. These protests forced the Union government to revisit the law and on April 4,
2020, some amendments were made and all jobs were reserved for domicile holders.
Interestingly, even the amended law has failed to address the uneasiness in the Jammu region because
despite being a Hindu majority area, Jammu will still bear the brunt of social and economic implications
that the new law entails. In Kashmir region also, the announcement has rightfully generated a lot of
concern and fear as it is a clear attempt to open the gates for non-Kashmiris to settle and alter the
demography of Jammu and Kashmir. Leader of National Conference and former Chief Minister of Indian
occupied Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah called the law an “insult heaped on injury”, 2 whereas the
People’s Democratic Party condemned the law terming it “frighteningly ambivalent, irresolute and akin
to rubbing salt to the peoples wounds”.3 In the words of Siddiq Wahid, a Kashmir based political analyst,
“Obviously it is an attempt to change the demographics, not only change but flood it. It will lead to
demographic flooding”.4 Hence, the domicile law has brought both Jammu and Kashmir on one page.
Though the real intention of the Indian government is to undermine the Muslim majority of
Jammu and Kashmir, this new domicile law will prove to be disastrous in terms of economy and
massive unemployment as well. Additionally, the flooding of people in this region will also have
a very negative impact on resources and ecological system of Jammu and Kashmir. As always, the
BJP government even amid this time of pandemic had the nerve to justify its actions. "We have
been pitching for it. Everyone in Jammu and Kashmir is happy, let people who live here for 15
years get the benefits, no other outsiders will get it," was what Ashok Kaul, the general secretary for the
BJP in Jammu and Kashmir said in defense of this new law,5 whereas Rakesh Sinha, a BJP leader and
member of the upper house of Parliament dismissed all fears regarding demographic change as rumors. 6
The timing of this announcement is extremely ominous. While the world is busy fighting a battle against
coronavirus, the Indian government finds it an opportune time to hoodwink international community. On
the domestic front also, with the rising numbers of confirmed cases and deaths amid lockdown, the
general mood in India is focused on the virus and its impact on the livelihood and general well-being at
the moment. Besides, the continuous lockdown particularly in Kashmir would also ensure that there
would be no reaction from Kashmiri people. It is extremely unfortunate that instead to diverting all its
energies and focus towards fighting the pandemic which is threatening to take lives not only due to a virus
but also due to hunger, the Indian government is still busy in playing its foul tricks. Condemning the Indian
move to further strengthen its clutches over IOK, the Prime Minister of Pakistan has rightly pointed out
that this new law is against international laws and treaties. It is time that the world, particularly the United
Nations plays its due role before it is too late for the people of occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

FATF’S VERDICT ON PAKISTAN: SIGNS OF CAUTIOUS

OPTIMISM AND PERSISTENT ACTION
On 23 October, 2020 the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) released its verdict on the
current status of Pakistan. Acknowledging Pakistan’s progress across all the items of
action plan, the verdict states that Pakistan “has now largely addressed 21 of the 27
action items”.1 This itself speaks volumes of Pakistan’s commitment in curbing terror
financing and money laundering.
Pakistan was placed under the increased monitory jurisdiction of FATF in June 2018. 2 The
countries placed under increased jurisdiction aim to resolve their strategic deficiencies in money
laundering, terror financing, and proliferation financing in a set period of time. During these
timeframes, the jurisdictions are subjected to strict monitoring and evaluation. This list is often
referred to as the “grey list”.3 Established in 1989, FATF is an inter-governmental organization
comprising 39 member states, the European Commission and the Gulf Cooperation Council.4As a
money laundering and terror financing watchdog, FATF sets international standards aiming at
curbing illegal activities and financial harms to the society. It is pertinent to note that Pakistan is
not a member state of FATF, instead, it is a FATF Associate Member of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money
Laundering (APG).
After FATF’s review in February 2020, owing to the progress made by Pakistan in anti-terror financing
activities, the watchdog extended its deadline till June 2020 for the next review. However, due to COVID,
Pakistan got four more month before its October review. The recent verdict by FATF lauds Pakistan’s
comprehensive efforts against hawala and hundi setup, and currency smuggling. It further mentions that
Pakistan could not exit the FATF grey list because it could not fully implement all the points of action plan
till June 2020 (the original deadline). However, it must be noted that despite COVID, Pakistan has made
robust progress by moving up the ladder from 14 compliant items to 21 within less than ten months.
It also becomes pertinent to note that due to COVID, the jurisdictions placed under increased scrutiny for
strategic deficiencies were given an option either to report for their upcoming reviews or not. Unlike
Barbados, Jamaica, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Panama and Uganda, Pakistan chose to report 5 for its review. It
depicts its resolve and persistent commitment to pursue its case against money laundering and terror
financing on a global scale.
So far, Pakistan has been fully committed in fulfilling the requirements of FATF. It has not only proscribed
many groups who were a bone of contention between the two, but has also seized their assets. Moreover,
Pakistan is aggressively pursuing anti-money laundering laws too. Passing three bills including the Anti-
Money Laundering (second amendment) Bill-2020, Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) (third amendment) Bill-2020
and Islamabad Capital Territory Waqf Properties Bill-2020,6 in just one month is a testimony to this claim
where Pakistan is leaving no stone unturned to meet the legal requirements of FATF.
The Paris-based watchdog has further required improvements in the areas including:
1. Demonstrating that law enforcement agencies are identifying and investigating the widest range of
terror financing (TF) activity and that TF investigations and prosecutions target designated persons and
entities, and those acting on behalf or at the direction of the designated persons or entities.
2. Demonstrating that TF prosecutions result in effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
3. Demonstrating effective implementation of targeted financial sanctions against all 1267 and 1373
(United Nations Security Council Resolutions) designated terrorists and those acting for or on their behalf,
preventing the raising and moving of funds including in relation to Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs),
identifying and freezing assets (movable and immovable), and prohibiting access to funds and financial
services.
4. Demonstrating enforcement against Targeted Financial Sanctions (TFS) violations, including in relation
to NPOs, of administrative and criminal penalties and provincial and federal authorities cooperating on
enforcement cases.7
The next plenary of FATF is now scheduled in February 2021. This extension in the deadline without any
voting is hailed as a “diplomatic victory”8 by many in the government as this new timeframe could be
utilized in implementing effective structural changes for curbing TF in Pakistan. Currently, Pakistan is
facing two Action Plans from FATF. One of these plans is the most comprehensive given to any country
ever.9 Nowhere in the world FATF acts as a court of law where it inquires about the internal legal
procedures and processes of a country. However, in case of Pakistan, FATF has depicted immense interest
in its internal legal mechanisms. The uniqueness of the Action Plan(s) offered to Pakistan makes it more
challenging. However, Pakistan remains fully committed to its resolve of fighting the menace of TF.
Against this backdrop, the way forward for Pakistan could be to define its own least common
denominators and then to robustly pursue those denominators on expedited basis. Pakistan can also
improve its domestic sanctions regime as per the instructions of UNSCR 1373 and 1267. One way of doing
it is by building robust internal mechanisms for enforcing the domestic sanctions regime. Another issue
that needs to be effectively addressed is the NPO sector. Currently, the NPO sector of Pakistan is very
large. It is high time to bring the entire sector under strict scrutiny and accountability. Moreover, recently
Pakistan has passed numerous charity laws both on Federal and Provincial level. One effective way of
curbing TF in Pakistan could be ensuring that these laws are implemented in letter and spirit and that
these charity institutes are provided optimum resources for their functionality. Moreover, Pakistan can
also improve upon the effectiveness of its sentencing guidelines by ensuring their uniform application
across the board.
In sum, the recent verdict is both a caution for further improvements and an admission of the positive
work done by Pakistan in reinvigorating and restructuring its money laundering and terror financing based
technical compliance and effectiveness.

GROWING ISLAMOPHOBIA AND RESPONSES FROM THE

MUSLIM WORLD
The world is witnessing a surge in Islamophobia once again. Emanating from a liberal,
democratic and secular capital of Europe, France is its epicenter once again. Paris was
gripped with the frenzy of Islamophobic hysteria when, in a series of speeches delivered
in October, President Emmanuel Macron mocked Islam and allowed to republish the
caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). By calling Islam a “faith in crisis all over the
world” and announcing his own plan of reforms to free the religion from “foreign
influence”, Macron not only divided his country on religious separatism but also caused
fissures in inter-civilizational harmony worldwide.1
The controversial sketches were also displayed on the government buildings “in the defiance of Islamic
terrorists” and “preserving the tradition of secularism” in the country.2 Exploiting this xenophobic
tendency as a handy instrument of far right politics in his country, Macron’s inciteful remarks evoked
strong reactions from all across the world which were not limited to the Muslim states and societies only.
The latest condemnation came from French parliamentarian and former presidential candidate, Jean Luc-
Melenchon who called this current wave of Islamophobia in France as “disguised hatred”. Macron had
justified his inciteful remarks and xenophobic actions under the guise of secularism and the right to
freedom of expression. Melenchon decried this hypocritical practice and termed it as “assertive
secularism”3 which political figures, in his opinion, use as a justification for pandering to people’s baser
instincts: violence and hatred.
Earlier, the United Nations anti-extremism body, the UN Alliance of Civilization (UNAOC), expressed its
“deep concern” over growing tensions between Muslim and Western societies.4 Head of the UNAOC,
Miguel Angel Moratinos called for mutual respect while emphasizing that the right to freedom of
expression and religion are “interdependent, inter-related and mutually re-enforcing rights.”5
These two perspectives demonstrate that Islamophobia is a distorted socio-political construct in the hands
of the populists leaders. In the disguise of defending the right to freedom of expression and secularism,
the public figures use this xenophobic tendency for gaining votes and polarizing their own country. In this
milieu, it is not shocking why Macron’s endorsed Islamophobic hysteria which has been met with wave of
anger and protests from all over the Muslim world.
On October 29, 2020, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) strongly condemned the
remarks by the French President. The Organization gave its response in the capacity of collective
voice of the Muslim world through its organ of human rights - the Independent Permanent
Human Rights Commission (IPHCR). Offering a strong rebuttal to the populist French leader,
IPHCR was forward-looking and solution-oriented in its reproach. Describing Macron’s move as
“distortion of Islam” and of “the right to freedom of expression”, the Commission announced to
join the “global outcry over French President’s inciteful remarks.” 6 IPHCR particularly referred to
Macron’s remarks that “France would not renounce the defamatory caricatures” and called it an
insult to Islam and the Holy Prophet (PBUH).7 Urging for moderation and initiation of a
comprehensive inter-civilizational dialogue, OIC’s Human Rights Commission termed stoking such
Islamophobic hysteria as an act of undermining religious freedom.
Other than this collective condemnation from the Muslim bloc, various independent statements from
leaders of the Muslim world, civil society activists and institutions also poured in. These developments
coincided with the call for boycotting French products in Muslim countries.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan was the first who give a seething response to Emanuel Macron and
urged his countrymen and women to boycott French products. To his denigrate remarks on Islam being
“a faith in crisis all over the world”, Erdogan asked Macron to “undergo a mental health check-up and
denounced Islamophobia that prevails in the European continent.”8
Urging the Muslim world to unite against Islamophobia and demanding European societies to put an end
to this xenophobic tendency, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan wrote letters to the leaders of Muslim
world for effectively tackling the rising threat to inter-faith harmony. In his letters to social media
founders, he also demanded a ban on hateful religious contents.
On October 29, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Syed Ali Khamenei stated that insulting sacred religious
personalities cannot be defined as freedom of expression.9 Saudi Foreign Ministry denounced the
French leadership’s act. Quoted by Saudi press agency, the Ministry condemned the republishing
of the caricatures and categorically stated that it rejects any attempts to link Islam with
terrorism.10 In a recent telephonic interaction, on November 2, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince, Sheikh
Mohammed bin Zayed-el-Nahyan conveyed to the French President that, “violence is not
representative of the teachings of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)….and under no circumstances
should the Prophet be linked to violence and politicization.”11 Jordan’s Foreign Ministry also
condemned the continued publication of offensive sketches of the Prophet (PBUH) under the pretext
of freedom of expression.12
Scholars at Egypt’s world renown Islamic university, Al-Azhar, described Macron’s remarks “racists” and
absolutely irrelevant to the “true essence of Islam.”13 More than 20 European Muslim organizations wrote
a letter to French President, condemning his “divisive rhetoric” and urging him to revisit his “unilateral
assault on Muslims, Islam and the Prophet.”14 The organizations represented Muslim from a vast section
of European societies including Netherlands, Finland and Italy.
In Middle East and other major regions of the Muslim communities, these calls transformed into a popular
demand. Moreover, a wave of public protests erupted from Muslim countries in Middle East and Asia in
massive numbers including Qatar, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and many others.
It is unfortunate that Islamophobia is surging again but it has been a recurring theme in the world politics
especially after 9/11. It can only be put to an end by giving a united response from Muslim bloc and
initiating an inter-civilisational dialogue with the western world.
UPCOMING TOPICS ARE FROM CURRENT
AFFAIRS NOTES 2020 BECAUSE THERE
ARE NO MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN
THE PREVIOUS YEAR THANKS TO COVID-
19.. SO, PLEASE CONSIDER STUDYING
THESE TOPICS AS WELL. BEST OF LUCK.
 INDIAN CYBER POSTURE: IMPLICATIONS FOR PAKISTAN
Indian Cyber Posture (ICP) is predominantly centered on the integration of cyberspace with other
domains at the operational level rather than handling it as a discrete realm. The Joint Doctrine for Indian
Armed Forces 2017 includes cyberspace in the core definition of national territory together with land,
air, aerospace and maritime. This “Integrated Military Power Principle” (IMPP) has led to the inclusion
of cyberspace at doctrinal, force structure, institutional, political, economic, diplomatic, logistics and
human resource development levels, but preserves the “decentralization, of command and decision-
making” at the same time.1

There are two fundamental drivers of this approach.

First, and the most interesting aspect is how New Delhi defines cyberpower. According to the Indian
Ministry of Defense, it refers to acquiring vital information and the development of critical infrastructure
imperative for growing e-commerce and establishment of global business linkages, but simultaneously
denying all these to an adversary in order to maintain a competitive advantage “in the globalized world
economy.”2 The objective is to establish a secure economy and financial support for the technological
modernization of military force structure.

Second, India has declared cyberspace, notably in terms of information warfare, as the backbone of the
military operations at strategic level.3 While defining the spectrum of conflict, New Delhi laid a special
emphasis on fifth generation or hybrid warfare and acknowledged cyber warfare as its essential
component. It also acknowledged cyber warfare conducted by state-sponsored non-state actors as an
effective tool of creating chaos and violence. The objective is to destroy the adversary`s free and secure
access to cyberspace in the operational environment by utilizing the various “instruments of national
power” which ultimately require synergy. India is determined to establish a Cyber Force Structure (CFS)
which could help it win cyber wars. India is also aspiring to wage Network Centric Wars (NCW) to exploit
computers, surveillance and intelligence systems, Command and Control System (C2S), and information
technology infrastructures.4

The roots of ICP can be traced back to the Indian Army Doctrine 20045 famously known as the Cold Start
Doctrine which included hacking of Commercial Cloud Services (C2S), national aviation, banks, power-
generation and other revenue-generating computer-based industries in addition to the destruction of the
electromagnetic spectrum and psychological warfare. A decade ago, ICP was just ideation, but today, India
is taking practical steps to transform this ideation into a future reality. To achieve maximum strategic
advantages, India has added a “new triad” to its military force posture consisting of Cyberspace, Special
Operations and Outer Space. These are the new domains where India is preparing to fight future wars in
addition to the traditional triad composed of Land, Air, and Sea. Cyberspace and Outer Space will maintain
the information flow necessary for accomplishing strategic objective through special operations.6 The
recent Balakot crisis in February 2019 was a perfect test case for this new triad. During the crisis, India
allegedly conducted a special operation on the false pretext of the Pulwama terrorist attack, after which
India used cyberspace, especially the social media platforms to malign the image of Pakistan through
information warfare.

The Joint Doctrine for Indian Armed Forces 2017 also outlined the establishment of three crucial agencies
or tri-service commands namely: Defense Cyber Agency (DCA), Defense Space Agency (DSA), and Special
Operations Division (SOD). Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave approval for the establishment of these
three agencies during the “Combined Commander`s Conference” in September, 2018. These three
agencies will be fully operational at the end of 2019. Rear Admiral Mohit Gupta will serve as the first head
of DCA.7 DCA is fundamentally an up-gradation of Defense Information Assurance and Research Agency
(DIARA) which was previously established to facilitate the Ministry of Defense and the Indian Armed
Forces for their information operations in cyberspace.8 DIARA was also responsible for the monitoring of
the Indian cyberspace at a meta-data level which will work in close collaboration with the Defense
Communication Network (DCN).The National Cyber Coordination Centre (NC3) is already working under
the Ministry of Information for effective civil-military coordination in cyberspace. India is likely to finalize
its new Cyber Policy in the first quarter of 2020 to replace its Cyber Policy of 2013.9

To further strengthen its escalating posture in cyberspace, India is increasing its collaboration with other
countries and international organizations. In the course of the last five years, India has signed 39
multilateral agreements and 54 Memorandums of Understandings (MOUs) on cyberspace with various
counties. New Delhi has also established cyber frameworks with 10 countries including China, Australia,
Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, Singapore, Mongolia, United Kingdom and United States of America. These
frameworks are focused on mutual collaboration in the areas of cybercrime mitigation, e-governance,
intelligence sharing, Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERT) and technical training.10 On August
22, 2019, India`s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology signed a significant agreement of
cooperation in cyberspace with the Estonian Information System Authority (RIA).11The third edition of
the Indo-French Cyber Dialogue was also held on June 20, 2019.12Apparently all these collaborations
seem normal, but in reality these could prove to be extremely threatening for Pakistan because of two
major reasons.

Firstly, the dual-use nature of cyber technologies will allow New Delhi to divert them from e-governance,
e-commerce and communication sector to the technological modernization of military force structure.
Secondly, a close inspection of these agreements, MOUs and frameworks especially with France, Japan,
Indonesia and Russia show a consistent pattern of pairing cyberspace with the Outer Space technologies,
Artificial Intelligence (AI), intelligence sharing, violent extremism and terrorism. This indicates India`s
determination for robust operationalization of its new triad. This also indicates that cyberspace will be
the next potential domain of conflict after Kashmir and water dispute. Any cybercrime at domestic level
could be rapidly transformed into a cyber-crisis between the two nuclear powers. This threat is further
validated by the Indian insistence on the application of Article 51 of United Nations Charter on cyberspace.
India along with US-led block of Western countries is strongly advocating for the right of individual and
collective self-defense in case of an armed attack in cyberspace.

This is a matter of serious concern because there is no understanding or Confidence Building Mechanism
(CBMs) in place for cyberspace between India and Pakistan. Both countries are at a different level of
technological advancement with a different set of laws, strategies and policies in cyberspace. How both
states will develop an understanding of cyber-threshold? What infrastructures should be considered as
critical in cyberspace? What will be the parameters to determine that cyber-attack actually happened,
especially in the absence of reliable attribution mechanisms? These issues will further complicate the
regional dynamics and produce destabilizing effects on strategic stability of South Asia. Under the pretext
of international security in cyberspace, India is looking for the window of opportunity to use cyber-attacks
as a justification for its military adventurism and interventionist policies.
It’s high time for Pakistan to develop counter-force, as well as counter-value cyber capabilities. Despite
rapid digitalization and technological modernization, Pakistan should always retain a human element in
the management of its critical infrastructures, especially banking systems, C2S, and power generation
plants. The security and military establishment must take effective measures for the establishment of tri-
service cyber command and enhance its international collaborations in cyberspace.

Outlining Pakistan-India Relations

1. Contextualizing Indo-Pak Conflict
a. Four Wars and two war like situations
b. Fundamental reason; Kashmir
c. 1971 episode put Pak into an insecure zone which led towards Militarization in the region.
d. Idea of National Security State
e. 1st decade of 21st century as serious blow. 8 agendas stalled { Peace and Security including CBMs, Jammu
and Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek, Water projects, terrorism and drug trafficking, economic and commercial
cooperation, promotion of friendly exchanges in many fields.}
f. Toxic relations but glimpses of peace ; 19 Agreements 1948-2009
g. On some recent dimensions.

2. Irritants in Indo-Pak Relations

a. Foreign Policy perspectives

India’s Regional Policy

India’s Neighborhood policy
Pakistan’s Theory of Balance of Power
b. Disputed Territories
c. Cross Border Terrorism
d. The Water Bomb
e. Element of Mistrust

3. Can India Pakistan Peace Possible?

a. A peace process can be defined as concrete efforts by parties in dispute to seek a resolution of their
conflicts through dialogue and negotiations.
b. Peace process may be bilateral or with the support of third party.
c. Indo Pak peace process: Not a myth
d. Existence of an Indo-Pak peace process is evidenced by four reasons;
both countries regularly engaged in bilateral talks to resolve issues i.e. border demarcations, boundary
adjustments, water distribution, trade and commerce, protection of minorities, Kashmir, conventional
and nuclear CBMs.
Indo Pak talks yielded a large number of agreements that has a fair compliance record, if not up to mark,
by each country
Despite lack of Agreement on Kashmir both since mid of 1990s made attempts to push peace process
forward.
The following recommendations are suggested to achieve more realistic progress in order to improve
India-Pakistan bilateral relations:
• Reverse the tide of extremism: To improve their bilateral relation, India should work to reverse
the extremist tide within Indian society.
• Avoid blame game: Both Pakistan and India are victims of terrorism. Therefore, India, instead of
blaming Pakistan, should cooperate with Pakistan in defeating a common enemy.
• Provocative statements: Indian leaders should move away from making provocative
statements, since they reflect a dangerous state policy.
• Peace building role of the media: Indian media should act responsibly and, instead of widening
the gulf, play an active role to build peace between India and Pakistan. The Pakistan media can
play its constructive role in this area.
• Joint mechanism for investigation: Absence of credible investigation often leads to unilateral
conclusions. Hence, to tackle such terrorist incidents, both countries should devise a joint
mechanism for investigation on case-to-case basis. In this regard, the proposal by Sri Lanka in
2010 for creation of a SAARC police body needs to be given a close consideration in order to
investigate such cross-border crimes in future.
• Calendar of India-Pakistan talks: The entire process of India-Pakistan talks should remain
uninterrupted, despite unforeseen setbacks.
• Result-oriented dialogue: To make the dialogue process result-oriented, both states should find
areas of common interest and cooperate with each other to work to root out the causes of
conflict.
• Enhance confidence building measures (CBMs): Even in times of hostility and differences, both
should not only continue to implement the existing CBMs, but also find new areas for expanding
CBMs.
• Supportive role of civil society: Civil society on both sides of the border should play a supportive
role in the implementation of any commitment made by India and Pakistan.
• Role of international community: The international community should play a proactive role,
and help nuclear armed India and Pakistan to resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue.

