ARTICLES OF THE DAY

June 4, 2021

CHRIS SWEENEY, RUSSIA TODAY............................................................................................................................ 2

SCOTT RITTER, RUSSIA TODAY ............................................................................................................................... 4

SARFARAZ K. NIAZI, DAWN .................................................................................................................................... 7

ZUBEIDA MUSTAFA, DAWN ................................................................................................................................... 9

SYED MUHAMMAD ALI, EXPRESS TRIBUNE .......................................................................................................... 11

SHAHZAD CHAUDHRY, EXPRESS TRIBUNE ............................................................................................................ 13

RAJ SHAH, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ............................................................................................................................... 15

ARI TOLANY, SOUTH ASIAN VOICES ..................................................................................................................... 18


The British elite lauded Ai Weiwei when he criticised China, but it’s
the opposite when he highlights their treatment of Assange
Chris Sweeney, Russia Today
T
he Chinese dissident
artist Ai Weiwei says
he’s hypocritically been
removed from a British
exhibition because he chose to
design a piece that addressed
WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange’s incarceration in a
London prison.
‘One person’s terrorist is
another’s freedom fighter’ is a
flowery way of saying actions
can be interpreted differently,
depending on your viewpoint.
It’s a scenario acclaimed
Chinese artist Ai Weiwei has
often encountered and,
unfortunately, is in again.
He fled his homeland for being
deemed too controversial for
the state’s strict censorship.
He’s recounted how he was
arrested, beaten by Chinese
police, placed under house
arrest and then imprisoned for
tax evasion.
On his release, he described
being subjected to
psychological torture, being
detained in a tiny room with
constant light and two guards
never more than 30 inches
away, even when he used the
bathroom.
In 2019, he fled to Berlin, but
didn’t stay long, “I don’t like a
state or culture that so obeys
authority”, he declared, adding:
“They would say in Germany
you have to speak German.
They deeply don’t like
foreigners.”
He now resides in the
picturesque city of Cambridge
in the east of England. So it was
understandable when last year
The Great Big Art Exhibition
asked a world famous artist,
who called the UK home, to
take part.
However, Weiwei is no longer
part of the project despite his
reputation being used to draw
attention to it.
Why?
Because he wanted to feature in
the exhibition a postcard with
the image of Julian Assange’s
treadmill. The WikiLeaks
founder used it for exercise
during his almost seven-year
spell in London’s Ecuadorian
Embassy, where he’d sought
refuge.
The exhibition hopes to
encourage Britons to make art
and display it in their windows,
a tonic to beat the gloom of the
pandemic. Weiwei opted for his
contribution to be a Postcard for
Political Prisoners, which
members of the public could
send to political prisoners
around the world, their
addresses supplied by
Amnesty.
2
Although people could send it
to themselves to display in their
own window if they wished.
Weiwei wanted to inspire them
to engage in art-activism, a
practise that has made him
globally admired.
However, his idea was rejected.
Weiwei claims that Sally Shaw,
the director of Firstsite, who are
leading the project, “seemed
too afraid to give us a straight
answer” and added: “I think the
reason is related to Assange
who has been incarcerated in
HM Prison Belmarsh in
London since his arrest on April
11, 2019, and that they don’t
want to touch on a topic like
Assange.”
Shaw has denied Weiwei’s
claims: “The sending of a
postcard takes us away from
this intention. I must assure
you, sincerely, that this is in no
way a reflection of our
appreciation of the idea itself,
which is remarkable and
profound, and equally our
esteem for Weiwei and his
work.”
Weiwei has managed to break a
glass ceiling, his art is widely
admired for the aesthetic and
then also its deeper meanings –
very few artists share that
ability. To have someone like
him involved would

undoubtedly have elevated the
credibility and sophistication of
the project.
Weiwei said of the rejection: “I
feel ashamed that nowadays all
art does is whitewash. My
artwork has once again proven
how the art world is corrupt.”
Assange is a figure who,
despite the best endeavours of
the British establishment, won’t
disappear. He remains locked
up in Belmarsh despite
America’s extradition request
being denied. He is behind bars
because bail was
controversially denied, while
an appeal is mounted by the US
government.
The whole matter is a stain on
the British justice system, as
Assange is guilty of nothing but
revealing atrocities committed
by America’s armed forces.
That’s why Weiwei’s latest
artistic beacon is to be lauded.
In the same way British society
lauded Weiwei when he was
standing up to causes that suited
them.
Back in 2011, Foreign
Secretary William Hague
called for China to release him
“immediately.” The same year,
someone called Boris Johnson
wrote a column entitled ‘The
world must speak up over the
detention of Ai Weiwei.’ (Not
sure we’ll get a similarly-
entitled one now about
Assange, do you?).
Former Prime Minister Theresa
May even personally got
involved when she was Home
Secretary to issue him with a
six-month visa after he was
only offered a 20-day permit
due to being detained for
political reasons in China.
The prestigious Tate Modern in
London also rapturously
received and hosted Weiwei’s
Sunflower Seeds – millions of
handcrafted porcelain seeds
which explored “the
complexity of the Chinese
individual’s relationship with
society, the authorities and
tradition.”
So when Weiwei rallied against
Chinese oppression he was to
3
be admired – but when his
artistic torch illuminated
Britain’s dark side, the script
was flipped.
As a country, we should be
welcoming individuals like
Weiwei but strictly adhering to
consistency. It’s arrogant to
shut down his work when it
embarrasses our own
transgressions, and that’s what
the treatment of Assange is.
Sally Shaw was awarded an
MBE in the The Queen’s
Birthday Honours List only
months ago for services to the
Arts and yet decides to cancel
Weiwei.
We’re a closed shop, but don't
like to admit it. And world-
class hypocrites. Why else
would we censor a globally
recognised artist?
The message is clear; criticise
those who it suits us and we’ll
support you, but come looking
for us and we’ll erase your
platform.
Hypocrites? Nah, spineless
cowards.