If India is granted permanent seat in the Security Council.

What can be the options available to Pakistan to manage
the Indian hegemony in South Asia? Css-2011

1. Introduction

2. Options available for Pak:

• India must be forced to sign NPT
• Efforts to make SAARC effective
• Promotion of democracy
• Pakistan should strive for membership of Security Council
• Power balancing (Advanced technology)
• Pakistan should manage a SCO Membership
• Pakistan should strengthen its relation and Knot ties with China
• Pakistan should use OIC Forum effectively
• Peaceful co-existence policy with India
• Promotion of trade between India and Pakistan
• Efforts to combat terrorism
• Resolution of long standing political disputes
• Think-tank should come forward to mould the typical mindset
3. India Seat in UNSC, What does it Actually Means
• India will Enjoy being a Veto Power
• India will leave no stone unturned to cut Pakistan off rest of the world.
• Kashmir issue will never be resolved, because India will veto all the resolutions relating to
Kashmir in favor of Pakistan.
• India will block Pakistan water without any fear.
• RAW involvement in Baluchistan will further increase if india is granted a seat in UNSC
Conclusion

AFGHANISTAN AND REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY (Khyber Pass

Economic Corridor)
After over three decades of conflict and over 92,000 casualties (32,000 civilians killed and 60,000
injured in the last decade,1 Afghanistan stands out as one of the biggest regional ironies in South and
Central Asia today. With large untapped mineral reserves, fertile agricultural land, and most
importantly, a geostrategic location which puts it at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia and the
Middle East, Afghanistan is at the same time one of the poorest with rising rates of poverty which have
left more than half the population living under less than one dollar a day.

Recently in June 2019, during his visit to Pakistan, Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani while addressing
a public forum at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad spoke on the need to foster strong bilateral
relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and said that the old narrative around Afghanistan being a
landlocked country is highly outdated as rather Afghanistan is, “a roundabout or a land bridge”.3 Despite
the security situation, strong investment continues to drive competition in Afghanistan particularly in the
private sector. In this regard, President Ghani highlighted that a private sector firm was in discussions with
Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, about a 1.7 billion dollars investment to try and transmit
between one to two thousand megawatts of power from Turkmenistan via Kandahar to Pakistan.4 Hence,
Afghanistan's potential is not just inflated jargon but rather the very real possibility of Afghanistan utilizing
its unique geography, vast natural resource reserves and historical trade routes to not only develop strong
trading partnerships and development projects within the region, but also propel its economy in the
process.

Afghanistan has massive potential in fostering economic prosperity through regional connectivity, trade
agreements and infrastructure development however a set of unique challenges stand in its way.

Regional Connectivity in the Past, Present and Possible Future

Afghanistan has exemplified its potential to become the promised regional roundabout through a wide
array of projects with a multitude of its neighbours. In 2011, the Heart of Asia process, also known as the
Istanbul Process (IP) was launched as a way to bring more coherence and streamlining the prospect of
regional connectivity and cooperation, particularly in Afghanistan.5 The IP was launched as a joint venture
between Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the UAE, and Uzbekistan, while USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy,
Egypt and Iraq took on the role of 'supporting nations.6

Although the Istanbul Process was primarily for enhancing regional security through strengthening of
existing regional mechanisms, the IP also looked to utilize confidence building measures(CBMs) for
stronger political and economic development. For example, the Indian-led CBM on trade, commerce and
investment opportunities was successful in lifting tariffs on exports from Afghanistan to India and
establish connections from Afghanistan’s Bamiyan Province through the Iranian port of Chabahar to
access Afghanistan’s largest known iron ore mine in Hajigak.7 Furthermore, the IP’s CBMs were also
successful in establishing transit agreements with Afghanistan’s neighbours such as the Afghanistan-
Pakistan, Afghanistan-Tajikistan and Afghanistan-Kazakjstan-Pakistan-Tajikistan transit trade agreements
and the CAREC Afghanistan-Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan customs and trade agreements which stimulated
regional trade.8 Even though the IP has had its shortcomings in achieving targeted goals, it highlighted
the prospect of strong regional cooperation and trade with Afghanistan with its regional neighbours.

Similarly, with the prospect of leaving Afghanistan looming in the back of their mind, the US launched the
“New Silk Road” project in 2011 as a way to look towards regional connectivity in South Asia.9 Even though
the effort largely failed to take off in any substantive way,10 it highlighted the US understanding that
regional connectivity of Afghanistan with Central and South Asia through development projects is the key
for Afghanistan to thrive in a post US-withdrawal setting.11

In 2016, a $1.16 billion power project called the Central Asia-South Asia Power Project, or CASA-1000, was
launched as a way to export surplus hydroelectricity from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and
Pakistan.12 Under the project, 1,300 MW of electricity would be transmitted, with Afghanistan receiving
300 MW of electricity and Pakistan 1000 MW of electricity.13 The project, which was initiated with
support from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, is expected to be completed in 2020 and
work on the Tajik section of the project has already begun.14 Today, the project has support and funding
from World Bank Group, Islamic Development Bank, US Agency for International Development (USAID),
US State Department, UK Department for International Development (DFID), Australian Agency for
International Development (AusAID), and other donor communities.15 The CASA-1000 project is expected
to increase Tajikistan’s annual income to over $ 150 million. However, more importantly, it will fuel
industries and development in Afghanistan by providing a much needed boost to the country’s energy
sector.16

In the same vein, on December 13, 2015, the TAPI gas pipeline project between Turkmenistan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India was launched.17 Through TAPI, 33 billion cubic meters of natural gas will
be transported from Galkynysh gas reserve of Turkmenistan annually via a 1,800 km route that passes
through Herat and Kandahar provinces in Afghanistan, Multan in Pakistan and ends at Fazilka in India.18
Despite suffering delays, work on the Afghanistan side officially began in February 2018 with President
Ghani calling the pipeline a "corridor of development".19 Work on the Pakistani side is expected to be
completed by 2022.20 Similar to CASA-1000, the TAPI pipeline is expected to bridge the energy shortfalls
of Afghanistan and help boost development and regional cooperation.

Along with power projects, Afghanistan has also been a part of many railway and infrastructure projects
in the last few years. On June 5, 2013, the construction of a tri-lateral railway agreement called
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Tajikistan (TAT) railway project was inaugurated. The 400-kilometer railroad is
expected to connect Panj in Tajikistan to Atamurat-Ymamnazar in Turkmenistan and finally connect to the
Afghan town of Akina-Andkhoy in Faryab province.21 The project aims to be a part of a broader regional
transportation initiative that will open a new transit corridor between Central Asia and world markets
through Indian Ocean ports.22 Similarly, in December 2014, a preliminary agreement for developing a
China–Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan–Afghanistan–Iran railway line was signed which would connect these
countries over a 2,100 km distance through a series of railways. In 2018, it was reported that the technical
and economic survey for the establishment of the multinational railway project was about 50%
complete.23 The railway will also provide Afghanistan with access to the Iranian ports of Chabahar and
Bandar Abbas, 24 thus stimulating trade and regional connectivity.

Despite Afghanistan’s growing security concerns and internal instability, China has also recognized
Afghanistan’s unique potential as a center for regional trade and has shown keen interest in extending
the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to Afghanistan, potentially by extending the BRI’s $64 billion China-Pak
Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan.25 Thus recognizing the possibilities and benefits arising out of
CPEC'S extension to Afghanistan. In December 2017, the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that
China was willing to extend CPEC to Afghanistan.....",26 and that "through Afghanistan, CPEC could be
connected with the China-Central and Western Asia Economic Corridor."27 Furthermore, more recently
in June 2019, President Xi reaffirmed China’s interest in playing an active role in bringing stability to
Afghanistan through the Belt and Road initiative which further shows China’s avid interest in being
economically involved in Afghanistan.28

Although there has been a distinct lack of effort on this front from Kabul, it is clear that China realizes
Afghanistan’s potential and is very interested in investing in the country's future economic integration.
Similarly, sitting at the heart of the new silk road, Afghanistan provides Beijing with the most economic
route to Central Asia. Realizing this potential, in 2018, Beijing and Kabul agreed to construct a new silk
route that would connect both countries via Wakhan - Afghanistan's north-eastern border with China.29
This route could easily become a part of a CPEC extension to Afghanistan. Moreover, in 2018, Chinese
firms also made deals with Afghanistan to mine the MesAynak copper fields in the Logar province of
Afghanistan. Chinese estimates indicate that the fields contain some 450 million metric tonnes of ore
worth at least US$50 billion which could prove to be a major boost for the extraction industry in
Afghanistan.30

Challenges

Whether it is TAPI, CASA, TAT or CPEC's extension, Afghanistan has great potential to become a regional
roundabout that connects Central and South Asia with massive benefits to its own development.
However, a full realization of Afghanistan’s budding economic capability, remains hostage to
Afghanistan’s internal weaknesses i.e poor economic and security situation, weak governance, corruption,
political uncertainty and a durable peace solution.

In 2017, the World Bank reported that through proper resource management in mining and agriculture,
Afghanistan’s economy could grow by 6.5% per year between 2017 and 2030. This was a highly hopeful
figure as according to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL), 80% of
Afghans were directly or indirectly involved with livestock and agriculture.31 However, this hope was
short-lived as a World Bank report of July 2019 highlighted that the Afghan economy only grew by
around 2% in 2018, in stark contrast to the hopeful 6.5%. Moreover, the report indicated that the slow
growth rate was not necessarily due to poor government policies, but rather the result of “negative
shocks” that have come as a result of “challenges of insecurity, election-related political uncertainty,
potential declines in international security support, in addition to the drought in 2018.”32 This exemplifies
the cost of insecurity and uncertainty for Afghanistan due to its ongoing conflict in hard numbers, and the
urgent need for a political settlement. Unless the situation improves, security and political uncertainty in
Afghanistan will continue to undermine the future progress of the country, as well as projects like CASA
and TAPI.

Furthermore, Afghanistan needs to curb internal corruption and mismanagement of its natural resources
which often allows militants to illegally exploit Afghan natural resources for their own funding.33 The
Afghan Taliban and terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP) have been
carrying out illegal extraction of minerals such as Talc, chromite, as well as lucrative gemstones,
particularly marble and lapis lazuli at massive expenses to the Afghan government.34 Recently, in July
2019, another Lapis Lazuli mine in KeranWaManjan district in Badakhshan, fell to the Taliban. 35 The loss
of this mine was not only a direct loss to the Afghan government’s mineral resources, but also fueled
further insecurity in the region.36

In an effort for establishing peace, numerous attempts have been made to establish meaningful dialogue
with the Taliban. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, most of them have failed to deliver in what is
now a history of failed dialogues and missed opportunities. Although the year 2018 and onwards has
proved to be the most promising in terms of forward movement on the matter, as a number of
unprecedented developments that showcase exceptional progress towards the Afghan peace process
have taken place, the road to sustained Afghan economic prosperity is contingent upon a durable peace
solution.

Hence, despite the challenges, Afghanistan should not simply wait around for a sustainable peace solution
before developing Afghanistan’s economy through regional connectivity and trade. Even though the
security situation remains to be a major spoiler in Afghanistan’s economic prosperity, many
developmental projects, as described above, have not only been initiated, but have also thrived in some
respect. Furthermore, the Taliban have also highlighted their support for development projects. In
December 2016, the Taliban said that they are “committed to safeguarding” national infrastructure
projects such as CASA and TAPI.37 When the Afghan government questioned the Taliban’s motive as
lacking action, Qari Mohammad Yusuf Ahmadi, a purported Taliban spokesperson, in an emailed
statement regarding TAPI said that the Taliban ensure, “cooperation in providing security for the project
in areas under our control” as they believe the project is, “an important element of the country’s economic
infrastructure.”38

Moreover, the Taliban have also shown inclination to welcome future development projects from foreign
countries as well, especially China. Since 2014, China has moved away from its limited role in Afghanistan,
to a more proactive one by not only supporting the Afghan government, but also facilitating the Afghan
peace process. The Taliban have recognized this shift and have indicated their support for Beijing's
inclusion in the peace process by suggesting that they would be open to China playing the role of a
guarantor if a peace deal is reached with the US.39 If the Taliban are inviting China to be so closely involved
in the critical peace process, it stands to reason that they would also be open to Chinese investment and
development projects in Afghanistan such as a possible CPEC extension. Such a possibility would greatly
increase the investment potential in Afghanistan from China as one of Beijing’s main concerns regarding
investment in Afghanistan is the volatile security situation.
Analyzing the above, it is fair to reason that despite years of isolation and uncertainty surrounding
Afghanistan's future, the country has massive potential. The need of the hour is to seize the moment and
invest in Afghanistan’s future by not only fostering security in the region, but also economic development.
The time has come to recognize Afghanistan for what it is - a regional roundabout.

POTENTIAL ENERGY SUPPLY FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO

PAKISTAN: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Pakistan's relations with Central Asian states are based on centuries old historic, religious, political,
cultural, and commercial ties. Lately, Pakistan has expanded its relations with Central Asia through
some very proactive economic initiatives aimed at fulfilling its energy needs. These bilateral initiatives
include: the Central Asia and South Asia-1000 (CASA-1000), and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-
India (TAPI). Development work on these projects is still in progress.

CASA 1000: Recent Developments

The Central Asia and South Asia-1000 (CASA-1000) project was inaugurated in May 2016 to transmit 1,000
MW of electricity to Pakistan via Afghanistan, providing 300 MW to Afghanistan in the process. The
approximate cost of the project is USD 1.2 billion and it is expected to be completed by June 2020. CASA-
1000 is in full swing and will be ready to transmit surplus hydroelectricity from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Central Development Working Party (CDWP) at the Ministry of Planning,
Development and Reform in Pakistan in its meeting held on 25th July 2019 in Islamabad, gave approval of
the 500 KV HVDC transmission system between Tajikistan and Pakistan for Central Asia-South Asia
Transmission Interconnection (CASA-1000).

Afghanistan has assured security for the CASA-1000 transmission line within its borders, and the project
will be ready to supply power to Afghanistan and Pakistan within the next two years.2 According to a Tajik
official, the Taliban have assured that they will not damage the CASA-1000 transmission line.3 The Tajik
official also said that Tajikistan has proposed to expand public-private partnership to open new
opportunities to attract additional investments in the water sector and infrastructure.

TAPI: Recent Developments

The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) was inaugurated on February 23, 2018, and earlier
this year the pipeline was laid down between Turkmenistan and Afghanistan.4 The 1,814km pipeline will
transport natural gas from Turkmenistan's Galkynysh gas field, which is one of the world’s largest fields,
to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The pipeline is expected to start pumping 33 billion cubic metres (bcm)
of natural gas after its completion in 2022.5

However, progress on the TAPI project is directly linked to peace in Afghanistan. It is heartening to know
that more than 1,600 people have been working on the project in Afghanistan and the bulk of work has
been done, including the survey which is near completion, and which was carried out without any
incidents.6 This is a positive indication of future success of the project. Once the pipeline has been laid
out, however, ensuring the security of the completed project will also become very important.
Mr. Amanov, Chief Executive officer of TAPI gas pipeline while addressing a seminar on December 6, 2018
at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad regarding the developments, said that the TAPI pipeline is
an essential energy project that is also vital for regional development and connectivity.7

The project will be implemented in two phases. During the first phase, the pipeline will be constructed,
and the second phase includes construction of 6 compressors. Mr. Amanov explained the precise route of
the pipeline and the timeline of the project as well, highlighting that the agreements between states have
already been signed and survey works in Turkmenistan and Afghanistan have been completed, while in
Pakistan, they survey in the final stages.

Turkmengaz being the consortium leader for TAPI project is to contribute up to 85 per cent of equity, and
the rest of TAPI members namely Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would make 5 per cent each equity
share in the project company. From the Galkynysh and adjacent gas fields in Turkmenistan, the gas will
be imported to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

According to Mr. Amanov, the Government of Turkmenistan would provide a sovereign guarantee for one
hundred per cent of the debt, and that the Asian Development Bank and Islamic Corporation for the
Insurance of Investment and the Export Credit (ICIEC) had also confirmed their interest in lending up to
USD 500m and USD 300m respectively for the project which would play an instrumental role in the
industrialization of the region. He said that the project was gaining interest from all quarters and in this
regard, Euler Hermès, SACE, and Turk EXIM have submitted letters of support for German, Italian and
Turkish bidders for the project, thus widening its scope. He said that phase one of the project would be
achieved by using long-term debt sourced from a mixture of multilateral development agencies, export
credit agencies and commercial banks.8

Despite Turkmenistan’s huge gas reserves, the sixth largest in the world, it only has access to the Russian,
Iranian, and Chinese markets. Neighbouring gas scarce countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and India
would therefore be huge profitable markets. Afghanistan needs a secure energy source to increase both
its capacity to generate electricity and the current electrification rate from 20 per cent to 33 per cent.

TAPI is a mutually beneficial long-term solution for regional cooperation, specifically between Pakistan,
India and Afghanistan. Increased economic interdependency can lead to curtailing the hostility between
these three countries. Indian involvement in Balochistan can also be reduced in case Pakistan and India
find it convenient and are comfortable in working together on TAPI.

For all practical purposes, the project is a politically complex one, requiring cooperating governments. It
is logistically challenging, as the pipeline would pass through areas of Afghanistan plagued by various
Taliban off shoots, Daesh, as well as separatist insurgents. Baluchistan could be of some concern for the
company because of law and order situation in that province. Afghanistan had already agreed in 2015 to
raise a 7,000-member security force to guard the TAPI gas pipeline project and the Afghan Mines and
Petroleum Minister Daud Shah Saba had told the country's upper House of Parliament that the force will
provide security during the implementation of the project and demining the route of the pipeline.9
Perhaps it is also time for Pakistan and India to identify and put in place their proposals for the safety
and security of this pipeline. TAPI gas pipeline will be a great step towards regional integration and
economic development of developing countries. On an optimistic note, the pipeline can play an
important role to mitigate the hostilities between India and Pakistan, and help secure a peaceful South
Asia.
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
The writer delivered a talk on China-Pakistan Energy Corridor and its ramifications at
Thinkers Forum Pakistan on May 31, 2015, chaired by Air Chief Marshal (retd) Kaleem
Saadat and attended by Lt Gen (retd) Lodhi, and members both from civil and military.
After the talk, there was long question/answer session followed by summing up by the
Chairman. Details of presentation are covered in succeeding paragraphs:

1-CPEC:

Establishment of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was first proposed by Chinese

Premier Li Keqiang during his visit to Pakistan in May 2013. The proposed project of linking
Kashgar in northwest China with Gwadar Port on Arabian Sea coastline in Baluchistan was
approved on July 5, 2013 during the visit of PM Nawaz Sharif to Beijing, which included
construction of 200 km long tunnel.

2-China’s Investments:

In December 2013, China committed $6.5 billion for the construction of a major nuclear
power project in Karachi. In May 2014, another agreement was signed to supplement
Orange Line metro train project in Lahore worth $1.27 billion. In November 2014, the two
countries signed 19 agreements related to CPEC. In addition, Chinese firms started work on
six mega power projects in Gilgit-Baltistan such as Dassu, Phandar, Bashu, Harpo, Yalbo to
tackle Pakistan’s energy crisis.

3- Quest for Warm Waters:

Mindful of the under development of its western provinces which are its soft belly and
ongoing Uighur movement, China wants speedy modernisation of Xingjiang and other under
developed provinces to bring them at par with eastern provinces. For the accomplishment of
these dreams, China needs access to warm waters in Arabian Sea through Gwadar since
this route to world markets is the shortest and the cheapest. This access was never granted
to Russia.

4- Visit of President Xi Jinping:

With this objective in view, President Xi Jinping visited Islamabad on April 20-21, 2015 and
raised the level of investment from $ 26 billion to $ 46 Billion. He signed 51
agreements/MoUs worth $28 billion, with $17 billion in pipeline spread over 15 years. His
visit achieved the milestone of the groundbreaking of historic 3,000 km-long strategic CPEC.

5- Projects in Hand:

It includes $ 33 billion worth energy projects such as coal, solar, hydroelectric power
projects which will inject 10,400 MW electricity in the national grid by 2017/18, and hydro
power projects. Other projects are fibre optic cable from Xingjiang to Rawalpindi, 1240 km
long Karachi-Lahore motorway, metro and bus service in six major cities, up gradation of
1300 km long Karakorum Highway, oil/gas pipelines to connect Kashgar to the seaport of
Gwadar, 1,800-km railway line, commercial sea-lanes, special economic zones, dry ports
and other infrastructure.

6- Routes:

Three routes have been marked:-

I- Western route originating from Gwadar will pass through Turbat, Panjgur, Naag, Basima,
Sohrab, Kalat, Quetta, Qila Saifullah, Zhob DIK, Mianwali, Hasanabdal, Isbd.

II- Central route will originate from Gwadar, Quetta, and reach DIK via Basima, Khuzdar,
Sukkar, Rajanpur, Liya, Muzaffargarh, Bhakkar, DIK.

III-Eastern route will include Gwadar, Basima, Khuzdar, Sukkar, RYK, Bwp, Multan,
Lahore/Fsbd, Isbd, Mansehra.

7- Importance of Gwadar:

Gwadar is one of the least developed districts in Baluchistan province. It sits strategically
near the Persian Gulf and close to the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 per cent of the
world’s oil passes. Work on Gwadar deep-seaport had started in 2002 with China’s
investment. In 2013, management of the seaport which was in the sloppy hands of
Singapore PSA International was handed over to China’s Port Holdings. It is planned to
develop Gwadar into free trade zone with a modern airport on the model of Singapore or
Hong Kong and a gateway to CPEC. It will be largest, deep seaport, overshadowing
Chahbahar and Dubai seaports.

8- Views of Analysts:

Some analysts perceive Gwadar seaport turning into China’s naval base in the Indian
Ocean, enabling Beijing to monitor Indian and American naval activities and thus frustrating
their ambition to convert the ocean into exclusive Indian lake. Modernization of Pak Navy by
China is seen as a step in that direction.

Analysts say the projects conceived under CPEC will ease Pakistan’s energy shortages and
make a substantial difference in the long term.

Some experts opine this initiative can bring greater cohesion in South Asia, one of the
world’s least economically integrated regions. It is also feared that clashing geo-economic
interests may lead to unhealthy competition.

9- Gains for China:

While the CPEC may be ‘monumental’ for Pakistan, for China it is part of more ambitious
plans to beef up the country’s global economic muscle. Chinese officials describe the
corridor as the “flagship project” of a broader policy — “One Belt, One Road” — which seeks
to physically connect China to its markets in Asia, Africa, Europe and beyond. The New Silk
Road will link China with Europe through Central Asia and the Maritime Silk Road to ensure
a safe passage of China’s shipping through the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea.
CPEC will link China with nearly half of the population of the world.
Access to Indian Ocean via Gwadar will enable China’s naval warships and merchant ships
to bypass Malacca Strait and overcome its “Malacca Dilemma”.
Development of Gwadar seaport and improvement of the infrastructure in the hinterland
would help China sustain its permanent naval presence in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian
Sea.

At the same time, the new silk roads are bound to intensify ongoing competition between
India and China –and to a lesser extent between China and the US – to invest in and
cultivate influence in the broader Central Asian region.

10- Indian Concerns:

Modi is at the horns of dilemma; whether to bow to RSS agenda of Hindutva and remain
captive to entrenched interest groups and lobbies in India with hardened mindset who are
doggedly resisting any paradigm shift in relations with rising China and cling to the myth of
Mahabharat. The dice of connectivity loaded by China has left India confused and
bewildered, whether to remain tied to the aprons of declining super power which is not in a
position to make big investments, or to hitch the bandwagon of ascending power which
promises a lot.

Modi’s position will become more vulnerable when Pakistan starts politically stabilizing and
economically shining and Lahore turning into a regional capital and he unable to fulfill the
development agenda.

India is also concerned about China’s huge investment in Pakistan, particularly its recent
decision to fund a new batch of nuclear reactors. Pakistan plans to add four new nuclear
plants by 2023, funded by China, with four more reactors in the pipeline (adding up to a
total power capacity of 7,930 MW by 2030). China is helping Pakistan in producing
plutonium at Chinese built Khushab reactor and will also sell 8 submarines worth $5 billion,
which will give a quantum jump to Pak Navy’s sea capability.

Possibility of India making another somersault after finding the dicey US Asia-Pacific pivot
less attractive and China’s policy of peace and friendship more beneficial cannot be ruled
out. However, this strategic shift will take place only when China agrees to give preference
to India over Pakistan (as had happened in 1990 when the US ditched Pakistan and
befriended India).

11- Pakistan’s Efforts:

Pakistan has remained under a dark star for a long period. It has bravely sailed past the
period of trials and tribulations but at a very heavy cost. Pakistan has acted as the frontline
state against the Soviets and against global terrorism and suffered enormously, but in the
process it allowed China 35 free years to develop and prosper unobtrusively.

12- Changing Geo-Political Environment:

Geo-political scenario is fast changing and things are brightening up for Pakistan after its
long rocky journey. China has entered into a new era of geo-economic relationship with
Pakistan and plan to boost two-way trade from current $12 billion to $20 billion. Pak-Afghan
relations have dramatically improved. ISI and NDS have inked intelligence sharing
agreement. Afghanistan and China no more listen to India’s song of terrorism emanating
out of Pakistan.

Pakistan wisely deciding not to take part in Yemen war has helped in improving Pak-Iran
relations. Possibility of revival of IPL project and its extension up to China has brightened up
after gradual lifting of US sanctions on Iran. Russia is warming up to Pakistan and
establishing military ties with it. China and Russia are strategic partners and boosting their
respective strategic ties with Iran. Pakistan is likely to be inducted as member of the SCO
and possibly member of BRICS.

Internally, Pakistan economic indicators and GDP are improving; foreign exchange reserves
are rising and inflation is down. Railway has gone in profit for first time. Energy crisis is
being tackled earnestly. The leaders and the led are on one page to deal with scourge of
terrorism on war footing. The world is fast changing its negative opinion about Pakistan and
it is now being looked at with respect. Pakistan flags are being routinely hoisted in occupied
Kashmir; IDPs are returning to South and North Waziristan, and so are Afghan refugees.

China has risked investing so much of amount in Pakistan since it is convinced of the
genuineness of the Pakistani claim of a paradigm shift in its approach to terrorist groups.
This change has come as a consequence to across the board Operation Zarb-e-Azb in FATA
and spectacular successes achieved against terrorists of all hues including the Uyghur.

The Silk Road Economic Belt will not only connect and develop China and Pakistan but also
the regional countries for the first time and promote peace. This phenomenon will be
against India’s aggressive chemistry.

13- Pakistan’s Expected Gains:

a. CPEC has opened vista of great opportunities for Pakistan and will greatly help in
overcoming poverty, unemployment, inequities of smaller provinces and help Pakistan in
becoming the next Asian tiger.

b. CPEC from all counts will prove a game changer and will make China a real stakeholder in
Pakistan’s stability and security. It is a win-win situation for both. It will greatly expand the
scope for the sustainable and stable development of China’s economic development.

c. Investments by China will boost Pakistan’s $274 billion GDP by over 15 %.

d. Corresponding progress and prosperity in Pakistan and China’s patronage will help
Pakistan in getting rid of the decade old labels of ‘epicentre of terrorism’, ‘most dangerous
country’ and a ‘failing state’.

e. Given the solid foundations of friendship at the people-to-people level between China and
Pakistan, Chinese influence in Pakistan is destined to endure the test of time.

f. Pakistan seems to have found a saviour in China, which has promised to stand by the
country in its dark hour. Once Pak-China connectivity strike roots, Pakistan’s geo-strategic
security interests whenever threatened will be guarded by China.

g. China’s investment surpasses all foreign investments in Pakistan in the past. Win-win
cooperation is based on trust, confidence and convergence of interests. The Chinese
influence in Pakistan has touched an unprecedented high level and it has surpassed the US
which has remained the most preferred ally since 1954.

h. The US which has repeatedly betrayed Pakistan and is widely disliked by the public will
have to negotiate with Pakistan harder than ever from now onward. The elites under the
magic spell of the US are also inclined to change their western oriented mindset and change
their orientation.

j. Pakistan enjoys a more favorable fiscal budget situation compared to India by reducing its
budget deficit to 4.7% of GDP in 2014 (as against India’s 7%) and Pakistan is much cheaper
as an emerging market.

k. China’s economic and military assistance will help Pakistan a great deal in narrowing its
ever widening gap in economic-military-nuclear fields with India and in bettering its defence
potential.

l. Keeping strategic parity with India has now become an achievable goal for Pakistan.

m. Revival of economy in the coming period is bound to make Pakistan an attractive

destination for foreign investors and will greatly help in removing socio-economic inequities
of smaller provinces and in squeezing the space for anti-Pakistan elements.

n. The success of the Sino-Pak partnership is critically linked to the success of stabilization
of the Afghan situation. China and Pakistan have a shared interest in the stabilization of
Afghanistan, because the main threat to the realization of the “Belt and Road” projects in
Pakistan come from the terrorist groups operating out of the Af-Pak region.

o. Pakistan is far more comfortable with China as a facilitator of the Afghan peace talks than
it is with the US, whose intentions are highly suspect.

p. China’s investment in Pakistan has conveyed a big message to the other South Asian
countries such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal to hurry and climb on board the Chinese
“Belt and Road Initiative” to derive growth benefits.

q. Pakistan’s gravitation in the direction of China and Russia at this juncture underscores a
strategic realignment in the making.

r. China is uniquely placed to pull the key regional states – Russia, Iran, Central Asian
states to its side.

14- Efforts to Scuttle CPEC: (Internal & External Challenges)

Strategic economic moment for Pakistan has arrived and interesting part is that Pakistan
has assumed the position of economic pivot for the whole region. This paradigm shift in
circumstances is a cause of great worry for the enemies of Pakistan both within and outside.
India, Iran, UAE, Gulf States, Israel, US are unhappy. For India, CPEC is a thorn in its paw
They have put their heads together to work out new strategies how to block the forward
march. RAW has opened a special office in Delhi and has been allotted $300 million to
disrupt CPEC. Already one can notice sudden upsurge in acts of terror in the three restive
regions and activation of certain NGOs and think tanks all trying to air misgivings and create
fear psychosis.

ANP, Baloch nationalists, PkMAP raised serious objections on the routes of CPEC and alleged
these have been changed. Even PTI and JUI-F showed inclinations to climb the bandwagon
of anti-CPEC forces. Objections were being raised despite assurances by the government
that no change has been made.

15- Controversies Raised in CPEC:

Eastern route benefits Punjab and Sindh and bypasses major portion of Baluchistan and KP.

In their view, western route is original route, conceived in 2006 and is shortest.

CPEC not transparent and kept under wraps.

Three-route theory is a cover story to hide change of route.

Eastern route is six-lane motorway.

Western route is 1-2 lane roads.

Orange Line Train project is from CPEC allocations.

Special Economic Zones are inequitably distributed.

Eastern route is unsafe being close to Indian border.

16- Government’s Stance:

No original route in existence before 2013.

CPEC project director Maj Gen Zahir Shah stated that no document is in existence showing
original route; hence changing of original route doesn't arise.

Western route will be developed as motorway by extending Kashgar-Karakorum Highway.

Work on three routes has started simultaneously.

15 year project has short/mid/long term projects.

Government and China wished to first develop eastern route due to factors of security,
better infrastructure and early completion.

Western route will be a long term project since it is uninhabited, insecure, time consuming.
Provincial capitals will be nodes of CPEC.

Orange Line project is Punjab project funded by Punjab govt.

Proposed 16 industrial zones not yet finalised.

Development of backward provinces is high priority of govt.

Power projects are more in KP, followed by Sindh, Punjab and Baluchistan respectively.

17- Ramifications: Way Forward

Political consensus, security and law and order are pre-requisites for early completion of
CPEC

China has other options to exercise if Pakistan fails to deliver.

Pakistan cannot afford to lose this golden opportunity.

Successive govts will have to remain focused and committed to completion of projects in
hand.

Provinces should focus on industrial parks, energy projects instead of routes.

Trade routes are not developed on basis of ethnicity but on basis of convenience and
requirements.

There is skepticism that administrative, technical and operational capacity of workforce and
staff of Pakistan employed in CPEC may not match the Chinese efficiency/commitment, and
also fail to absorb huge investment productively.

18- Actions in hand:

Operations in restive areas have been geared up.

Agenda of NAP has been expedited, although not satisfactorily.

10,000 strong Special Security Division has been created to provide foolproof security.

APC was held on May 13 to remove misgivings on CPEC. Another meeting was held on May
28 and in this consensus was achieved after PM agreed to develop western route first.

Special Parliamentary Committee has been formed to address complaints.

Working groups will be formed in July and economic zones decided in consultation with
provinces.

No funds will be transferred from CPEC allocations for Orange Line project. China will
however gift additional funds to complete this project in two years.
19- Conclusion:

The CPEC connected to Gwadar has the potential to radically alter the regional dynamics of
trade, development and politics. CPEC is a game changer for the entire region. It will uplift
the lives of about 3 billion people across China, Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle
East.

What Are the Long-Term Costs of the China-US Trade War?

Dark times loom for the US economy in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s latest threat on August
1 to levy 10% tariffs on some $300 billion of imports from China. In response, China allowed the yuan to
weaken against the dollar and thereby cushion the impact for Chinese exporters. In a tweet, Trump
accused China of “currency manipulation” and called upon on the Federal Reserve to respond.

The yuan-dollar rate of 7-to-1 was at its lowest since 2008. “[The] trade war has now become a currency
war, which raises the potential economic harm to another level,” The Wall Street Journal noted in an
editorial. On August 5, the Dow Jones and the S&P indices fell 3% and stock markets and currencies in
emerging markets weakened, and an economic downturn seemed closer than before. The spread
between the 3-month and 10-year Treasury yields — an indicator of recessions — inverted to its widest
level since 2007.

On August 1, Trump said the US would impose 10% tariffs on $300 billion worth of imports from China
effective September 1, amid signs that talks between the two countries over the past year or so were
yielding little progress. That tariff move would be in addition to the higher tariffs already in place for $250
billion worth of imports from China, thereby covering all US imports from that country.
Trump reportedly overruled resistance from within his administration in announcing the latest tariff
move.

Worries are over the larger and longer-term implications of China allowing the renminbi (RMB) to drop
below “the psychological barrier” of 7 to a dollar, said Marshall W. Meyer, Wharton emeritus professor
of management. “People are wondering whether China will repeat what it did in 1993-1994 when it
devalued the RMB sharply to turn around a recession, and the knock-on effect perhaps was the Asian
financial crisis.” Back then, China devalued the yuan by 33% overnight to 8.7 to the dollar as it unified its
dual exchange rates, hoping it would help its state-owned enterprises embrace a market-based economy.

Embed from Getty Images

The Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), which analyzes the longer-term implications of policy moves,
has identified two primary effects of the trade war with China. One is lower output for the US economy,
and the other is a shift toward households in the financing of US debt, said Efraim Berkovich, director of
computational dynamics at PWBM.

As the escalation in the trade war reduces foreign capital inflows into the US, it would provide a short-
term boost to GDP as domestic households would pick up the slack and provide more labor, but GDP will
fall the long-run, Berkovich said in an article with Zheli He, an economist at PWBM.
US companies will also see their global competitiveness eroding with the tariff war. “The rest of the world
will continue to enjoy lower-priced inputs, and our companies are going to have to compete with them,”
said Mary E. Lovely, professor of economics at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and
Public Affairs; she is also a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Affairs. “That really ties
one of their hands behind their back. This is doing permanent damage to the US economy.

“It’s [all] pain, no gain,” said Lovely. “For example, we went into this [trade war] ostensibly to get some
relief for American corporations in terms of intellectual property rights protection. China hasn’t changed
on that yet. What about disciplining their state-owned enterprises? We’re zero on that one.”

Meyer, Berkovich and Lovely discussed the longer-term implications of the trade war with China on
the Knowledge@Wharton radio show on SiriusXM.

Impact on Electronics, Farm Produce

The threatened tariff increases “will fall much more heavily than in previous rounds on consumer goods,
clothes, shoes and baby products,” said Lovely. “Almost half of it will fall on computers and electronic
devices, because of the way our trade with China is structured.”

Lovely predicted “a big hit” to prices of cell phones, laptops and anything electronic, affecting businesses,
households and universities. The consequences could be worse if Trump persists and takes the next round
of tariffs from the proposed 10% to 25%, she added.

China has also suspended purchases of US agricultural products, and an official statement through its
state-run media outlet Xinhua said it is up to the US to set right trade conditions. “We stand to lose all of
what was a $9.1 billion market in 2018, which was down sharply from the $19.5 billion U.S. farmers
exported to China in 2017,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall.

“The consequence is the entire economic system becomes less efficient; that is the long-term cost to all
of us,” said Meyer.

US Debt Will Grow

Of the two likely outcomes of the tariff war Berkovich identified, the implications for the financing of the
US debt is more significant in the long run. Thus far, trade with China has helped finance US debt, and a
reduction in the volume of that trade means others have to pick up the tab. “When we shut down the
trade channel by which dollars are sent out to broaden and come back as purchases of assets, we are
actually forcing the debt in the US to grow,” he said. “We’re forcing US households to buy the debt, and
that’s going to long term drive the economy down.”

According to Berkovich, “Right now, 40 cents out of every new dollar that’s issued is purchased by
foreigners. That is quite substantial, and you’re being subsidized to that level now. Otherwise, you and I
would have to buy it.” As the trade war escalates, “the Chinese are going to hoard their dollars,” he added.

Foreign Capital Inflows Will Fall

A decrease in US imports resulting from higher tariffs reduces foreign investment flows into the US,
Berkovich said, attributing that to a phenomenon he called “effective openness.” “As the average tariff
rates rises, the openness goes down,” he noted. “And that means less capital flowing in, and less
purchases of US debt by foreigners.”
Berkovich explained that when US households pay for imports with dollars, foreign exporters typically use
that to buy US exports or dollar-denominated assets. But “effective openness” of the US to such foreign
investments is reduced because they would tend to invest in their home countries, even at the expense
of forgoing higher returns elsewhere. He called that a “home bias,” a concept identified by Martin
Feldstein and Charles Horioka in 1979 paper.

Embed from Getty Images

“Even a country with relatively few laws that directly limit the flow of capital may not be fully effectively
open due to various non-legal frictions on capital flows, including a preference to invest in one’s own
country,” Berkovich and He wrote in their article.

The reduced foreign investment will also hurt the U.S. labor market, Berkovich warned. “You are going to
see that wages are going to drop. With purchasing power and wages lower, we’re not in a good place.”

Even if the trade war ends, the U.S. will be in a worse place than now, Berkovich predicted. “When foreign
capital actually starts flooding back in, we will be in a situation where foreigners own a greater share of
U.S. capital than they did prior to the trade war.”

Berkovich and He elaborated on that in a blog post. “Although a trade war initially lowers the share of U.S.
capital owned by foreigners, it will actually increase the amount of American business capital owned by
foreigners, by almost $1 trillion by 2028,” they wrote. “Over time, the foreign-owned share of business
capital rises from about 29% today to over 34% in 2049.”

Brace for Permanently Higher Costs

The US tariff move would also upset existing global supply chains by forcing both countries to look for
alternative sources for their imports. While the US may not be selling soybeans to China now, Brazil and
Canada will continue to export agricultural products to China, Meyer said. “But guess what? We may be
selling soybeans to Brazil or to Canada. Our farmers are getting a lower price for it. The middlemen are
extracting a tax, to work around the tariffs.”

Lovely warned that an escalating trade war with China will mean US households must brace for higher
prices that won’t come down. “We’re going to see permanently higher prices because the system as a
whole will be less efficient,” she said. “President Trump’s actions are cementing firms’ view that this is
going to go on for a long time.”

Already, US importers are moving away from sourcing from China and increasing their investments in
other countries, Lovely noted. “But the fact is, that other place is a higher cost option, and [that’s] the
reason we weren’t using it in the first place,” she pointed out. “And that becomes a permanent tax on US
firms and US consumers, reducing the consumer’s buying power and reducing American firms
competitiveness on the global market.”

In addition to a readjustment in global supply chains, the trade war would drive US importers to prepare
by stockpiling, said Berkovich. “The natural thing for you to do if you think that the economy is going down
the toilet is that you want to prepare,” he said. “It’s like a squirrel before winter hoarding the nuts. The
longer you drag out the trade war, the more nuts you start to hoard.”

Finding a Way Out

Politics is behind the tariffs, and the two countries are on “a collision course” on that front, Meyer noted.
Within the US, there appears to be bipartisan consensus on a tough approach to China. However, the US
seems to be playing right into the hands of Chinese President Xi Jinping with its tariff moves, he said. “Xi
Jinping has effectively had his position bolstered by what appears to be peremptory US action on tariffs.”

At the same time, the US is trying to find a better foothold in Asia and in Europe, where it may have
antagonized some of its allies not just with the China tariffs, but also by “repudiating” some of its
multilateral agreements, Meyer continued. In the process, the US seems to have lost more ground than
has gained, and needs to “rethink this very, very carefully.”

As the US seems set to end up losing more than it set out to gain from the trade war, it needs to urgently
do some course correction, according to Meyer. “We are on the horns of a terrific dilemma here,” he said.
“Unless the US takes some action at this point,” China will extend its economy to the Belt and Road
Initiative and other initiatives such as its Made in China 2025 program, which will further reduce US
influence in world trade, he added. “The consequence is the entire economic system becomes less
efficient; that is the long-term cost to all of us,” said Meyer.

Faced with those headwinds, the US has to focus on what it wants to achieve in the long run, Meyer said.
“What is our vision of the future? What’s the role of the US economy in the global economy 10, 15 or 20
years from now? Until we have answers, we’re stuck with tariffs or other defensive moves.”

Implications of US-China trade war for Pakistan

It is said that whether elephants love or hate, the grass underneath their feet gets crushed. Same is the
case with Pakistan. The US and China are on the verge of sparking a trade war after both slapped tariffs
on each other on key imports. This is serious not just for the US and China, but for the entire global
economy in particular and Pakistan, in general. The debate between protectionism and liberalization has
ensued once again. But amid the gloom surrounding the globe with respect to protectionism there is a
force in the works that could deliver a strong impetus to trade liberalization through creation of new mega
trade blocks like BRICS, BEAMS, RCEP etc.

The basic premise behind the recent US-China spat is abolition of “unfair and inequitable practices”. While
each country is free to safeguard its own interests, China seems to be leading the way as most US
companies have moved their production to China. In this way, US-China trade relationship is very
complex. By 2016, China has become US top trading partner with a total trade volume of USD 528 billion
(USD 105 billion exports, USD 423 billion imports). The US industries most at risk in a trade war with China
are transportation equipment, computers and electronics, agriculture products, chemicals and machinery.