Did former Tony Blair aide Jonathan Powell meet with an Al-Qaeda
front organization?
Scott Ritter, Russia Today
A
media report says he
did; the British Foreign
Office refuses to
comment. Recent events,
however, are not inconsistent
with both the motives for and
potential results of such a
meeting, which fits Powell’s
MO to a T.
It was a headline designed to
catch the attention of anyone
reading it: “British intelligence
suggests al-Nusra start
cooperating with West.”
According to an unnamed
“diplomatic source in
Moscow”, Tony Blair’s former
Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell,
held a meeting with
Mohammad al-Julani, the head
of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham
(HTS), formerly known as
Jabhat Al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda
affiliate based in the Syrian
Province of Idlib, where it is
actively engaged in operations
against the Syrian government
headed by President Bashar
Assad.
The purpose of the meeting,
according to the source quoted
by Russian news agency TASS,
was to encourage HTS to build
closer ties with the West to re-
brand HTS as a pro-Western,
anti-Assad group, thereby
opening the door for the
provision of financial and
material support to HTS’
struggle against Assad.
4
The motives of TASS’ source
between Powell and al-Julani,
were quite clear. “We would there is a plethora of
like to remind those who circumstantial data that
quickly forget their own bitter supports the basic underlying
experience that there are no thesis of such a meeting.
good terrorists and all attempts
Moreover, given the context
to tame and hand-feed them
surrounding the timing of the
usually lead to many innocent
report, namely the re-election
deaths,” the source declared. In
of Syrian President Assad, HTS
response to a TASS request for
has emerged as the last man
comment, the British Foreign
standing, so to speak, in the
Office observed that “similar,
anti-Assad crusade initiated by
baseless allegations concerning
the US and its allies back in
Russia’s foreign intelligence
2011. As such, re-branding
service have been made more
would, in theory and practice,
than once,” suggesting that
be mandatory if that
TASS’ “diplomatic source”
organization were to assume
was, in fact, a member of
the mantle of Western ally in
Russian intelligence. “We will
any continuation of a Western-
not comment on this,” the
backed effort to remove Assad
British Foreign Office
from power. The motives for a
spokesman declared.
Powell meeting with al-Julani
The over-the-top delivery of become clear, as does the
what was an unsubstantiated reasoning for TASS’ unnamed
claim by an anonymous source “diplomatic source” to be
of dubious quality and motive drawing attention to it now.
resulted in the article gaining
Any examination of Jonathan
virtually no traction in the
Powell’s biography reveals that
Western media. Left to its own
he is custom-made for the very
devices, the TASS article
meeting alleged to have taken
would go the way of other
place. As Tony Blair’s chief
poorly sourced sensationalist
negotiator on Northern Ireland,
reporting, consigned to that
Powell began the process of
corner of the internet where
“talking to terrorists” as the best
conspiracy thrives amid truth’s
way to “resolve armed conflict
decay. However, anyone taking
in a lasting way.” Powell will
the time to dig deeper into the
be the first to admit that his
basic facts of the case would
singular success in paving a
discover that while there is no
path toward peace in Northern
direct evidence of a meeting
Ireland does not provide a