While the ramifications of US-China ‘trade war’ will take at least a year’s time to take effect, the immediate
impact would be a severe risk of disruption of component supply lines with knock-on effects on
manufacturing, output, costs and employment. Manufacturers in producing countries lose output, profits
and jobs. Ancillary traders and services like shippers, financiers, insurers and importers lose turnover.
Consumers in importing countries face reduced availability of goods, and higher prices. Governments
suffer loss of revenue because of reduced trade volumes.

In the short to medium term, the US is determined to persist in the rebalancing of international trade in
its favor to please its electorate. On the other hand, China is using BRICS plus grouping as a reserve option
to pursue a more diversified global approach.

Implications for Pakistan

The prices of steel and aluminum are likely to be increased which will subsequently raise the cost of
construction. In Pakistan, construction, infrastructure projects and the housing sector are the key drivers
for consumption of steel. Any adverse developments on the CPEC front, delay in infrastructure projects
(particularly hydropower projects) and significant increase in input prices may pose risk to future
profitability growth of the sector. This does not bid well for the present government which plans to
provide 5 million housing units for the poor in the next five years. The prices of solar panels, washing
machines and other appliances are also likely to go up.

What Pakistan needs now is to come up with slogans like ‘America First’ or ‘Make in India’. For example,
Pakistan boasts of 150 million plus smartphones users out of a total population of 208 million. Considering
the potential, companies like Vodafone or Nokia could be invited for investment in Pakistan but for that
to happen, business environment needs to be made conducive. Recent cancellation of Edotco-Jazz deal
amounting USD 940 million is a major setback in this regard. The need of the hour is to identify various
avenues of investment and market them through roadshows to international investors in the form of
‘packaged deals’.

Pakistan, Russia in new phase of closeness

Islamabad is set to purchase Pantsir surface-to-air missile system and T-90 tanks from Moscow. The cold
war is long over now and Pakistan and Russia are moving closer to each other in various fields including
diplomatic, defence and trade.

For most of the cold war, the Soviet Union’s relations with Pakistan had seen ups and downs. Most of the
50s, 60s and 70s were spent in the cold war when India was close to the Soviet Union and Pakistan was
close to the United States. Now things have changed. India is also friendly with the United States and
Pakistan is also friendly with the US. So Pakistan no longer has the cold war situation.

The worst period in their relationship started soon after the cold war became more intense in South Asia
and Afghanistan became a battleground for proxy wars between the then Soviet Union and the US.
However, since the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the changing dynamics in the region, Pakistan
and Russia have been trying to open a new chapter in their bilateral relations. In the recent past, both the
countries have re-evaluated their bilateral relations in the light of the changing geopolitical realities.

As no longer the situation of cold war exists, Pakistan first hoped that tension with India will decrease and
that the country will not have to buy arms as the Pakistani government wants to spend money on human
development. But Pakistan is looking for arms from Russia and the military is already in touch with the
Russian military.
In a recent interview to Russian news agency Sputnik, Prime Minister Imran Khan has said that his
government had been mulling to purchase arms from Moscow, given the fact that the cold war was long
over. Asked about military cooperation between Pakistan and Russia and joint drills, he hoped to deepen
their contacts.

Islamabad and Moscow have taken multiple steps to strengthen the bilateral relations lately. They have
recently enhanced their military cooperation and business ties. Defense is the main field of Pak-Russia
ties. The two sides have agreed to multiply the cooperation. Russia is willing to take the relationship to a
new level and forget the bitter past dating back to the cold war era. Both the sides have left the past
behind and are moving forward.

PM Imran Khan and Russian President Vladimir Putin had met on June 14 this year in Bishkek on the
sidelines of 19th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a political, economic, and security alliance
established in 2001. The meeting is now being considered a major diplomatic success for Pakistan. PM
Khan during the meeting also extended an invitation to the Russian President to visit Pakistan. TV footage
showed Prime Minister Imran standing next to the Russian President. Both the leaders were seen
exchanging smiles and engaging in brief conversation while posing for cameras. Later, when they sat for
lunch, the photos showed both the leaders having a lively discussion.

As Imran Khan visited Bishkek to attend the summit, reports surfaced that he was likely to discuss an arms
deal with President Putin during their meeting. Pakistan has shown interest to sign a deal to purchase
military hardware worth billions of dollars from Russia. According to reports, the deal is expected to
amount 9 billion dollars under which Islamabad would purchase heavy and medium fighter jets, medium
and short-range air defense systems, tanks, combat helicopters, and warships. For years, China has
remained the major arms supplier to Pakistan, especially after the latter decided to reduce its reliance on
the US.

On the heels of the recent tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad, Pakistan is set to purchase the
Pantsir surface-to-air missile system and T-90 tanks from Russia. If true, this deal would be Russia’s biggest
ever deal in its arms trade with Pakistan and would have the potential to shift the balance of Moscow’s
relations with the two South Asian neighbours and also the rivals. The Soviet Union, and later the Russian
Federation, kept a strict policy of not selling weapons to Pakistan, while remaining India’s close political
partner and selling a lot of military hardware to New Delhi. This, however, changed beginning in 2014,
when Moscow and Islamabad signed an agreement to cooperate in the area of defense. Navies of the two
countries also recently participated in joint anti-drug exercises in the Arabian Sea and a Pakistani warship
participated in the major Russian Navy Day parade recently.

A recent S-400 purchase deal inked between India and Russia has not only prompted an arms race but
also created the question of balance of power in the region. But Pakistan’s missile technology is a perfect
antidote for India’s S-400 purchase. It’s not a surprise that Pakistan’s indigenous cruise missiles have the
capability to beat the layered defence shield of S-400 and hit its target with pinpoint accuracy.

Moscow and the Afghan peace are now a reality. Recently, Pakistan and Russia had vowed to work
together for peace in Afghanistan and supported each other’s regional initiatives. During a meeting recent
between Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Russian envoy on Afghanistan Ambassador Zamir
Kabulov, the two countries agreed to continue regular consultations on the Afghan peace process and
support regional initiatives.
In December, Pakistan had launched a campaign to win over the key neighbours on the Afghanistan issue
and regional peace. Last November, Russia had hosted talks on peace and Afghanistan Taliban which
among Afghan leaders were also participated China, Iran and Pakistan. There were no significant
breakthroughs during the Moscow meeting, which was attended by representatives of 11 countries but
delegates widely acknowledged that the meeting itself was a feat.

Apart from defence, Pakistan wants to also improve trade in other areas with Russia. Russia is an energy-
surplus country. Pakistan has shortages in energy, so the country hopes to talk on those areas as well.
Pakistan is already pursuing the field.

Army General Oleg Salyukov, Commander in Chief Russian ground forces called on General Qamar Javed
Bajwa, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) at GHQ in Rawalpindi on Tuesday. During the meeting, matters related
to enhanced security / training cooperation and measures to further expand joint military ties between
the two armies were discussed. The COAS said that cooperation between both the countries will not only
help in improving peace and stability in the region but also usher economic prosperity. The visiting
dignitary appreciated Pakistan Army’s professionalism and achievements in war against terrorism. He said
that the world should appreciate more what Pakistan has achieved.

Pakistan-Russia relations refer to the bilateral, between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Russian
Federation. The Soviet Union and Pakistan first established the diplomatic and bilateral relations on 1
May 1948. On May 1, 2018, Pakistan celebrated the 70th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations with
Russia.

RUSSIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS AND AFGHANISTAN:

BROADENING STRATEGIC CONVERGENCE
On the sidelines of September’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session, Russian and Pakistani
foreign ministers hinted at transforming their burgeoning cooperation into a broader strategic
partnership. Converging interests in Afghanistan have been a key factor in warming Russo-Pak relations.
For Russia it is strategically important to minimize the spillover of terrorism into its periphery, which
could impact potential Russian economic projects in Central Asia. Moscow has also
proposed connecting the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which
might ensure its access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea through Pakistan. For Pakistan,
geographical necessity makes stability in Afghanistan critical both for security and economic interests,
such as bolstering a workable environment for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Russia and Pakistan have each been making efforts to mainstream the Taliban and counter Daesh’s
regional affiliate, the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP). Although the current impasse in the U.S.-
Taliban negotiations presents a temporary setback, Russia and Pakistan have each actively pushed the
United States to resume the peace process. Notably, the Afghan peace process serves as the main force
behind improved Russo-Pak relations, and has previously been a source of cooperation between the
United States, Pakistan, and Russia. Greater stability in Afghanistan could also help lead the Russo-Pak
partnership from a narrow strategic area of cooperation (counterterrorism) to potential longer term
regional cooperation.
Greater stability in Afghanistan could also help lead the Russo-Pak partnership from a narrow strategic
area of cooperation (counterterrorism) to potential longer term regional cooperation.

Narrow Convergence: Counterterrorism Interests and U.S.-Taliban Negotiations

Russia has a long history of involvement in Afghanistan security, and shares Pakistan’s strategic interest
of combating ISKP, making Russo-Pak cooperation on the Afghan peace process a natural
development. Russia and Pakistan have each made efforts to mainstream the Taliban. Islamabad has
long encouraged political talks with the Taliban, which, if in power, would help Pakistan’s
geostrategic interests in the region. Russia’s recognition of the Taliban has endorsed Pakistan’s stance.
Additionally, establishing its own role in the peace process has helped its image as a power broker in the
region and assert its role on the world stage.

The beginning of the U.S.-Taliban peace talks in October 2018 was a diplomatic victory for both Russia and
Pakistan. Islamabad and Moscow held a shared recognition of the Taliban as a stakeholder in the region,
for instance, Russia arranged the Moscow format of consultations to supplement the U.S.-Taliban
negotiations. The Moscow-based talks engaged multiple stakeholders of the Afghan dispute including the
regional powers, Afghan opposition leaders, and the insurgent group – although the Kabul government
did not send representatives. Pakistan endorsed and participated in both meetings of the Moscow talks
and also hosted a separate trilateral mechanism with China and the Afghan government to facilitate the
prospects for peace in Afghanistan. Russia and Pakistan have also often mutually voiced affirmations of
cooperation and support for efforts to restore peace and stability in Afghanistan.

Russia and Pakistan’s interests continue to align in the collapse of the U.S.-Taliban peace talks, as both
pursued an active Afghan diplomacy on the sidelines of the recent UNGA session. Russia’s continued
interest in the peace process was underscored by the Taliban’s visit to Moscow a few days after the
United States cancelled negotiations, whereas Pakistan has also played a continued role, recently hosting
Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban leadership for reportedly multiple meetings in Islamabad. The U.S.
willingness to re-engage with the Taliban, affirms past Russo-Pak stances on the necessity of bringing
Taliban representatives into the Afghan peace process.

Shared alarm over the rise of ISKP has furthered Russia and Pakistan’s alignment in Afghanistan. While at
the UNGA, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that economic cooperation with Afghanistan
cannot be implemented unless the Daesh threat is addressed. Russia also fears spillover and regional
instability emanating from a growing ISKP threat. For Islamabad, the threat of the Daesh affiliate’s
presence in Afghanistan is particularly problematic because of its ties to proscribed terrorist groups that
have historically targeted Pakistan. Notably, Daesh’s overambitious transnational approach and ultra-
orthodox ideology puts it at odds with the Taliban, and both the groups have been locking horns in
a strategic rivalry. Thus, mainstreaming the Taliban may help Pakistan and Russia counter the rise of ISKP.

Military-to-Military Cooperation

Russia and Pakistan have been improving defense ties since 2014 when Russia surprisingly lifted its arms
embargo on Pakistan. With the recent emergence of ISKP and a NATO draw down on the horizon,
Pakistan may have been seen as a valuable regional partner. The transfer of significant military
technology, annual exercises between the security forces, and visits of top military officials to operational
areas have played a crucial role for Pakistan in targeting extremist elements operating along the country’s
border with Afghanistan. The end of the Russian arms embargo built trust between the two countries and
has paved the way for new avenues of military cooperation, such as a recent landmark agreement for
Russian training of Pakistani military personnel. While the beginnings of military cooperation can be
traced a convergence of interests in Afghanistan, the ongoing strength of military ties indicates a
potentially more robust partnership in the years to come.

The growing cooperation in the strategic realm has prompted both nations to coordinate their broader
policy stances. For instance, Moscow and Islamabad have signed a recent bilateral naval agreement,
indicating cooperation beyond the scope of counterterrorism in Afghanistan. More recently, the
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Ground Forces Oleg Salyukov met with Pakistan Chief of Army Staff
General Qamar Javed Bajwa where the two discussed forging strong and broad-based relations with
Afghanistan. Underlying the renewed exchanges between the two nations seems to be the urge to further
their cooperation towards a broader and long-term partnership.

Underlying the renewed exchanges between the two nations seems to be the urge to further their
cooperation towards a broader and long-term partnership.

Prospects for Economic Cooperation

Greater stability in Afghanistan has the potential to open doors for regional economic cooperation,
particularly between Moscow and Islamabad. Russia’s ambitions to connect the BRI with the EEU and
Pakistan’s decision to allow the former to use Gwadar Port indicate a step in warming relations between
the two countries. Additionally, proposals are under discussion for a railway corridor stretching from
Russia to Pakistan, passing through Central Asia and Afghanistan. While still aspirational at this point, the
discussion of such plans suggests Pakistan may be playing a greater role in Russia’s economic interests in
the region. Russia and Pakistan’s economic ties have also deepened with Russia’s planned investments in
Pakistan’s energy and pipeline sectors.

Peace in Afghanistan is also crucial for CPEC, as there are plans to extend the flagship project into
Afghanistan through a set of six proposed sub-projects including multiple energy and infrastructure
projects connecting Pakistan to Central Asia. Markedly, these projects could also assist Russia
in merging and implementing the economic plans the country wants to undertake after dealing with ISKP
in Afghanistan. Although hurdles to these grand projects exist (e.g. local opposition, funding issues, and
corruption), if successful, these grand projects could assist in bringing economic opportunities and
improving socio-economic security. Stability in Afghanistan remains pivotal for Russia’s economic
interests in Central Asia, and for potential future infrastructure projects that would interlink Pakistan with
the region. As Moscow and Islamabad strengthen ties over shared strategic interests – such as targeting
the ISKP – this may open the door for stronger economic ties as well.

Conclusion

Pakistan and Russia’s main area of strategic convergence continues to be cooperation in Afghanistan by
negotiating with the Taliban as a key political actor and countering the rise of ISKP – the most immediate
threat in the region. While initially narrow, this cooperation has already opened the door to greater
military and potential future economic cooperation in Afghanistan. With the cooperation of other powers,
especially China and the United States, the burgeoning Russo-Pak partnership could be instrumental in
connecting resource-rich Central Asia with populous and resource-deficient South Asia.

Whether Pak-US Ties Rejuvenated?

Pakistan-US relations were strained for more than two years but after Pakistan’s active role in the Afghan
peace process, white house invitation to Pakistani leadership more likely be a reward than the actual
realization of Pakistan’s regional potential.

Afghanistan, yet again a point of convergence between Pakistan and the United States, it cautiously
seems that bilateral relations return to normalcy but drum beating at this point in time, is not justified
as the US “do more” rhetoric soften a bit to achieve the regional objective, not completely vanished.

Pak-US relations were strained for more than two years but after Pakistan’s active role in the Afghan peace
process, white house invitation to Pakistani leadership more likely be a reward than the actual realization
of Pakistan’s regional potential. Although Prime Minister Imran Khan’s three days “official working” trip
to Washington, signals a new beginning in bilateral relations in a limited Trump administration’s time, a
question remains that how it would be translated in reality?

For some foreign policy experts, Pakistani leadership’s visit was at least encouraging regarding a possible
Afghan settlement, futuristic probability of dialogues between Pakistan and India but US President’s harsh
tone on Iran could again be an unseen debacle for Pakistan, and Pakistani leadership rightly conveyed
their concerns accordingly.

Pak-US bilateral ties:

Both countries were in cold mode especially after Donald’s Trump’s arrival in White House but after the
announcement of US new Afghan policy in August 2017, relations between the two got even worse. Who
can ever ignore, what Trump tweeted on January 1st, 2018 and criticized Pakistan by labelling with “lies
and deceit”, soon afterwards, the US$800 million, mostly reimbursements of coalition support fund (CSF),
was halted and never materialized.

Pakistan’s stance was that prime minister’s first-ever trip to Washington, after assuming office, is to
diminish the atmosphere of mistrust and reset a new relationship, in which analysts believe, Pakistan’s
civil and military leadership got a marginal success but overall, it looks more optics than reality. Two-side
interaction will help finally to settle down the dust of mistrust as both nations are hopeful of resolving
decades-long Afghan conflict while US President’s “mediation or arbitration” offer on Jammu and Kashmir
issue, considered as an encouraging sign for a stable region along with a boasting factor for bilateral
relations.

Both promises shaping-up a joint mechanism to address social, economic, trade, investments, defence
and security-related matters, if translates, would contribute bilaterally, especially for Pakistan, facing
severe economic meltdown. Unlike past, this time the US at least indicates acceptance, what Pakistan is
doing in most critical regional circumstances particularly on the Afghan peace process, against extremist
groups inside the country under national action plane (NAP), countering terrorism and policy of friendly
and peaceful neighbourhood with India and other countries.
Though, Imran-Trump meeting categorized as a considerable success, but, Trump usual, embarrassing
tactics were also an indication of his non-seriousness towards Pakistan. When US President said, “US was
paying the US $ 1.3bn for many years, Pakistan was not doing anything” and categorized it
as “subversive”. President Trump, again embarrassed Khan, during his referral to Iran, when he said, “They
[Iran] put [out] the propaganda, They [Iran] put-out lies, I [Trump] don’t think Pakistan would have been
doing things like that [and, pointed figure towards Prime Minister Imran Khan],” when PM Imran
responds, “definitely not”. Then Trump again rectified and said, “Pakistan never lies, but Iran does,
unfortunately”.

Afghan issue:

As core agenda, Pakistan and US, both had given a tip-off that troubled Afghanistan would soon get
settled, means a ray of hope for all Afghan’s and the whole region is still alive. During Pak-US talks, US-
Afghan Taliban possible seal the deal and Afghan Taliban’s all-inclusive Intra-Afghan dialogue for a
peaceful negotiated settlement was discussed in full-spectrum and first-ever time, with clear vision. The
US has also acknowledged, Pakistan’s role at the highest level, as President Trump’s said that “I really
believe they [Pakistan] have a power that other nations [including India] don’t have with respect to
Afghanistan”.

At the same time, it could be Pakistan’s delicate test because Taliban are not solely in the hands of
Pakistan, they have their own strong will, how they will take things in the larger interests of their own
country, which is facing destruction since the ’80s. Pakistan can only use its slight leverage, what it has
and if nothing happened according to the envisaged plan, things would have been different, the fall-out
could affect adversely.

It’s not yet clear that how, Pakistan and US will make most complex Afghan peace possible, in a country,
where beside Afghan-Taliban, exists several groups, some under Russian and Iranian influence, under
Indian impact, pro-Pakistan and pro-Afghan-Taliban, some likes Pakistan but not Afghan-Taliban and some
are also the independent voices. It’s another disturbing aspect to address that how an inactive, less-
equipped and fragmented, Afghan civil and military bureaucracy willfully able to handle, a post-
withdrawal situation?

Besides Pakistan, another bitter aspect is that there is no serious move seen from Washington to take
neighbouring countries in confidence and take them along. Singling-out neighbouring regional countries
[including Iran] would negatively impact regional peace, particularly, it will doubt, any possible Afghan
deal as Pakistan keeps on stressing that a long-lasting peace and sustained stability in Afghanistan is a
shared responsibility.

During joint media interaction with Pakistani premier, US President’s arrogant remarks that, “if he [Trump]
wanted to, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth – it would be done over, literally in 10
days” then he said, in a week’s time, given reference of dropping on mother of all bombs (MOAB), then
again added, “don’t want to kill 10 million people”, and that, we acted like a policeman, not soldier, also
sparked doubts among Afghans primarily Afghan-Taliban as well, that US really serious in having peace in
Afghanistan?

Afghan-Taliban’s statement, soon after Trump’s presser, termed it as irresponsible and strongly
condemned, while referred to the bitter historical fact that Genghis Khan, British Empire and the former
Soviet Union, all were “wiped off the face of the earth but Afghan nation proudly endured”, and called,
Afghanistan, the “Graveyard of Empires” but at the same time, encouragingly supported the “peaceful
and rational solution” to the Afghan conflict.

Kashmir:

After a long-time ever, as an encouraging sign, US has responded at least to the core concerns in turbulent
South Asia, which is not the part of the US South Asia policy, the long-standing dispute of Jammu and
Kashmir.

Donald Trump, in his presser, at Oval Office said, “I [Trump] was with [Indian] PM Modi two weeks ago (not
clear but might be, was referring to his meeting in Japan during G-20 summit), we were talking about this
subject [Kashmir] and he [Indian PM Narendra Modi] actually said, [would] you [Trump] like to be a
mediator or arbitrator, I [Trump] said where? [Modi] said, Kashmir”.

But on the contrary, Trump was ignorant of the fact that since when Kashmir issue exists, when he said, “I
[Trump] was surprised that how long its [Kashmir conflict] going on, [PM Imran, replied] “70 years”,
then [Trump said], “they [India] like to see it resolved, you [Pakistan] like to see it resolved, ‘if’,
I [Trump] can help, I would love to be a mediator”.

US President has also commented on the inability of two countries to resolve the seven decades-long
Kashmir issue, which was actually meant, to resolve it bilaterally but for many, it’s a hopeful aspect that
the US has accepted ‘Kashmir’ as the problem and asked for “arbitration or mediation”.

India’s rejection to US mediation, denial of “Modi’s request” was an expected response after Trump’s
statement but cutting the long debate short, a question arises, whether Trump administration actually
want peace in South Asia, intended to resolve the outstanding issue of Kashmir? Yes, US has the influence,
all the power to mediate and resolve the issue but US President’s perpetual cycles of U-Turns casting lots
of doubts.

On the other hand, Pakistan’s own peace initiative like Kartarpur Corridor, expected future facilitation for
Hindu and Buddhist pilgrims, possible opening of East-West Corridors, normalization of trade, people to
people interactions, could pave the way for a viable solution of Kashmir conflict.

Keeping in view the Afghan situation and US curiosity to have a respectful exit along with something to
present before American public during 2020 US Presidential elections, Trump administration could exert
more pressure on Pakistan but, in return, might pressurise India as well, to enter in dialogue with Pakistan.

Many experts believe, at least, Pak-US engagements at high level would build upon, what conceived,
discussed and elaborated during the leadership and delegation-level engagements on July 22nd, 2019 at
White House but again, questions are still haunting and doubts are still there, what would be the
ultimate future of Pak-US relations, even (with if’s and but’s) after having a broad-ranged possible,
Afghan peace agreement.

CRISIS IN YEMEN: AN ASSESSMENT

After four years of war in Yemen, the belligerent parties; Yemen government and Houthi Militias have
agreed to a new ceasefire deal in February 2019.
Previously, there was a ceasefire agreement signed between the two parties (Yemen government and
Houthi Militias) in December 2018 under the Stockholm Agreement.1 According to the Stockholm
Agreement, both parties had agreed to the following:

An agreement to pullout the forces from the city of Hodeidah and the ports of Hodeidah, Salif and Ras
Issa.

An executive mechanism on activating the prisoner exchange agreement.

A statement of understanding on the de-escalation in Taiz.

Both parties had also committed:

To fully implement this agreement and to work towards the removal of any obstructions or impediments
to its implementation.

To refrain from any action, escalation or decisions that would undermine the prospects for full
implementation of this Agreement.

To continue the consultations unconditionally in January 2019 in a location to be agreed upon by the
parties.2

The Stockholm Agreement was an important milestone to pull out the armed forces from the country
since the conflict had broken out in 2014. It was decided that forces will pull out from the smaller ports
initially such as the ports of Salif and Ras Issa, which will be followed by a pullout from the major port of
Hodeidah and other major parts of the city which leads to the Red Sea Mills, (a major UN storage facility
holding enough grain to feed 3.7 million people for a month). However, this agreement has failed to
achieve any concrete result as Houthi Miltias have failed to abide by the agreement and have not been
ready to return the city and the port to the UN authorities. It is pertinent to note that this port is the
lifeline for Yemen as it is one of the major import hubs and food depository for Yemen. Hence, pullout
from the port is also being called as the litmus test for the Stockholm deal.

Strategic significance of Hodeidah port cannot be denied as it provides access to the Bab al-Mandeb Strait
- the fourth busiest waterway in the world. Economy of Yemen also depends heavily on this port.3 During
the last six months of 2018, the major issue in the conflict has been a potential battle for Hodeidah. This
port and city provide about 70 per cent of all goods shipped into Yemen, which is dependent on imports
for basic food stuff like wheat and rice. A battle for the city would have been really catastrophic and would
have pushed the country into a really big famine. 4 Moreover, if the deal is not implemented it will further
worsen the humanitarian crisis and civil war situation in the country. There is speculation that if the deal
is not implemented in the next few days it will exacerbate the crisis in Yemen for indefinite period of time.

The Humanitarian Crises in Yemen: A UN Perspective

According to the United Nations, Yemen tops the list of most desperate nations. The humanitarian crisis
which has been a direct consequence of the fighting has borne a heavy brunt on the population in Yemen.
The humanitarian crises remain the worst in the world and years of conflict have pushed the country to
the precipice. All sectors remain in jeopardy and the greatest of catastrophes - famine - looms large. A
startling 22.2 million people in Yemen need some kind of humanitarian or protection assistance, an
estimated 17.8 million are food insecure, 8.4 million people are severely food insecure and at risk of
starvation, 16 million lack access to safe water and sanitation, and 16.4 million lack access to adequate
healthcare. Needs across the country have increased steadily, with 11.3 million who are in acute need of
all kinds of assistance.5 Due to failing public institutions, people’s access to essential services such as
water, sanitation, health care and education has been further constrained.

The key humanitarian issues facing the population in Yemen are mainly survival needs, protection of
civilians and the provision of essential services. A new UN report titled Humanitarian Needs Overview,
December 2018 produced by the United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs highlights the
humanitarian crises in detail. The report also sheds light on the impact of the crisis as well. According to
this report, conflict is the principal reason for many challenges being faced by Yemen presently. Similarly,
economic factors have also come into play as there are several impediments which affect the supply and
distribution of goods. Moreover, just as the conflict has intensified, there have been several violations of
International Humanitarian Law and the number of casualties has arisen with each passing day, along with
displacement in large numbers.6 The conflict has also resulted in destroying infrastructure, agricultural
sites, schools, hospitals and other civilian facilities. One of the most alarming aspects of this conflict is the
failing economy, with prices of consumer items increasing exorbitantly, unemployment soaring to high
levels, while the low levels of oil imports are also affecting other sectors. Likewise, the disintegration of
basic services and institutions has also been instrumental in creating different types of deficits for the
public.

The humanitarian crises in Yemen has exacerbated the needs of the people and food security, health,
provision of water are the main needs which have added to the vulnerabilities of the population in Yemen
with malnutrition making life a living nightmare. Lack of access to the food depot on the outskirts of the
port city of Hodeidah posed a grave challenge for the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, as
well as its World Food Programme. However, in a recent development, in early February, the UN has been
able to regain access to a very important food warehouse on Yemen’s frontlines called the Red Sea Mills
in eastern part of Hodeidah with a storage capacity of 51000 metric tones of wheat, which is the quarter
of the World Food Programme’s four milling capacity. Mortar fire at the Red Sea Mills destroyed two silos
in January 2019.The United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Gutteres stated that the UN has now
access to the Red Sea mills area and this development was announced at the pledging conference for
Yemen, which raised 4.2 billion dollars in assistance for the war torn country.7

The situation in Yemen remains precarious which could lead towards a serious economic, humanitarian
and social catastrophe. It is important that a solution is found for ending the conflict before Yemen
becomes the next Syria.

5 key themes for reforming the EU

Whether you are a supporter of more or less Europe, one thing is clear: citizens want change. Debates
about which way forward have become highly polarized between defenses of the liberal, values-based
order on the one hand, and emergent nationalist populism on the other. Indeed, both Hungary’s Viktor
Orban and France’s Emmanuel Macron agree it is “high time we speak seriously about Europe’s future”,
but their respective visions for that future could not be more different.

As Europeans prepare to go to the polls for the parliamentary elections at the end of this month, they
must determine which of the many new ideas, proposals and manifestos that have been put forward can
best remedy the European Union´s challenges and unlock the potential of the region´s strengths. In
advance of the elections – in which Britain must now participate given the latest Brexit extension – and in
which all Europeans can exercise their right to determine the region’s future, it is important to survey the
landscape of proposed reform initiatives, which revolve around five major themes, and consider their
stakes and stakeholders.

1. Fix the democratic deficit once and for all

Eurosceptics have long pointed to the EU’s “democratic deficit” as a flaw in the design of regional
governance – this despite the fact that most heads of EU institutions are, with varying degrees of
representation, democratically elected. But the current structure of representative democracy
guarantees few accountability mechanisms once officials take office, exacerbating the resentment of
those Europeans disaffected by globalization. Furthermore, as recent investigations on both sides of the
Atlantic have revealed, foreign interests have increasingly influenced the democratic process, especially
through social media. Proposals for political reform within the EU have focused on safeguarding the
essential freedom of democracy by three means: first, by ensuring the accountability of officials to the
public; second, by banning foreign funding in any European campaigns; and third, as Emmanuel Macron
outlined in his Plan for a “European Renaissance” to create a European Agency for the Protection of
Democracies to “provide each EU member state with European experts to protect their election processes
against cyberattacks and manipulation”

Perhaps the most important political movements are those in favor of creating transnational party groups
in the European Parliament, organized by interest rather than national origin. While such efforts have long
been part of EU reform discourse, the possible opening of 73 parliamentary seats after Britain’s exit from
the Union and the reorganization of the body’s demographics have intensified support for structural
reform on both the right and the left. Perhaps the best example of this is the “Movement for a Europe of
Nations and Freedom”, created by the new alliance of France’s Marine Le Pen, Italy’s Matteo Salvini and
rising populist leaders on the right, which supports a “new framework for cooperation” built around a
“European Alliance of Nations”. Parties on the left have responded to this move by endorsing interest
coalitions with pro-European agendas, and have even presented a joint list of Commission presidential
candidates for the Spitzenkandidat process. “Team Europe” includes La République en Marche! (LREM)
and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).

2. Get serious about inequality

Globalization resulted in dramatic structural changes to the macroeconomy, particularly in the worldwide
spatial division of labor. Deindustrialization, the rise of the service economy and rapid digitization hit
working-class Europeans the hardest, many of whom feel like they have been left behind in a competitive
system without sufficient support. While the vast majority of social welfare occurs on a national level, the
EU also needs to address the problem of inequality as a bloc: not just between member states, but also
within them.

Citing widespread socioeconomic inequality as the central threat to Europe at present, a group of scholars
including Stéphanie Hennette, Thomas Piketty, Guillaume Sacriste, and Antoine Vauchez have offered a
concrete proposal for How to Democratize Europe as a means of “saving Europe from itself” and avoiding
another [insert country name here]—exit. They advocate for a democratic solution through the “creation
of a new European parliament with substantial budgetary and legislative power to solve the crisis of
governance in the Eurozone and promote social and fiscal justice and public investment”. Through this
reform, they argue, the main beneficiaries of globalization, which they name as multinational corporations
and the super-rich, will be asked to contribute fairly to the financing of public goods that support the
average citizen. At the time of this writing, this group’s online Treaty for the Democratization of Europe
(T-Dem) has garnered 114,968 signatures – not an insignificant number, but far below the threshold that
would clearly indicate that even very well-informed European citizens know and support the movement.

In his reform plan, Emmanuel Macron also proposed an EU-wide social program to mitigate inequality:
the creation of a social safety net through a European minimum wage, appropriate for each country. This
initiative could fundamentally challenge the perception of the EU as a neoliberal, market-driven system.
But critics of the plan have raised eyebrows about its feasibility in much the same way that they have
shaken their heads at even bolder proposals for a universal basic income (UBI) across the region. Indeed,
achieving member state consensus sufficient enough to implement such an ambitious plan seems unlikely,
although it is also one of the few reforms around which both liberals and populists agree.

3. Come up with a workable plan for managing immigration

Such suggestions about creating a Europe-wide social safety net raise questions about beneficiary
eligibility, and, as a result, rekindle the immigration debates that have embroiled the region for nearly a
decade. In fact, immigration remains the principal bone of contention between pro-European and
Eurosceptic groups. That Angela Merkel’s open door immigration policy invited the arrival of millions of
migrants to neighboring shores on the Mediterranean and to the Visegrad group of countries in eastern
Europe reveals the challenges of the Schengen agreement in its current form, especially given the lack of
solidarity among member states.

Shortly after the crisis began in 2015, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker described
Schengen as the EU’s “comatose patient”, a diagnosis that has changed little in the intervening years.
Several reform programs have called either for the abolition of the principle of free movement, or, as
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel first proposed in 2018 and Macron recently revived, a “complete
refoundation of the zone around just a small group of member states.” Of all issues the Union faces, this
one seems the most volatile, equally capable of inspiring real structural reform or of destroying the bloc
completely.

4. Tap into 4IR technologies to accelerate green economic growth

Other ways to remedy inequality and provide stability and prosperity for not only European citizens, but
also migrants and refugees is through the acceleration of economic growth. But Europe has lagged behind
the regions with which it competes; in recent years, the United States, China and Japan have posted 3-4%
growth, while Europe, which climbed very slowly out of the 2007-2008 crisis, has experienced just 1-1.5%
growth during the same period. In start-ups and small business ventures and in new innovations and
technologies, North America and Asia are driving progress, while Europe has been struggling to keep up.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution demands that the region adopt a new approach to competition,
especially with regard to the Digital Single Market, which the European Commission prioritized through a
new directive in 2015, yet which remains incomplete. Furthermore, where Europe has paved the way for
its rivals throughout the 20th and 21st centuries is in developing what Samuel Brittan called “capitalism
with a human face,” and it is in this effort that the region can continue to lead, ensuring that growth is
cultivated sustainably, both for its citizens and for the environment. Proposals in this vein include the
setting up of a European Climate Bank “to finance the ecological transition”, as well as a European
Innovation Council to “spearhead new technological breakthroughs”. Moreover, the Directorate-Generals
working on innovation, small business, social affairs and entrepreneurship have all developed concrete
proposals in this regard.. While such proposals have few detractors, they also have not yet earned support
widespread enough to bring them to fruition. That sustainable, humane growth remains a priority,
though, reminds us that the Union is so much more than a simple free-trade zone.

5. Send a message that Europe is united in defense

Few issues bring right and left together like the threat of foreign conflict. Increasingly complex
cybersecurity threats and new pressures on the delicate web of international relations have brought
security and defense to the fore once again. The Franco-German alliance has long called for the
federalization of defense by creating a “true European army”, especially as a way to achieve some
independence from NATO, which has been dominated by the US since its formation in the late 1940s.
Indeed, America’s recent nationalist turn under President Donald Trump, and his “America first” policy do
seem to further support the argument that Europeans must fill the resulting defensive vacuum with their
own joint force, capable of responding to threats in ways that single nations – especially the smaller
member states – cannot manage alone. Leaders from the Commission have explained that a European
army would not be convened offensively, but would rather “send a message” to aggressor states, a
strategy particularly important for Europe with regard to Russian involvement in the Ukraine. Critics on
the right, who see security as an inherently national concern, have been quick to raise questions about
the leadership and financing of a joint force, highlighting yet another challenge inherent in multi-
stakeholder governance: that consensus-building, especially among polarized parties on contentious
issues, can be very difficult.

A crossroads for the future

A few things become abundantly clear through this survey of EU reform proposals: first, that these
reforms are all aimed either at correcting flaws in the Union’s design or at finally completing its original,
but unrealized promises; second, that the bloc is truly at a crossroads, with the parliamentary elections
serving as a fulcrum for change; and third, that it is rather easy to pitch revolutionary ideas, but much
more difficult to implement them. If anything is certain, it is that Europeans, reminded of the
unparalleled achievements in peace, human rights, and economic stability afforded them by the EU,
must now exercise their right to determine the region’s future.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation, World’s second largest

sui generis organization

Introduction
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest sui generis intergovernmental
organization after the 193-member United Nations in terms of membership and is mantle of collective voice
of the Muslim world. The Organization has the mandate to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim
states in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.
History
On August 21, 1969, Dennis Michael Rohan, an Australian Jew, set on fire the southeastern wing of the
holy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, burning Salahudddin’s Pulpit and destroying approximately one-third
of the total area. Israeli occupying forces cut off the water supply and prevented the fire engines from
arriving on time to extinguish the fire. This watershed event in Muslim history necessitated the formulation
of an organization for pragmatic handling of any such situation in future. Hence, on 12th Rajab 1389 Hijra
(25 September 1969), the Organization of Islamic Conference was established upon a decision of the
historic summit held in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco. The meeting was the first unified expression of the
Muslim Ummah of its determination to safeguard its interests, speak with one voice and ensure the progress
and well being of the Muslims in the world.
The bloc changed its name to Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation on 28 June 2011 during the 38th
Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan.
Objectives of OIC
Article 1 of the OIC Charter enunciates 20 objectives for the Organization. Under the Charter, the
Organization aims to:
1. Strengthen:
(a) Islamic solidarity among Member States;
(b) Cooperation in the political, economic, social, cultural and scientific fields;
(c) The struggle of all Muslim people to safeguard their dignity, independence and national rights.
2. Coordinate action to:
(a) Safeguard the Holy Places;
(b) Support the struggle of the Pales-tinian people and assist them in getting their rights and liberating their
occupied territories.
3. Work to:
(a) Eliminate racial discrimination and all forms of colonialism;
(b) Create a favourable atmosphere for the promotion of cooperation and understanding between Member
States and other countries.
Structure of Organization
The Organization is composed of the following main bodies:
• The Islamic Summit—composed of Kings and Heads of State and Government of Member States is the
supreme authority of the Organization. It convenes once every three years to deliberate, take policy
decisions and provide guidance on all issues pertaining to the realization of the objectives.
• The Council of Foreign Ministers—meets once a year and considers the means for the implementation
of the general policy of the Organization.
• The General Secretariat—the executive organ of the Organization, entrusted with the implementation
of the decisions of the two preceding bodies.

Failures of OIC
1. Lack of Cohesion and Unity— Inter-state differences among Member States; Shia-Sunni conflict;
contentious foreign policy; Western influence; territorial disputes and intra-Arab conflicts have eclipsed
OIC’s efficacy.
2. Rising Islamophobia— In the West, Islam is (wrongly) perceived as a threat to Western values such as
liberalism, democracy, individualism, women emancipation, etc. The OIC has failed to counter this
flawed and bogged narrative
3. Terrorism and Fundamentalism — These burning issues of the modern world have stigmatized the
image of Islam. Growing incidence of violence, suicide attacks, sectarian cleavages and increasing
popularity of the religio-political parties are the main features of negative Western approach about Islam.
The OIC has failed to devise any effective strategies to curb these.
4. Inter- and Intra-state Conflicts— Unresolved conflicts e.g. Arab-Iran-Turk, Libya-Chad, Armenia-
Azerbaijan, Afghanistan-Pakistan are the flagrant examples of OIC’s failure.
5. Deprivation of Human Development — OIC members represent 22 percent of the world population, but
have only 2 percent of the world’s GDP, 1.3 percent of the world trade and only 1.5 percent of the
investments. Twenty-five percent of OIC population does not have access to medical facilities or safe
drinking water. No Muslim country is in the top list of the Human Development Index or in any other
global economic indicators. But, OIC is still dormant and no proper solutions to these issues have been
carved out yet.
6. Neglecting Education — The OIC member countries possess 70 percent of the world’s energy resources
and 40 percent of available raw material but their GDP is only 5 percent of the world GDP. Still, Muslim
countries miserably lag behind in education and technology. They produce only 500 PhDs each year as
compared to 3,000 in India and 5,000 in the United Kingdom. None of their educational or research
institutions or centres of excellence finds place in the top 100 in the world. But, OIC seems completely
oblivious to this fact.

Suggestions for the improvement of OIC

• Pluralistic norms; promotion of accountability and transparency; and promotion of human rights are
significant political traits for the refinement of this legal body.
• Promotion of CBM’s (confidence- building measures) conflict prevention and conflict management
strategies to release ethnic, sectarian and racial tensions are needed.
• Collective security system and counter-terrorism strategies would increase the value of OIC in the eyes
of Western world which have tarnished or abused the true image of Islam.
• Moreover, OIC should establish its own Muslim Court of Justice on the line of International Court of
Justice to resolve their contentions.
• There should be the formulation and execution of sustainable economic policies—capacity- building,
micro credit schemes, intra-state trade and optimal use of resources—minerals, human resource, fiscal
resources to eradicate economic and social miseries among member states.
• Budgetary allocation should be made to work on research and development, science and technology,
and academic opportunities. A consortium should be developed for the spread of education in form of
universities and scholarships.
• OIC must establish its media channel to represent the true image of the Muslim world.
• Religious intelligentsia should proliferate and propagate the substantial meaning of Islam. Furthermore,
diversity in Islam needs to be accepted rather than to blame any sect for their particular believes.

Pakistan and OIC

Pakistan is a founding member of the OIC. It shared with OIC a legacy rooted in the Islamic faith and its
consistent support of Muslim causes, and public support for the cause of liberation of Al-Quds. Pakistan
has a privileged and affluent position in OIC because of its unique status as only atomic power in the Muslim
Ummah. Relations with the Islamic world are the cornerstone of the foreign policy of Pakistan. The country
has an abiding commitment to the purposes, principles and objectives of the OIC Charter. Pakistan has
made some extremely useful proposals to lift the Islamic world out of its present dilemmas.
The suggestions are related to (I) an institutional mechanism for conflict prevention and resolution with
member states; (ii) a network of centres of excellence in science and technology; (iii) establishment of a
permanent forum of Islamic thought to provide guidance and opinion; (iv) allocation of adequate financial
resources to implement these proposals; (v) allocation of at least 0.5 percent of the GDP by the member
states for implementing OIC objectives; and (vi) a dedicated department in the OIC Secretariat for
promoting intra-OIC trade.

SCO’s Expansion Prospects and Challenges

1. Introduction
2. Overview of SCO and Its Recent Expansion
a. Establishment of SCO
b. Geographical and historical overview
c. Previous and new members
3. Importance and Significance of SCO in the Contemporary World
a. Enormous potential for trade
b. Shifting the global balance
c. A step toward a multi-polar world
4. Prospects Emerging out of SCO’s Recent Expansion
a. Economic Prospects
i. Increased multilateral trade
ii. Opening up of new transit routes
iii. Increased access to global markets
iv. Cooperation in medicine, energy, food and technology sectors
b. Political Prospects
i. Strong Eurasian bloc
ii. Decreasing tensions among member states
iii. Active role in conflict-resolution
iv. Better cooperation against terrorism
v. Use of ARTS platform for security cooperation
vi. Better border management
c. Social Prospects
i. Effective role against smuggling
ii. Minimizing the drug trade
iii. Cooperation against human trafficking
iv. Cultural exchange
d. Prospects Peculiar to China and Russia
i. Strong regional allies
ii. Access to new markets
iii. Increased influence in global politics
iv. Countering USA’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy
e. Prospects Peculiar to Central Asian Republics
i. Infrastructural development
ii. Access to warm waters
iii. Transit route to Africa and Southeast Asia
f. Prospects Peculiar to India and Pakistan
i. Energy trade with Central Asian Republics
ii. Better conflict management
iii. Increased interdependence
5. Challenges Associated with Recent Expansion
a. Political and Administrative Challenges
i. Conflicts among states
ii. Unstable political setups
iii. Lack of political cooperation
iv. Security situation in Afghanistan
v. Terrorism and terrorist organizations
vi. Foreign funding and threat of the ISIS
vii. US influence over India and Pakistan
viii. Pakistan and India’s poor record as SAARC member states
b. Economic and Social Challenges
i. Lack of infrastructure
ii. Underdevelopment prevailing in Pakistan and India
iii. Rough terrain, hard to develop
iv. Lack of funds
v. High dependence on foreign loans
6. Recommendations to Overcome the Challenges
a. Member states should increase political cooperation among them
b. SCO should play active role in conflict-resolution
c. Cooperation on ARTS platform should be enhanced
d. Comprehensive plan should be made against smuggling, drug trafficking, etc.
e. China and Russia should provide loans to other member states
f. Budget of SCO should be increased
g. SCO nations should cooperate in technology
h. Non-tariff trade barriers should be removed

Protest Culture in Pakistan and Its Impacts

1. Introduction
2. A Global Overview of Protests
3. Protests and Their Different Forms in Pakistan
a. Sit-ins (Dharnas)
b. Rallies
c. Strikes
d. Blockades
e. Processions
f. Lockdowns (of offices, etc.)
4. Objectives for which Protests are Held in Pakistan
i. Political Objectives
a. Enactment or abrogation of a law
b. Pressurizing the ruling party
c. Show of political power
d. Provision of fundamental rights
e. Holding of early elections by destabilizing the incumbent government
ii. Economic Objectives
a. Increase in salary/wage rates
b. Improvement in facilities at the workplace
c. Provision of basic amenities of life
d. Relief in taxes or other tariffs
e. Favour in economic policy
iii. Social Objectives
a. Support of marginalized segments of society
b. Expediting the criminal justice process
c. Improvements in living conditions
iv. Religious Objectives
a. Supporting some particular religious ideology
b. Supporting some religious personality
5. Impacts of Protests on the Development of Pakistan
A. Negative
i. Political Impacts
a. Tarnished image of the state
b. Diverted attention of the government
c. Violation of human rights
d. Jeopardizing democracy
ii. Economic Impacts
a. Wastage of resources
b. Decline in foreign and local investment
c. Increase in inflation
d. Hurdles in the achievement of national economic goals
iii. Social Impacts
a. Psychological unrest
b. Environment of lawlessness
c. Deleterious impacts on health and education sector
d. Increase in crime
iv. Administrative Impacts
a. Delay in public relief
b. Wastage of time
c. Absence of official discipline
b. Positive Impacts
a. Improved accountability
b. Improved transparency
c. Spread of awareness
d. Provision of rights
6. Why People Resort to Protests?
a. Reactive approach of the government
b. Absence of rule of law
c. Prevalence of pressure groups
d. Involvement of foreign hands
e. Negative role of leaders
f. Incapacity of the law-enforcement agencies (LEAs)
g. Illiteracy and unemployment
h. Provocative role of media
7. Recommendation for Minimizing the Instances of
Protests and Mitigating Their Side Effects.
a. Use of proactive approach to avoid the situation
b. Strict implementation of laws
c. Elimination of power groups as soon as they emerge
d. Mature role of politicians
e. Depoliticizing and strengthening the LEAs
f. Focus on education and character-building of the nation
g. Designing and implementation of strict code of conduct for media
h. Vigilant role of security agencies in thwarting foreign involvement
8. Conclusion

POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN PAKISTAN: A REVIEW OF “EHSAAS”

PROGRAM
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government in its election manifesto and 100 Days Agenda envisioned
formation of a welfare state. Following up on the agenda, Prime Minister Imran Khan, on March 27,
2019 announced his vision for development and poverty alleviation under a program called “Ehsaas”
(percipience or consciousness).

Prime Minister Imran Khan in the launching ceremony of “Ehsaas” said that it was one of the first and
boldest poverty alleviation programs in the history of Pakistan. According to United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), Pakistan’s Human Development Index (HDI) has remained dormant at low levels, ranking
150 out of 189 countries.1 This positions the country in the medium human development category.
According to the World Bank, the country’s Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is 0.228 with 80 per
cent of Pakistan’s poor continuing to live in rural areas.2

In the given context of poverty figures, Pakistan has a history of poverty alleviation programs. Starting
from early 1950s till present, several development models have been tried and tested in Pakistan, which
have resulted in partial success in terms of reducing poverty headcount. These programs fall under the
broad category of rural development programs, programs for human development, social security and
welfare programs, and macroeconomic and economic growth programs to name a few.

Outlining the essential elements of the program and contours of his policy design, the Prime Minister
emphasized social protection as the main pillar of his strategy. Ehsaas poverty reduction strategy is based
on four pillars and embodies 115 policy actions, which may be expanded during the process of further
consultations on the program. According to Prime Minister’s Ehsaas Policy Statement, the four pillars
include: addressing elite capture and making the government system work to create equality; safety nets
for disadvantaged segments of the population; human capital development; and jobs and livelihoods.3

The Ehsaas program envisions to make constitutional amendments especially in Article 38 which caters to
the promotion of social and economic welfare of the people, and Article 37 which elaborates on how the
state has to ensure the above mentioned responsibility.4 Therefore, Ehsaas is not only a policy initiative,
but also a visionary document which lays the foundations for a welfare state that provides basic
necessities as fundamental rights for its citizens.

The first pillar on “Addressing elite capture and making the government system work for equality” is
targeted against injustices in taxation, water management, and labor laws among other things. Under this
objective, Ehsaas provides for increased government spending on social protection, with a specialized
ministry for this purpose and a one window operation for poor to access these services. Also, pro-poor
policies and incentives will be encouraged under National and Provincial Finance Commissions and
innovative ways of development funding shall be formulated that will increase the impact of public sector
development programs.

The second pillar on “Safety nets” envisions sub-programs including the “Tahafuz” (protecting) program
which caters to downtrodden and marginalized segments of the society. It will provide legal aid,
educational grants and medical insurance for the poor. The “Kifalat” (guarantees) program which provides
cash stipends, shelter for orphans, health coverage, livelihood recovery initiatives and other elements
required for the overall well-being of the society.5 The Prime Minister envisions to create laws and
initiatives for the welfare of the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, laborers and Pakistani workers abroad.

The third pillar on “Human Capital Development” invests in human resource from early stage as it will
cater tackling malnutrition, preschool or early education, protecting children from harm; ensuring access
to quality education, skills and jobs; long-term commitment to Universal Health Coverage, and measures
for empowering women and girls.

The fourth pillar on “Jobs and livelihoods” will formulate a new policy of Solutions Innovation Challenge,
Prize Funding, and venture capital funding to develop value chains and solutions for poverty at scale by
identifying private sector partners. It will encourage entrepreneurs by building an enterprising
environment, offering business support and expertise, vocational trainings, soft loans, online platforms,
manpower export and youth programs.

Another essential element of Prime Minister’s poverty alleviation strategy is the use of digital technology
and formation of data bases entailing essential information and demographic disbursement of poverty
across Pakistan. Moreover, technology will help in bringing change in traditional ways of implementation
of projects towards an evidence based decision making for an informed policy.

It is noteworthy that these development solutions may vary in terms of objectives and design, but they all
target human well-being and environmental sustainability. Despite the core objective being one, there
are major differences and disagreements in terms of which development template and solution to follow,
as some of these initiatives have been successful, while others have failed.

The question then remains as to what makes a development solution successful?

The success of any development recipe lies in its sensitization to the local settings and domestic social
environments and most importantly, the efficiency with which these universal development practices are
tailored accordingly to indigenous factors and socio-psychological temperaments, and finally, effective
implementation.

There are several operational challenges and theoretical policy puzzles that stand in between the effective
implementation of Ehsaas program. For instance, the capacity issue. Pakistan has already declared right
to education as a fundamental right under Article 25-A. However, this has not resulted in the actual
dispensation of free and compulsory education. Pragmatically speaking, there are serious capacity issues
for the state when it comes to providing shelter, food, cloth and education as fundamental rights.

According to Dr. Ishrat Hussain, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Institutional Reforms and Austerity,
macroeconomic policies and economic growth above 7 per cent is required to really push towards poverty
reduction. Currently, Pakistan’s economic growth is below 4 per cent and under the projected trends of
rising inflation, we expect rising poverty.6 Under low economic growth, the Ehsaas program would face a
mighty challenge of providing livelihoods and other goals set under the program.

According to late Dr. Sarfaraz Qureshi, (Pakistan Institute of Development Economics), one of the main
reasons for the failure of development and poverty alleviation programs in Pakistan has been the lack of
devolution or excessive centralization. Political interference also tends to create inconsistency and
adhocism for such programs that results in their failure. Both factors should be a relevant concern for
Ehsaas program. Striking the right balance at this junction is a critical factor for the success of Ehsaas
program.

Influence of three major waves of feminist movements in

Pakistan
The history of feminists’ struggle to end discrimination, oppression and marginalisation against women is
divided into three waves. They are known as first, second, and third wave of feminism. These waves,
although they had started in Europe, had global impact on the status of women, including women of
Pakistan.

The first wave of feminism officially started with the Seneca Falls Convention, 1848. It continued till 1920
after women of New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States gained voting rights. In between
the first and the second wave of feminism, which started in 1960s, Pakistan got independence. Pakistani
women were granted the suffrage in 1947, with the provision of reserved seats in parliament existing
throughout the constitutional history of Pakistan from 1956 onwards. Being a woman of a newly born
country, a Pakistani woman had to do way more to establish her worth and gain some status quo in
society. Like western women, Pakistani women, during the second wave, were also victim of sexism,
harassment at workplace, degradation and objectification. For example, Fatima Jinnah also had to bear
character assassination at the hands of a dictator, along with other setbacks, including poor finances and
an unfair and unequal election campaign.

Inspired by the second wave of feminism in 1960s, Pakistani women started to embark on a journey of
improving their social and economic conditions. They argued that having voting rights did not guarantee
the end of their oppression in the hands of men. The initial influence of the feminist movement during
the second wave in Pakistan included issuance of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961. The new law
aimed to regulate family affairs by protecting women rights. In the subsequent year, another law, the
West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law Sharia Act, 1962 was introduced in the country. It allowed Pakistani
women to inherent all forms of property.

In an article published in Express Tribune, Mehreen Ovais writes, “Western women’s liberation movement
also influenced Pakistani men.” She writes, “Rangeela was the first Pakistani to publicly express his
concerns regarding the treatment of women in Pakistan and support the liberation movement of the
1970s. He did so via a film called Aurat Raaj, which he directed, produced and even acted in. Released in
1979, the film depicted the story of a housewife who stands up against her chauvinist husband and goes
on to form a political party for women across the country, eventually becoming the national leader.”

The third wave of feminism started in 1990s. Its focus was to globalise the feminist movement and help
every woman around the world, regardless of race, colour, class, and ethnicity. The Transnational Feminist
Networks were established around the world to achieve the objectives. In the second wave, Pakistan’s
government worked on country’s Women in Development profile to reduce gaps between socially defined
roles and responsibilities of women and men. But realising the need of the time during the third wave the
focus shifted to gender mainstreaming as a part of Gender and Development. Government of Pakistan
aimed at promoting gender equality by involving women in all spheres of life.

In the new century, Pakistani women have enabled themselves in gaining higher participation in socio-
political and economic fields. They have secured their quota in local government departments,
bureaucracy, media houses and parliament.

Boosting Pakistan's Exports: What Needs to Be Done

Major Exports and Destinations
Official figures from the 2017 Economic Survey of Pakistan, published by the Ministry of Finance show
that between July 2016 and March 2017, exports decreased to USD 15.119 billion from the USD 15.597
billion during the same period in 2015-16, but that a positive trend was seen afterwards due to the
“government’s continuous support to the export sectors and different initiatives” that caused exports
in March 2017 to increase. Overall, Pakistan’s exports had been facing challenges in the last fiscal year,
declining by around 3.1% in the initial nine months (till March 2017), at a time when imports continued
to increase.1 However, the seemingly positive outlook suggested by the Economic Survey was perhaps
too hasty since later official figures accounting for the first eleven months of the same fiscal year, (i.e.
until May 2017) continued to show a decline of 3.1% from the previous year, with exports earning the
country USD 18.5 billion, and coupled with rising exports, demonstrating an “alarming” trade deficit of
around USD 30 billion.

Over 60% of exports from Pakistan continue to be from different textile products, while the remaining
40% is heavily concentrated in three categories or items, namely rice, leather, and sports goods.3 The
most detailed figures available are from the Economic Survey, which account for exports between July
2016 and March 2017. They show that some of the most important exports of Pakistan are in the “food
group”, including rice, sugar, fish, fruits, vegetables, spices and meat, almost all of which saw a decrease
in the nine months under the survey, compared to the same time period in the previous fiscal year.
“Textile manufactures” in this period also saw a slight decrease, though the export of petroleum products
saw an increase. All other conventional exports of the country, such as sports goods, leather products,
surgical instruments and carpets, also saw declines from last year. Overall, cotton manufactures in this
time remained the most significant single category of export products, accounting for almost 60% of all
exports.

These declining figures for Pakistani exports over the past three to four years are a particularly dismal
outcome of the country’s trade performance, considering that it had reached figures as high as USD 25
billion of exports in the first few years of this decade.6

A large proportion of Pakistan’s exports go to the OECD region and China, with more than half being
exported to these destinations in fiscal year 2016 – however, political developments such as the UK
starting a process of exiting the EU have made exports to the UK more expensive, and thus caused a
decline in exports from Pakistan.7

In terms of the percentage share of the destination of the exports, between July 2016 and March 2017,
the US was the dominant market with 17% of all Pakistani exports, followed by China and the UK at 8%
each, and Afghanistan at 6% in terms of the destinations of Pakistani products.8

There have been very recent reports, however, of an improvement and thus a more positive outlook for
this year, at least in specific industries. For instance, compared to last year, the export of rice in the first
two months of the current fiscal year (2017-18) has increased by some 30% compared to last year, while
the export of fruit and vegetables (8.74%), fish and fish products (19.63%), and wheat and sugar (100%
each) have also all registered a visible increase in this time.9 All these industries had seen a decline in
fiscal year 2016-17. Some positive signs in expanding trade to other countries have appeared recently also
in efforts towards Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with Turkey, Thailand and Iran, and thus
increasing the reach and potential of Pakistani exports to regional and consumer markets.

Reasons for Declining Exports

There are several reasons for the declining exports, including long-term and interlinked quantitative and
qualitative factors, such as: low GDP, an ongoing energy crisis, high cost of doing business, lack of product
and market diversification, low level of technological advancement and research & development, non-
compliance of quality standards, law and order, war on terror, un-skilled labour, and low foreign direct
investment.11 The government has attributed the decline in exports to “the stagnant volume of world
trade and low commodity prices in global markets” even though the decline has been in place for since
2013-14 – and in this time global trade has in fact increased, and regional countries such as Bangladesh
have performed well.12 Rather, as a State Bank of Pakistan report has argued, stagnation in export
revenues has been “a source of consistent concern for Pakistan’s economy during the previous two
decades” and the aforementioned reasons conventionally given to explain this stagnation have perhaps
been overemphasized. The problem being faced today, the report continues, is “too chronic to be linked
up with these contemporary issues” and requires correspondingly long-term and structural solutions.13
These include, it suggests, overcoming an anti-export bias, addressing lack of coherence in export
enhancing measures, providing legal cover for product innovation, and covering costs of quality
certifications.

Measures for Boosting Exports

As the Ministry of Commerce has noted, Pakistan’s export base is “quite narrow, highly concentrated in a
few commodities namely, textile and clothing, leather, rice, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and sports
goods” and these six categories have together accounted for some 70 percent of total exports in recent
years.Coupled with the few destinations for these exports, at the very basic level, work needs to be done
to diversify both the products and the markets where they arrive.

One way then that exports can be boosted regionally and globally is to make institutions such as the Trade
Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) more efficient and competent and by increasing their
capacities. While there have been incentives such as those for pursuing research and development and
facilities for refinancing from the government, a very valid concern is that these are heavily biased towards
the textile industry, which has, experts argue, reached its potential already and is taking the focus away
from other potentially lucrative industries. The recommendation in this regard is to look at non-traditional
products for exports, and to add value to existing products (such as rice and leather), and also give further
attention to un-addressed industries such as tourism and even health services.15 The issue here then is
an over-reliance on textile products, and hence an over-commitment to its growth. This means that
already existing industries that operate on a small scale are ignored. For instance, there is a need to look
into possible exports of products from skilled craftsmen – after all, exports of precious stones and jewelry
from India “now earn more than twice the total export earnings of Pakistan” showing the potential of
traditional and ethnic products that Pakistan needs to showcase globally, which goes hand in hand with
demonstrating tourism viability, culture and history.16

In addition to expanding the product base, there is also a need to diversify in terms of the regions where
Pakistani products are exported. This is most apparent in countries where Pakistan enjoys strong political
relationships and ease of access, as well as non-traditional trading partners such as countries in Latin
America, Central America, and Africa where Pakistan has trade missions.17

Some other products suggested to diversify the export base include products that have much value in the
global supply chain, such as computer chips and parts used in mobile phones and laptop production, which
also has the added advantage of encouraging local entrepreneurs.18 Diversification of exports also
includes looking for opportunities in the services sector, for instance in the global outsourcing industry
such as in Information Technology – as a point of reference for which Philippines, which is half the
population of Pakistan, earns roughly USD 25 billion by its exports in the outsourcing industry. As far as
the IT industry is concerned, there are already indications that further efforts and incentives will lead to
fruitful results, since IT services and products accounted for almost USD 1 billion in the exports for fiscal
year 2016-17, and these were limited to only a few countries. The incentives offered by the government
for IT industries are a positive step in this regard.

E-Governance in Pakistan: A Reality Check

National Security Advisor Lt General (Retd) Nasser Khan Janjua recently said that
“Pakistan needed to … develop an e-governance council for policy formulation
according to globally acceptable parameters.” 1 The establishment of an advance
governmental organization like “e-governance council” is an exceptionally significant
and seriously desired initiative. But before reaching any conclusion on this issue, it is
important to understand the basic concept of e-governance. Furthermore, it also calls
for a comprehensive analysis of whether the state and the nation of Pakistan have
achieved a required level of advancement for such setup?
E-governance is a most recent trend in the realm of governance processes across the globe. Its proper
implementation can bring SMART (Simple, Moral, Accountable, Responsive and Transparent)
governance.2 The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines e-
governance as “the public sector`s use of information and communication technologies (ICT) with the aim
of improving information and service delivery, encouraging citizen participation in the decision-making”3
which greatly depends on e-readiness. According to Richard Heeks, e-readiness of a country can be
determined through answering the following questions:

1. Is the Data Systems Infrastructure Ready?

2. Is the Legal Infrastructure Ready?

3. Is the Institutional Infrastructure Ready?

4. Is the Human Infrastructure Ready?

5. Is the Technological Infrastructure Ready?

6. Is the Leadership and Strategic Thinking Ready?”

The first step towards e-governance in Pakistan would be a transition from manual to electronic data
management systems. It involves the high quality digitalization of all required quantity of governmental
records and work processes. Significant progress has been achieved by National Database & Registration
Authority (NADRA) Pakistan and Directorate General of Immigration & Passports. The Punjab and Kyber
Pakhtunkhwa governments also introduced radical IT reforms in the sectors of health, law and order,
especially the digitalization of “Thana System.”
The second step is the legal infrastructure which includes establishment of specialized courts, formulation
and enactment of laws and regulations for e-crimes and e-security in accordance with the international
standards. In 2002, Pakistan successfully enacted the Electronic Transactions Ordinance based on
“International Consensus Principals on Electronic Authentication.” It was a major leap ahead in the field
of e-governance and made the electronic signatures, fillings and transactions e.g. tax returns, cheques,
banking instructions, payments, employment applications, court documents, custom documents, fee
payments, academic transcripts and complaints legally acceptable.5 Government of Pakistan passed
“Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA) in 2016 and under its Section 44, special courts headed by the
judges trained in cyber forensics will be established. After one and half year of enactment, no initiative is
being taken by the government in this respect.6
Advancement of e-governance heavily relies on institutional setup including responsible agency to act as
a means for facilitation. So, the Electronic Certification Accreditation Council (ECAC) was set up under ETO
in 2004. Although Pakistan is developing at a rapid pace, but the fact is that as a developing country,
Pakistan does not have required ICT infrastructure for e-governance. There are also “mindset gaps”
involving overall resistance to change, data sharing and customer-orientation in

public sector. Pakistan requires a group of “e-champions” with the strategic vision of e-governance
without which this whole initiative will become insignificant. The role of this group should be to put the
e-governance on the top of national agenda, minimize the operational barriers and make it happen
through channelizing all the resources into right direction.

POST-MERGER INACTION IN FATA: EXPECTATIONS VS. REALITY

In May 2018, the Pakistani government passed a historic constitutional amendment that ended the semi-
autonomous rule of its Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), abolished the colonial-era laws that
governed it, and merged it with the country’s territory. The merger was widely heralded as a way of
ushering development into the impoverished tribal region and bringing peace and stability to its militant
and conflict-laden history.

A deeper look into the past year’s tribal area developments reflects the new challenges arising from how
the merger was carried out. The people of FATA—who expected the merger to bring in developmental
projects, a proper legal system, and socioeconomic opportunities—are instead having to deal with slow
and unsteady development, delayed justice and further alienation, all of which could lead to further
violence and instability in the region. If the state continues to operate at the current stagnant pace, it
could push the growing Pashtun Spring down the road of anti-state movement, and possibly an outcry for
separation.

Undoing Century-Old Laws

If the state continues to operate at the current stagnant pace, it could push the growing Pashtun Spring
down the road of anti-state movement, and possibly an outcry for separation.

To understand why it is such a mammoth issue to mainstream FATA, it is important to understand its
history. For decades, FATA was administered under the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) passed by the
British and later adopted by Pakistan after independence. Under the FCR, the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court did not apply there. Instead, the FCR enforced unjust clauses such as arresting an entire tribe for
the crime of one person and denying the right of appeal and legal representation. Pakistan may have
retained these laws to gain the loyalty of tribal elders (maliks) and local bureaucrats (political agents) in
return for granting them power through the FCR.

Nevertheless, the spillovers from Afghanistan’s wars, brought FATA under international scrutiny, with U.S.
President Barack Obama dubbing it “the most dangerous place in the world”. The rise of terrorist
attacks within Pakistan resulted in FATA reforms becoming a priority under the National (Counter-
Terrorism) Action Plan. The military launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb the same year to clear FATA and
other areas from insurgents and terrorists, while the government formed an exploratory Committee on
FATA Reforms in 2015, which recommended merging FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa over the course of
five years.

Challenges of Mainstreaming FATA

A major issue with the merger is of haste: it occurred five years earlier than the official Committee on
FATA Reforms recommended. This premature move — unanimously passed within the span of a few days
across various parts of the government — happened before the creation of administrative institutions to
support new laws. Consequently, the tribal areas entered a legal vacuum where those hopeful for
attaining justice through the new system found themselves in limbo. In the months following the merger,
hardly any court or police institutions were set up, with a range of judicial cases left in the lurch. This
suggests a critical lack of legal capacity and planning at the highest levels of government. Recently, civil
courts were established in areas neighboring tribal districts to deal with cases from FATA, but the region
itself has yet to see properly functioning courts.

The implementation of judicial courts has invited some backlash from some vocal residents of the tribal
districts. One of the main points of contention is that judicial courts will undermine the authority
of jirgas (tribal councils). Conflicts among Pashtuns are often resolved through jirgas, traditional
assemblies of tribal leaders that use consensus to make decisions on anything ranging from land disputes
and domestic affairs to serious crimes. They have been a pivotal source of justice in FATA for centuries
and have become established local institutions, despite their disenfranchisement of women. The threat
to jirgas poses a two-fold problem: the cultural and traditional affront to the people of FATA, and the
difficult task of convincing residents that the state’s ailing justice system would better suit their judicial
needs. “The speedy justice [jirga] is being removed and instead we are being pushed into those courts
where cases have been pending for the past 70-80 years,” Hameed Ullah Jan Afridi, a prominent Pashtun
politician and former Member of the National Assembly, told the authors. The jirgas provide cheap and
speedy justice, as they make decisions within days and are accessible to the poor without significant costs,
although there have been increasing reports of financial compensation from the disputing parties
to jirga members. Local apprehension in giving up the jirga system speaks to the larger cultural reaction
that has arisen from the merger.

Another significant challenge to implementing reforms comes from within the tribal community. Many
tribal elders oppose the merger because it threatens the status quo that benefited them through
unquestioned power. This opposition from the local status quo can only be countered over time through
tangible post-merger development from the state. Without progress, ordinary residents and tribal elders
alike are likely to remain unconvinced of the merger’s effectiveness.
Rising Frustrations

With the rising Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) demanding an end to alleged extrajudicial acts by the
Pakistani military, these post-merger issues come at an uncertain time. Recent clashes between Pashtun
activists and the army, leading to the arrest of Pashtun legislators, have already angered the residents of
the tribal districts. Additionally, the slow pace of reforms has not helped alleviate these frustrations.

Besides the demands of PTM, calls for a separate province from some vocal residents of FATA have not
subsided post-merger. Earlier this month, locals filed a constitutional petition challenging the merger.
Hameed Ullah Jan Afridi has also started a consortium of anti-merger individuals and groups, petitioning
to make former FATA a separate province. “I can foresee that these tribal areas will stand up for their
rights at some point and it will create an outbreak, because they are in pain, they have problems, and they
will retaliate at some stage,” he told the authors.

As polarizing as PTM is, their demands for justice and accountability cannot be ignored. As long as post-
merger development remains in limbo and justice is delayed, movements like these will continue to pose
a threat to the Pakistani military’s authority and approval ratings. This tension has already resulted in
violence, and is only likely to escalate if things continue the way they are. The popularity of PTM and the
ongoing issues with the merger raise fears of a separatist movement. And while secession of the tribal
areas from Pakistan seems far-fetched, the movement itself will add a new layer to similar demands that
the state has been curbing in Balochistan for decades.

The Way Forward

Considering that making progress in FATA is such an arduous task that could take years, perhaps a way to
quell the rising frustration would be to manage the expectations of the ordinary residents of FATA. The
merger was overwhelmingly presented as the only solution to FATA’s problems, with most political
leaders, from now-Prime Minister Imran Khan to former KPK Chief Minister Pervez Khattak hailing it as a
“huge victory for Pakistan”. Now that the moment of jubilation is over, however, the ground realities are
dampening the high hopes of FATA’s people.

Considering that making progress in FATA is such an arduous task that could take years, perhaps a way
to quell the rising frustration would be to manage the expectations of the ordinary residents of FATA.
The merger was overwhelmingly presented as the only solution to FATA’s problems…Now that the
moment of jubilation is over, however, the ground realities are dampening the high hopes of FATA’s
people.

Over the past few months, the government has taken several steps towards development of the region,
including the announcement of local body elections, the training of law enforcement agencies, and the
appointment of judges for tribal districts. While these steps are commendable, they have yet to
materialize in the eyes of FATA’s residents. The hasty execution of the merger has created a divide
between expectations and reality. The silence of the prime minister over the recent arrest of two
legislators from tribal areas—who are both associated with PTM—and the official delay announced in
tribal district elections has further widened the rift between the locals and the government.

The only way forward is to swiftly set up administrative and political infrastructure, such as
functioning law enforcement agencies and courts, to provide basic rights and access to justice for local
residents. At the same time, taking into account the cultural and historic attachment to jirgas in the
community, it would not be possible to repeal the jirga system completely. As suggested by the official
committee on FATA reforms, jirgas could serve as a “jury system” for civil and criminal cases.

However, such measures require sourcing finances, which has been another major hurdle since the
merger was announced. The government had promised a special award of three percent of the federal
revenue for the newly merged tribal districts. One year later, there is still a struggle to secure such funding
from an already fragile economy. At a finance meeting in April 2019, the government requested other
provinces to share funds to uplift tribal districts, but no agreement could be reached. In June 2019, a
budget of over USD $1 billion was finally approved for the development of merged areas, but whether
these funds will be released without delay remains to be seen.

The merger may have given a glimmer of hope to much of FATA, but the fact remains that until
groundwork is done to make up for decades of underdevelopment and isolation, the lives of the tribal
people will remain in limbo and their frustrations will continue breeding, potentially fueling the Pashtun
Spring, which has gained new momentum through FATA’s young activists.

Tax reforms and the future of the economy

Taxes and duties are collected by FBR in Pakistan therefore these words have become synonyms with FBR
over time, and used collectively in common parlance and drawing room discussions, even in the policy
echelons. Anything meant to reform the tax system actually means to reform the FBR, its structure,
functions, and its legal Framework. Reform is a process which must continue unabated in each and every
institution all the time and throughout the life cycle of any organisation. FBR is no exception, if history is
any guide it has not happened as per the above universally accepted principle of change in an evolutionary
manner, catering to the needs as and when they arose. It is the second big national institution after army
and has an equally important function to perform. The job of this organisation is time bound, with
deadlines and also quantifiable at the end of each financial year. This makes it distinct than the others in
the state structure of Pakistan. The significance of the job that it does has its direct implications on the
national economy particularly the fiscal deficit which always keep it in the lime light.

When the job shows any slackness, it is measured by only one parameter which is target, its bashing starts
from right, left and centre. The most common critique is that it has failed to broaden the tax base, issue
wiry firry notices, squeezes and teases the existing taxpayers and so on for achieving their targets. These
arguments generally degenerate to outright and sweeping allegations on the integrity of the organisation.
When the present govt took over, this attained more speed and significance as the prime minister publicly
and particularly in his first speech to the nation repeated these allegations more forcibly specifying in a
blunt and terse manner, making everybody believe in it. And why not, when it came from the chief
executive of the state, under whose executive authority it was to perform for five years. The spat of these
charges didn’t stop here, but trickled down to the Finance Ministry, the political tail enders, and the
chambers of businesses. Without going to the merits of this tirade, its impact on the national revenue ‘up
to around expected 400 billion plus’ is more important and biting the nation. The institution has come to
a standstill and is at a complete halt now. Obviously, the officers are worried about their future and career,
and why not? After all it was none less than the PM charging them as a mafia. The workforce got
demoralised, de-motivated and went on the back foot.
In the same breath, the prime minister made a public commitment of getting rid of this evil by reforming
it or doing it away altogether and replacing it with a new tax collecting agency. The commitment to fix it
and reform it looks like a far cry even today, even after the lapse of almost eight long months. More
worrisome is that there doesn’t appear anything on the scene known to the common man. A-team has
been formed, consisting of some past and new members, most of them having no background knowledge
of the working in FBR. Anything done so far has been done behind closed doors, without the participation
of FBR, a major stakeholder. Coming back to FBR reforms, the history of reforms is important to take stock
of. It has been reformed on a number of occasions in the past as well, as a project, by the government of
Pakistan and some financed by the multilateral organisations. To enumerate the important ones, 1990 to
1991 Resource Mobilisation and Tax Reform Commission (RMTRC) was formed. In 1993 Structural
Adjustment Facility (SAF) was signed with International Monetary Fund (IMF) and TARP programme under
the World Bank assistance.

Reforming the FBR is a buzz word again, and every Pakistani wishes it to be fixed and reformed and quickly.
To my understanding, more than everybody else, FBR officers themselves wish it to be reformed. They
also wish that action should speak louder than the words and hollow rhetoric. Nobody doubts the
intention of the present government for doing the same, but what is doubted is the capacity of team doing
it and ground information available to them. The team derives it spirit from the TARP reforms programme
and the recommendations of the tax reform commission in the previous government. A good work was
done on both these occasions and most of the ground towards success was covered. This is a good idea
to continue the effort as huge money was spent on those reforms. Quite a few of the recommendations
made by TRC were also enforced, particularly the legal one.

Since the present members of reform commission include both the heads of these reforms’ programmes,
we are confident they will contribute by informing the new reform members as to where these reforms
were successful and where they failed. Furthermore, the failures will be picked up one by one and
solutions found out. This is the way forward rather than the disastrous path of undoing FBR and making a
new revenue setup. Referring back to the history of reforms for guidance, there is no denying the fact that
the only meaningful reforms made, were under the TARP programme, as they were based on broad-based
consultation of all stakeholders, researchers, intellectuals and international experts. These reforms made
a difference also.

The present structure of RTOs and LTUs is the product of those reforms. It changed the age-old territorial
system of administration to functional, with universal self-assessment scheme. Risk audit management
system was introduced. Technology was also introduced aiming at a paperless environment.
Centralisation of authority occurred in administration. New income tax ordinance 2001 was introduced as
a modern legal framework. Infrastructure changed to look like corporate outfits. This was a paradigm shift.

There exists resentment against the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). Centralisation of authority occurred
in administration. New income tax ordinance 2001 was introduced as a modern legal framework.
Infrastructure changed to look like corporate outfits. This was a paradigm shift. Unfortunately, it had some
unintended consequences, which incurred unanticipated collateral damages to system resulting in the
present-day resentment. The very purpose was a sweeping change and complete overhaul of the system,
dissociating itself away from the past thought to be bad and unwanted as we feel today. As unintended
consequences, it developed gross functional anomalies like shrinking of base rather than broadening of
base, deterioration of compliances to the worst in the history, and tax to GDP ratio had a free fall.
File movement on multiple desks, diluted the officer’s authority and ultimately created disciplinary issues.
This became the major cause of corruption rather than combating it. Worst load shedding in the country
at that time falsified the dream of paperless environment. Transforming taxpayer and tax collector
relation to an interface with a faceless machine evaporated. The change created a new department of
Inland Revenue Services (IRS) and income tax, as service was disbanded. The IRS got a sway over sales tax
and federal excise in addition to the income tax for one window solutions and cross matching of
information, cross match and catch new taxpayers and calculating income of existing taxpayers for
detecting concealments of incomes and assets. However, the number of concealment cases fell sharply
as against the goal. The change boosted the revenue to a trillion in absolute terms for the, first time in the
history of FBR, hailed and used as a justification to continue the change. Everyone, including myself
celebrated, but without knowing that the most authentic parameter to gauge the success of reforms, tax
to GDP ratio was steeply falling. The salutary impact in the beginning started phasing out with time. The
drop in the tax to GDP ratio was pointed out to the bosses of that time, (privy to the discussion) and was
brushed aside as the initial teething problem and adjustment phenomenon which was to be corrected
with time. However, it was never corrected till today despite all efforts and we are still way low on the
table if compared with the world and region. The number of amnesty schemes brought after the change
is the evidence that it has failed to tap all domestic resources and even today, we are back to square one.
We may be repeating it again tomorrow if not done as suggested.

Issues for consideration

There is no doubt in my mind that the present reform committee will be taking care of all the offshoots/
backlash of aggressive reforms in the past. They are also sensitive to the broadening of base and reducing
tax burden on existing tax payers. The separation of policy board was an act in the right direction, but it
was enacted in the FBR in the previous reforms. Frankly policy always remained with the Finance Ministry.
The FBR was only the secretariat for doing the spade work for them so it was just a cosmetic change.

The team must analyse the malaise and ailments of the institution by diagnosing them one by one and
then curing in a scientific manner based on data, home-grown solutions and experience on the ground. It
is necessary, as ecology of administration is a full-fledged subject taught in all management schools in the
world. The fact of the matter is that the tax base is very narrow, and taxpayers on record are
overburdened.

The best system of taxation is more people paying and lesser rate of taxes. Therefore, the urgency of the
reforms should be the treatment of this important symptom of the illness, resulting from low/no outreach
of the department on one hand and policy changes on the other. Tax culture in the country has also not
developed and paying taxes are not considered a matter of pride, rather the other way round. It is
considered fine to hide tax, considered as penalties by the state. Nobody is named and shamed on the
basis of tax evasion. Such culture is linked to the luxurious spending, misuse of their money, cars,
bungalows and overbearing lifestyle of the political and bureaucratic elite. Moreover, taxes are not
providing security, education, health and other social services.

They are considered as tax-saving and not tax evasion creating a moral base for evasion. The attitude of
some officers and departmental processes, discretion of the taxmen and strong-arm tactics create
resistance in taking the taxpayer away from paying taxes. Most of these are because of lack of training in
public dealing and exposure embargo on tax officers to move horizontally in the provinces and other
departments of the federation. Trust deficit between the taxpayer and collector, due to chasing wildly
fixed targets, mostly not based on available tax and supporting resources with the officer, must be
considered. The physical absence of taxmen thus finishes the writ of the service. The universal principle
of visibility of taxmen to taxpayer for more tax has been disregarded. Moreover, the territorial concept of
administration is also a problem. Broadening of tax base is a true challenge for the success of any form of
future taxation system in Pakistan. The economy of Pakistan consists of around 45 percent as an informal
cash economy. This makes this challenge more formidable. Documentation is fundamentally a
government job outside the preview of the FBR, and it consists of a number of actions required to be
taken by the government. Since bashing the FBR has become a fashion all over the country at political
rallies, by traders, in the media etc, the FBR has been pushed on the back foot. Whenever one department
starts using the authority of others, the job remains undone, only the unscrupulous start growing in such
a situation.

The stark reality is that anti-smuggling role has been taken over by the police, FC, rangers, coast guards;
their own jobs remain to be done, by whom nobody knows. The custom department was left with nothing
more than the blame of corruption which in most of the case was done by the encroachers. Today the
customs service is in a log jam with no authority, but it is getting bashed everywhere. The officers have
no support staff to raid even a petty vendor, what to say of powerful smugglers. It is only the nation that
suffers not the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) if one considers the statistics of ice and heroine dealers
and victim in schools and colleges. The outcome is frightening. We all have statistics of the country’s
literacy, health and poverty rate, but the narcotics consumption rate, source, carriage and storage is not
on record, primarily because of a powerless custom department. There was an effort made between 2016
and 2017 to remedy these pitfalls. New LTU and two corporate RTOs were created in Lahore and Karachi,
with corporate zones all over the country. The territorial RTOs were to be separated and rearranged based
on their jurisdictions. That package is a way forward and must be deliberated. The key of those efforts are
briefly given below.

Philosophically, a hybrid system was in mind, taking care of all ills mentioned above as well as
consolidating the gains made, without costing a penny to the state. This had approval of the department
after wide consultations in house. Member ops gave a detailed presentation to the TRC and the finance
minister, who was charmed to the extent that ordered its enforcement there and then. Less money and
no donor support are required, with readiness for use at any time the government wishes. The result will
be instant and to the satisfaction of everybody, as it targets the ills and treats it one by one. Any
experience of new setup will uproot the gains so far made and create new problems and more confusion
and further loss of taxes.

1. School of finance, taxation and customs

An important part of these ideas was doing away with Directorates of Training (DOT) and making new
schools. The school was to be affiliated with other schools in developed countries with exchange of trainee
officers on reciprocal basis. The whole curriculum and syllabus of the DOTS, was mulled to be rewritten,
as the one taught there was obsolete and has no relevance to the future knowledge and skill needs of the
officers. The subject of ethics and sensitivity to the public grievances, including grooming in public dealing
was going to make a difference in the future of the FBR. A few international institutions had agreed at
that time to send their officers to our schools for two weeks and vice versa. Even the custom and the IRS
probationers needed to stay in each others’ schools for 15 days to learn cross jurisdictional concepts for
broader understanding and coordination in future. In addition to our officers, Pakistan could be a hub of
training the officers of other countries, and earn revenue as well. This was to give the officers international
exposure, broader vision, integrity support, and preparation to catch complicated cases, which DOT
arguably, has failed to provide. The initiative of the young and talented tax officer was killed by the system
in vogue in DOT, as they were called the glorified clerks at the outset, paralysing their initiative in all future
discourse. On the custom side an international school of custom on the same lines and creation of at least
two anti-smuggling collectorates across the country with the borders force for supporting these outfits
could have yielded salutary results. Paperwork on these concepts in the shape of projects has been
completed and available with custom wings of FBR.

2. District taxation officer

District taxation offices were to be established and district taxation officers were to be posted in each
district without exception on the pattern of DCOs and DPOs. This idea was not merely sending officers to
the district, but it covered all the gaps created by the previous efforts of reforms.

Brief guidelines are as under:

The DTO will have permanent establishment like DPO, DCO as district tax house and tax payer facilitation
centre for all taxes and taxpayers, with tehsil as assistant DTO having an assessment authority on all cases
except corporate cases in his tehsil. DTO to have ‘revisional’ authority to reconsider any order passed by
TTO, pointed by the aggrieved party, or take a suo moto notice if any wrong has been done to the taxpayer
or revenue both, thus facilitating taxpayers within his districts limits rather than to far away stations for
redressal of the grievances where RTO’s are located. DTO to be administratively competent to recruit his
staff and transfer it as he deems fit for his setup. He will ensure that each business/sale/income is
registered on his record, (massive BTB) and documentation of economy. DTOs to be financially competent
to spend money allocated to him like petrol, vehicle hiring etc. Will have designated vehicle and support
staff both technical and non-technical to enforce the writ.

The DTO to be a composite tax authority for federal provincial and even municipal taxes. His office will be
common tax house of the district where all taxes including provincial, municipal and vehicle taxes will be
collected. The revenue collected will go directly in respective government accounts through a coded
challan. This will be in consonance with ease of doing business as taxpayers will be going to one place for
all taxes. It will reduce the support staff load on all three tiers of government. Above all the constitutional
right of provincial government to collect their taxes will not be violated. The concept of one authority by
federation may be resisted by the provinces and create bad blood which can be avoided by win-win
situation of DTO. Investment is needed if not in lump sum at least on incremental basis in IT infrastructure,
logistics and physical infrastructure to provide a decent working place for each officer.

Let me state, based on my personal experience that the rate of return on investment in FBR will be highest
in the world and sustained for many more decades to come. It is worth it and let us go for it, we cannot
afford more wastage and surrender to the status quo and inertia. This will enable govt to select the
successful DTO as future departmental leaders, by training them further and placing him on future
executive positions. Further test of them will make it easy to select the future members and even
chairman, on merit and not on discretion bases as is in vogue today.

3. Growth of officers in hierarchy

For any successful taxation system to be in place on ground the most critical factor is an organised well
trained, dedicated, honest and hardworking officers/officials. For all the above to happen, motivation is
one big critical factor and works like fuel for the engine. Motivation will only come when officers are
convinced of the protection of their rights, posting, growth in the hierarchy, and recognition of
performance. The hybrid system which has been discussed at length automatically cares and fits into all
the pits. The system of taxation will not only consolidate the grounds of previous reforms but also cater
to its weakness for more revenues. In the centre of this thought there is an inbuilt hierarchy of officers of
the inland revenue, which is essential to give force and impart efficiency and effectiveness to the system
of taxation which so emerges. The young officers from the training school will join in a salary setup as
beginners to start testing skills and knowledge that they learnt in the training school. The application of
their initial knowhow will make them suitable to be moved to the minor commercial and major
commercial units, one after the other. In around five six years of such exposure, the officers will then be
fit to be moved to the corporate sector in the corporate RTO and later on to LTUs. This will establish a
system of merit as well as a grooming on the job of the officers. The same round will be repeated when
they go to the senior grades like additional commissioner and commissioner. The officer having completed
the round from salary to LTU will be a qualified resource for being posted as DTO and to be tested on
ground for future leadership.

4. Integrity and performance management

Integrity of the FBR and its officers is measured every day and at every place. It is essential to place
systematically organised, methodical and scientific measures for integrity management in place. The
already available mechanism like internal audit and directorate general I&I, both are virtually
dysfunctional. The functional overlap of I&I and field formations and audit directorate needs to be
carefully studied and removed for clarity of work and efficiency. Collective responsibility is nobody’s
responsibility at all. Any of these setups needs to be geared and mandated with sweeping powers, to take
action against any departmental functionary on account of corruption, tax losses etc on the pattern of
NAB. The present PER measurement is out dated therefore needs to replaced by third party performance
audit through universally accepted parameters.

5. Mending the legal framework

To do the least, we need to immediately enforce the system of value-added taxation in the sales tax to
document and tap the wholesalers and retailers. The general sales tax has not delivered over a period of
more than 20 years of its life in practice. It is the real need of the hour and true test of the government’s
resolve if they are serious and sincere in going for a change. There will be resistance from the market
consisting of these two very important and crucial components of the value/supply chain, as they have
successful experienced in the past on this account. The reason to argue in favour of value-added tax vs
GST is that it is levied at the level of manufacturing and imports as its starting point. It trickles down along
the supply chain/value, but at the level of wholesaler/retailer the chain is broken. The consumer, who
actually is the taxpayer, pays the tax but it does not reach the treasury and is stuck in one of these two
places. The government will have to take all the provincial governments and trade bodies into confidence
for the change, and collect data of all businesses across the country by compulsory registration.
Unfortunately, there is no shortcut to this mode of taxation, and its successful implementation will
document trade, broaden the base, and also enable the government to reduce the rate of taxation to
even single digit.
After sometime, this job will be well done by the DTOs. The present tax system is based on the universal
self-assessment scheme primarily designed to facilitate the taxpayer, believing him as honest and
removing discretionary powers of the tax officers, allegedly corrupt. Regrettably, this assumption did not
prove by the experiment. Immediately after the enforcement of this doctrine, the taxpayer started
declaring less and less by each passing year, to the extent that his income as per his statement fell below
the taxable level, resultantly being a BLT, he stopped filing a return as he thought it was not required. The
logical conclusion of this exercise was reduction in the number of tax filers, creating a gigantic challenge
for the government to tackle this monster. Broadening of tax becomes a far cry on the face of the fact
that the government machinery becomes ineffective by even enforcing return on the registered
taxpayers. Today, less than 50 percent of the registered taxpayers in all the streams of revenue are filling
their return and the remaining are thus non filers. As a compensatory response to the above situation,
the government has been moving to the levy of withholding taxation. It is a disparate move to compensate
for the loss they made due to the USAS and its gross misuse by the existing taxpayers. It further
deteriorated to an embarrassing level of transactional taxation, as a covering up of tax losses. Income
taxation has virtually been replaced with withholding tax and a transactional tax system.

Though withholding tax is a direct tax being indirectly collected, it is a glaring admission of the state that
it has lost its writ in the matter of taxing its citizens in a straight and direct manner. This has killed the age-
old philosophy of direct taxation, proportionate to the capacity to pay (more income more taxes, no
income no taxes), thus burying the universal principal of taxation. If you carefully study the pie of revenue,
the share of direct taxes has gradually gone down. The withholding tax/transaction/tax/sales tax/FED are
the major revenue spinners pushing out the direct tax into a marginalised level, looking like indirect,
regressive and unrealistic. Through this step, the government defended its short-term interest, revenue
in absolute terms for a short period of time but with steep fall in tax-to-GDP ratio, and above all, rapidly
consumed the space of expansion or any growth in future.

Thus, a state of stagnation and stalemate in revenue has arrived. Taxation is a strong economic tool of
social justice, reducing income inequality, and economic development. None of this is being achieved and
this is the major reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor becoming poorer. It can be hoped
that the present government has a solution to this.

This system of taxation definitely needs a change, but a home-grown one, and with the ownership of
applying machinery. The FBR manpower and its satisfaction in terms of infrastructural and logistical
support coupled with monetary rewards will play a critical role in enforcing the writ of the state, for
collecting due taxes. FBR hierarchy needs to be consoled rather than bashed, which always proved
counterproductive. FBR is state machinery, and state has full authority to mend it the way it wishes to,
but treating them as opponents is costing more to the state in terms of losses than gains.

The mechanism of accountability of the delinquents, unruly and corrupt officers/officials is a prerequisite
for the success of the change. To make the change permanent, all these steps need to be institutionalised
rather than done in a rash, emotional and irrational manner to save it from failure as has been done in
the past.

In the present system, there are taxpayers who have no tax officers and conversely there are officers who
have no taxpayers to tax. It is essential to place district taxation officers with full legal, administrative and
financial competence as mini chief commissioners, for broadening of tax base. Stricter compliance to the
tax laws must be ensured as well. The school of finance and taxation and international school of custom
are essential, for creating human capital that matches international standards. Legal framework needs to
be revisited to wash it out from the anomalies and encroachments on the custom and IRS authority for
any fair and transparent accountability in future.

The application of value-added tax vs GST is essential for broadening of tax base, and to avoid any future
amnesty on the request of the traders who actually are opposing the VAT. The present amnesty may be
used as a trade off with traders for accepting the VAT against the GST. It is for the government to see for
itself as what is best for national revenue interest in future. It they listen to sane voices they are going to
benefit more than anyone else.

{{{— Written by: Dr Muhammad Irshad. The writer is a former FBR chairman.}}}

Promotion of tax culture in Pakistan: Perspective,

prospects and challenges
Introduction:

1) Definition of tax culture

2) Tax culture around the world

3) Tax culture in Pakistan

4) Reasons due to which people don’t pay taxes

i) Illiteracy

ii) Lack of awareness about tax system

iii) Complex tax system and codes

iv) Harassment of the tax-payers

v) Corruption in the administration

vi) Lack of punishment for non-payers and corrupt officials

vii) Badly carried out amnesty scheme

viii) Mistrust among common people

ix) Luxury living standards of the elite

x) Lack of tax incentives

5) Bad effects of non-payment of taxes

i) Economic disparity in the country

ii) Non-availability of public educational institutes, hospitals etc.

iii) Increase of class gap

iv) More taxes on the poor

v) Foreign loans

vi) Lack of security and safety

6) Methods to improve tax collection

i) Educating the nation

ii) Simplification of the tax system and codes

iii) Friendly environment for the tax-payers

iv) Giving tax incentives such as amnesty scheme but with proper homework

v) Punishing the culprits

vi) Rulers leading by example

vii) Reviving trust of the common people on the government

viii) Awareness campaigns through print and electronic media.

7) Good effect of tax-payment

i) Economic prosperity

ii) Construction of schools and hospital etc

iii) Reduction in class gap

iv) Less indirect taxes

v) Elimination of debt financing

vi) Improvement in security apparatus

8) Conclusion

Hybrid War and Challenges For Pakistan

The world has changed. Wars are fought no more on battlegrounds but with touches of buttons and
turnings of knobs. Hybrid warfare has revolutionized the arena where every country exhausts all
possible means without even moving.
“The categories of warfare are blurring and no longer fit into neat, tidy boxes. One can expect to
see more tools and tactics of destruction – from the sophisticated to the simple – being employed
simultaneously in hybrid and more complex forms of warfare”, Robert M. Gates, Former U.S.
Secretary of Defence.
Conflict is inherent to the structure of the international paradigm, a construct of state system and
composition of human society. The nature of wars resulting from this conflict has remained
constant as a political and social phenomenon, however, the character of war continues to
transform from kinetic to non-kinetic, conventional to sub-conventional or combination of the two
with evolving technological and societal evolution.
Pakistan today faces a host of kinetic and non-kinetic threats due to its politico-ideological leanings
and geographic location. Major kinetic threats to Pakistan take their roots from the East. While
other actors also generate threats, which include non-state actors, hostile states and agencies. Major
non-kinetic threats to our security include information operations, ethno-sectarian divide.
“Hybrid Warfare require a different perspective than what we have applied so far on the other
forms of warfare”
The non-traditional threats to our security include natural disasters, climate change, and population
growth which if not managed can have a huge impact on the security and stability of the country.
Hybrid war is considered a decentralized form of warfare characterized by blurred lines between
war and politics, combatants and civilians besides being a long term and complex affair.
Given the rate at which change in warfare is accelerating, it is reasonable to accept that Hybrid
Warfare is considered a military strategy that blends conventional, irregular and Cyber Warfare
and is a consequence of new technologies like nanotechnology, coupled with an indirect political
approach. Hybrid Warfare requires a different perspective than what we have applied so far on the
other forms of warfare.
Hybrid warfare is an extension of Asymmetrical and Insurgent Warfare, whereby the enemy uses
all means, conventional and unconventional tactics. It includes political, religious and social
causes; incorporates information operations campaigns (internet and 24 hours news cycle) can be
conducted by the organization or un-organized groups; maybe nation state-led or non-nation state
led to disrupt and defeat opponents in order to achieve their will.
Hybrid warfare is manifested as under
– Media of the target state is used as the most effective weapon to inflict hopelessness, uncertainty
and frustration among the masses.
– Existing internal fault lines of the target state like sectarian/ethnic extremism, weak economy,
separatist movements and illiteracy can be exploited by the aggressor.
– Political instability is fuelled by the aggressor to refrain the target state from formulating and
implementing national policies.
– In order to globally isolate the target state, strong lobbying is resorted to generate exterior
maneuvers and exploit the weak diplomacy of target state to degrade/denounce its positive
initiatives/efforts.
– Proxy warfare and non-states actors are used to carryout subversive activities inside target state
in order to economically choke, disrupt law and order situation and to turn the target into a terror-
stricken state.
– Aggressor uses its influence on international financial institutions to create conditions for
provision of maximum amount of loans to the target state to further weaken it economically or it
ensures imposition of strict sanctions on target state in order to create frustration amongst the
masses and pave way to overtaking of target state’s national assets by said financial institutions.
Recently a European news agency has exposed, how Indian influence public perception on
Pakistan by multiplying iterations of the same content available on search engines worldwide. For
this purpose 265 fake websites that have been were being used to proliferate Indian malicious
propaganda against Pakistan and several domestic media outlets would easily be swept away by
it.
“Conflict is inherent to the structure of the international paradigm, a construct of state system
and composition of human society”
Once an EU news agency has exposed it, we mustn’t lose the opportunity to put India on back
foot:
First step is general awakening followed by sharing this news to maximum Pakistanis at home and
abroad particularly in Europe and USA etc. They can be effectively utilised by our diplomatic
missions to apprise the host governments and their public to neutralise the effects of Indian
propaganda.
Law is an important component of Hybrid warfare. Government of Pakistan must file a defamation
law suit against India in EU court. PTA-Ministry of Information-Law Ministry and Foreign Office
must also prepare a case and write to twitter Facebook, Google and all search engine managements
to block all fake accounts involved in baseless propaganda against Pakistan.
There is a requirement of stringent media regulations especially against the disinformation and
fake news contents that promote chaos and instability. Our TV channel owners should be
persuaded to dedicate some airtime, other than useless and endless domestic politics, against Indian
propaganda warfare also.
Ministry of Information at the same time must get articles published in English National and
international print media to expose Indian sinister game and bring the facts to limelight. Indians
are using instruments like yoga, Indian cuisine Bollywood films and music etc to create “peaceful”
“soft” image of India. After 9/11 they adopted European imagery and film making techniques.
“Law is an important component of Hybrid warfare. Government of Pakistan must file a
defamation law suit against India in EU court”
There is also a consented effort to send Indian doctors, nurses and IT professionals to work in
Europe. There is a need to build Pakistan’s soft image also and have icons that can represent
Pakistan at global forums. Unfortunately branches of our political parties abroad can play decisive
role but their management is in the hands of those who can’t communicate effectively due to lack
of language skills.
Our political parties must address this grey area and leadership abroad should be entrusted to
educated, enlightened and progressive Pakistanis who have a world view and can act as good
ambassadors of the country. Sustained social media campaign must be launched to present soft
image of Pakistan while exposing plight of minorities and rising tide of Hindutva in India
Remember: Media centric Hybrid warfare is a reality and we as a nation has to fight this challenge
otherwise history acts savagely with the nations which don’t prepare and rise to their existential
challenges.
TACKLING HYBRID WARFARE AND COERCIVE DIPLOMACY: CHALLENGES
FOR PAKISTAN
Hybrid warfare means neutralizing the enemy without physically fighting on the battleground.
Though hybrid warfare is much old phenomenon but now a day it has become a new buzzword
echoed ubiquitously and being dubbed as 4th and 5th generation warfare. In this modern era of
digital revolution, a country uses unconventional military means in hybrid warfare, such as cyber-
attacks, economic sanctions, disinformation and propaganda and supporting local insurgent groups
to interfere in other country’s affairs in order to destabilise it. The sole aim of the 4th and 5th
generation hybrid warfare is to create chaos in the country and weaken the very social fabric of the
society. Hybrid war has now become an instrument of violence which is being used as a tool to
attack every single structure which represents the state, be it the governance structures of the state,
the leadership (including civil and military) or armed forces.

Hybrid warfare is not just confined to military, but it’s very political and diplomatic in nature, as
defined by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general and military theorist, that ‘war is the
continuation of politics by other means’. One of the most important and dangerous tools of the
hybrid war is information exploitation, which can really play a vital role to disrupt the societies,
where right use of information is imperative for right decisions. Role of social media in this
scenario has enhanced, where disinformation, propaganda and fake news are being disseminated
to achieve ulterior political motives.
Another critical tool and strategy of hybrid warfare is coercive diplomacy of international powers
through economic means. The powerful countries impose economic sanctions, trade restrictions
and enforce critical economic conditions through International Monitory Fund (IMF) and Financial
Action Task Force (FATF) on a targeted country in order to subdue their economic integrity to
achieve their malicious intents.
Challenges and way forward for Pakistan
Though Pakistan has achieved many millstones in countering extremism and terrorism in the
country, but the country is confronting with the growing challenge of hybrid warfare. Our enemies
through various mean finance activities that weaken the very social fabric of the society by pitching
various communities against each other on ethnical and religious grounds. Moreover, our
conventional rival India is also spending huge sums on building its military might to continue with
its cold start war doctrine against Pakistan. The probability of conventional conflict between two
rival countries has been declined, whereas, hybrid warfare is gaining prominence, as Pakistan has
already exposed India in Kulbhushan Jadhav and Pulwama episode.
Currently, Pakistan is facing serious economic coercions in the shape of IMF and FATF
conditions, which is undermining country’s economic sovereignty and posing serious threat to our
national security. Pakistan needs to understand such coercions and to prepare itself for it.
Pakistan can counter such coercions of hybrid warfare by strengthening its relations and lobby
efforts at the United Nations, and other regional economic blocks, initiatives and organizations
like Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to get political and economic support from them. This
will help Pakistan to fight hybrid war at international front.
In Pakistan two third of population is below 30 years. The total teledensity in Pakistan is reportedly
more than 70 per cent, where 63 million are using the smart phones and majority of them belong
to young strata of the society who are active on social media. It is observed that the whole hybrid
warfare is being fought on the social media, which shows the scale of threat of hybrid war, as there
are huge potential listener, consumers and readers of information propaganda. This is the biggest
challenge for us where such a huge population with smart phones can be exploited and manipulated
through disinformation and fake news. In this era of information and communication, it is crucial
for our young generation to differentiate between right or wrong, correct or incorrect and lack of
authenticity of the information.
To counter the disinformation, there is dire need of promoting the culture of healthy debates and
discussions. If we wanted to save our young generation from the dire consequences of hybrid
warfare, there is need to promote the culture of truth and facts among our young generation. It is
now the responsibility of every individual and especially the thinking community to help develop
the culture of information analysis.
Most importantly, one of the dangerous hybrid warfare tools is fake news. Reportedly, around 60
per cent news on social media in the world is fake, which is negatively influencing and shaping
the minds of our young generation. It is also unfortunate fact that a substantial number of our
journalists do rely on the information provided on such social networking platforms, which are
mostly fake or fabricated. To counter and avoid this information exploitation, there has to be
deterrent available in the country through legislative means.
The media is the major agency which is image constructor of the world, which creates perception
about individuals and countries among the general public. This perception could be positive or
negative as desired to achieve political objectives. It is imperative to promote effective media
policy to provide credible information to the public at national and international level.
We should embrace the new technology and use it intelligently and positively. Mostly the websites
of the different governmental departments are out dated and there is least presence on social media.
The government departments need to upgrade their websites to catch up with the society.
There is a need to engage people on the dynamics of coercive diplomacy and grey hybrid war so
that people of Pakistan can understand the war doctrine, methodologies and tactics of the enemies.
We have to open up debates on the subject. We have to rethink whether or not our foreign,
economic and domestic policies are aligned to realize the gravity of the situation. Lastly but not
the least, it is about time that all political parties shows unity and foster good relationships between
government and opposition in the parliament to ensure political stability to counter the grave threat
of hybrid warfare.

What Has the PTI Government Done for the Economy So Far?
These days, a Pakistani layman is bombarded with news regarding the deteriorating condition of
the country’s economy. So-called analysts are continuously trying to prove that the PTI Govt. has
failed to revive the country’s economy.
Slowing down of GDP growth rate, inflationary pressure, PKR depreciation, etc. are the inevitable
consequences of much-needed economic adjustments and stabilization measures. The fiscal
consolidation and monetary tightening policies adopted by PTI Govt. are for a soft landing of the
crash the economy had been heading towards.
Now, the question becomes: what are the outcomes of these reforms and policy measures?
Let’s dive in.
Trade Deficit:
There is a massive 35% reduction in Pakistan’s trade deficit for first quarter 2019-20. From July-
Sep 2019, the trade deficit dropped to USD 5.73 billion from USD 8.79 billion in the corresponding
period from last year. Moreover, around a 25% decline in trade deficit was recorded in September
2019 when compared to the same month of the previous year.
This happened because of a sharp decline in imports and increase in exports for the period. Non-
essential luxury imports are on decline; however, the duty-free imports of raw material and
machinery witnessed a growth of 7%. Hence, the trade deficit has been reduced without hampering
the economic activity in the country. Allowing duty-free imports of machinery and raw material
will boost the industrial growth in the current year.
Exports:
Exports volumes are on the rise; however, they need a price push as unit price declined. In FY
2019-20, Pakistan’s total export quantity increased by 12%. The textile industry witnessed 26%
growth in volumetric terms because of getting regionally competitive energy tariffs. However, due
to a significant decline in textile prices globally, this increase in export volumes did not translate
into substantial value terms.
Nevertheless, the textile sector has become viable now, after remaining in the red for a decade.
The construction industry is also picking up as both the local sales and export numbers of cement
have registered double-digit growth. Around 11.5% increase in domestic consumption and a 11.7%
increase in exports recorded for September 2019 as compared to September 2018.
Remittances:
An upsurge in the inflows of foreign remittances is also contributing towards the economy’s
revival. 18% Year-on-Year and 3% Month-on-Month increase was recorded in remittances for
September 2019.
Tax Collection:
Significant improvement in FBR tax collections with double-digit growth for first quarter FY
2019-20 (14.8% increase recorded vs the corresponding period last year). YoY September’s tax
revenue collection shows 17.6% growth as compared to the same month previous year.
The number of income tax returns has also increased by 14% in Q1 2019-20 as compared to the
corresponding period last year.
Foreign Investments:
The country has received a net foreign investment of around USD 328 million in debt instruments
(primarily T-Bills) for July-Sep 2019, making it the highest ever foreign portfolio investment.
Pakistan is fast becoming an attractive option for world investors.
USD 2 billion foreign investment in debt instruments is expected by the end of the current fiscal
year. The increase in investment is due to the high rate of return, increase in benchmark interest
rate, return of stability in the rupee-dollar exchange rate, tax relaxation for non-resident companies,
and reduction in withholding tax from 30% to 10% on investment in T-bills.
SBP profits are expected to be more than PKR 400 billion in FY 2019-20 (significant increase as
compared to previous years). The capital buffer has also stabilized because of the improvement in
foreign reserves.
Circular Debt:
Circular debt per month declined by 32% in FY 2018-19 as compared to FY 2017-18. It has further
decreased by 54% in FY 2019-20 as compared to previous year.
Foreign Direct Investment:
Some huge foreign direct investments are also in the pipeline: USD 5 billion investment by UAE
in oil refinery project; USD 21 billion investment by Saudi Arabia in various projects in Pakistan
etc.
Pakistan has met all the six quantitative targets of IMF by first quarter-end (July-Sep 2019).
As per economic experts, the inflation will dip down in the coming months.
KSE-100 index is on upward trajectory showing an increase in investors’ confidence.
Pakistan is now moving from a consumption-driven import-based growth model to an exports-
oriented domestic-productivity model.
The transition from a fixed exchange rate to a market-driven exchange rate has proved its
significance through stability in Pakistani rupee and healthy external accounts. The rupee-dollar
exchange rate has been stable since July 2019. Business confidence has started to rise.
Second Phase of CPEC:
The second phase of CPEC has started that involves industrial and socio-economic development.
Special economic zones (SEZ) will be established in various regions of the country. Agriculture
and trade will be the key focus areas of the 2nd phase. This will enhance foreign direct investment
(FDI) in the country.
Global Appreciation for Government Efforts
Global financial institutions and agencies have appreciated PTI Govt’s efforts for economic
revival. World Bank, IMF, Asian Development Bank, Moody’s, Sina Finance (China), etc. to name
a few.
According to them, Pakistan’s economy is showing signs of recovery and stability due to various
reforms and policy measures implemented by current Govt. The fiscal consolidation, monetary
adjustment policies, and austerity measures have been lauded. Investors’ confidence has restored
that will boost the foreign capital inflows and foreign direct investment in Pakistan.
Conclusion:
Pakistan’s economy is shifting towards import-substitution industrialization via supporting the
domestic businesses and export-led sectoral development. Stabilization measures of current Govt
are yielding results and their results will be visible in the coming years. Macro stabilization and
success on external sector are evident from the economic stats.
The direction is right, policies have been implemented and Pakistan’s economy is finally heading
towards the right course.

------GOOD LUCK------