model “that can be plugged into
any conflict and used as a
template to solve it.” Powell
acknowledges that “every
conflict is different,” but also
notes that when it comes to
negotiated settlements between
established governments and
so-called terrorist
organizations, “there is clearly
a pattern to what works and
what does not.”
Powell has captured his
experiences, and negotiating
theory, in book form, penning
“Talking to Terrorists: How to
End Armed Conflicts”,
published in 2014. One
reviewer called the book “an
enthralling, step-by-step case
study of the art, in which
Powell carefully establishes his
argument for why dialogue
with terror groups is usually
necessary–given the failure, in
all but the most unusual
circumstances, of military
means.”
But Powell was not simply
content with putting his
theories on paper – he also put
them into action, founding a
charity, Inter Mediate, which,
according to its web page,
“focuses on the most difficult,
complex and dangerous
conflicts where other
organizations are unable to
operate.” The group, it says,
brings together “some of the
world’s leading experts on
dialogue and negotiation, who
operate as a small and flexible
team that fills a vital gap in the
conflict resolution landscape.”
By facilitating negotiation,
“Inter Mediate hopes to
contribute towards a with HTS is no longer far-
sustainable end to conflict.”
Powell formed the charity in
2011, and by March 2012 was
reaching out to then-Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton’s friend
and advisor, Sydney
Blumenthal, about getting US
support for his organization’s
work.
“We are trying to replicate what
we did in Northern Ireland by
setting up secret channels
between insurgents and
governments and then, where
appropriate, developing these
into negotiations,” Powell
wrote in an email to
Blumenthal. Powell listed
several conflict areas his group
was engaged in, adding “We
are starting work in Syria.”
Powell told Blumenthal that
Inter-Mediate works “closely
with FCO (the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office), NSC
(National Security Council)
and SIS (Special Intelligence
Service, or MI-6) in London.”
This kind of coordination was
in keeping with Inter Mediate’s
operational model, which noted
that the organization would
“draw on and leverage the
resources of larger
organizations–governments
and international institutions
that spend billions of dollars
annually to deal with the effects
of conflict from peacekeeping
to humanitarian intervention,”
noting that the charity’s goal in
doing so “is to increase the
effectiveness of some of that
spending.”
When viewed through this lens,
the concept of a Powell meeting
5
fetched, but rather logical and,
given his acknowledgement of
Syrian engagement, probable.
The TASS report alleges that
“Powell suggested that… Abu
Mohammad al-Julani should
build close cooperation with the
West,” and that HTS “should
announce plans to abandon
subversive activities against
Western countries and build
close cooperation with them.” It
also stated that Powell
recommended that al-Julani
“give an interview to an
American reporter in order to
create a positive image for the
alliance that he heads and
rehabilitate it in the future.”
Such an interview, in fact
occurred. Martin Smith, a
reporter for the US-based
Public Broadcasting Service
(PBS), travelled to Syria where,
from February 1-14, 2021, he
conducted an interview with
Mohammad al-Julani in which
the leader of HTS argued,
among other things, that HTS
posed no threat to the United
States, and the US government
should remove al-Julani from
its list of designated terrorists.
Smith’s interview aired on PBS
on April 2, 2021.
Smith’s interview was the
culminating event of a series of
actions taken by al-Julani and
HTS to rebrand its image away
from al-Julani’s Al-Qaeda roots
and into an organization worthy
of US support, something
which has proven to be an
uphill battle.
As recently as May 2018 the
US State Department amended

its definition for Jabhat al-
Nusra/HTS on the Foreign
Terrorist Organization list,
adding a number of aliases that
had been adopted by the
organization. “The United
States is not fooled,” the State
Department declared, “by this
al-Qa’ida affiliate’s attempt to
rebrand itself.”
But al-Julani’s efforts were
gaining traction. Robert
Malley, before he became
President Biden’s Special
Envoy for Iran,headed the
International Crisis Group, a
Brussels-based international
NGO focused on the prevention
and resolution of deadly
conflict which in February
2021 openly lobbied for the
lifting of HTS’ “terrorist”
status, stating that the label “has
a chilling effect on Western
support for essential service
provision in Idlib, worsening
the humanitarian crisis,” while
precluding “discussions with
6
HTS itself about its conduct and A possible Powell meeting with
the future of the territory it HTS takes on a new perspective
controls,” shutting down efforts in the aftermath of President
by “outside powers” to get HTS Assad’s re-election on May 26,
to “take further constructive 2021. While the US, Great
steps.” Britain and other Western
nations have condemned the
The role of Powell, directly or
election as a fraud, declaring
indirectly, in helping facilitate
that the outcome was a
any of these re-branding efforts
foregone conclusion, massive
is not known. Arab media
demonstrations of support for
reports that Powell met with a
Assad in the streets of major
political official from HTS,
Syrian cities suggest otherwise.
Zeid Attar, sometime in the
For Western nations that had
summer of 2017. Whether or
been pushing for a political
not this meeting even took
settlement that would see Assad
place, or if it did, whether it is
removed from power, his
the meeting referenced by
reelection is a demoralizing
TASS’ “diplomatic source”, is
blow, locking in as it does his
not known. What is known,
uncontested rule for the
however, is that everything that
foreseeable future. Seen in this
the TASS article alleges to be
light, the re-branding of HTS is
the purpose behind a Powell
a logical next step in any effort
meeting with al-Julani has, in
by the US and its British allies
fact, come to pass, and that such
to rebuild political opposition
a meeting fit the goals and
to the Assad government.
objectives of Powell regarding
seeking conflict resolution via Maybe that TASS report wasn’t
“talking with terrorists.” so far-fetched afterall.

The Covid-19 myths
Sarfaraz K. Niazi, Dawn
T
HE Greek myths were
initially propagated in
an oral-poetic tradition,
most likely by Minoan and
Mycenaean singers, starting in
the 18th century BC;
eventually, the myths of the
heroes of the Trojan War and its
aftermath became part of the
oral tradition of Homer’s epic
poems, the Iliad and the
Odyssey.
Now comes a pandemic where
a non-living entity, a virus, has
erupted out of nowhere and
annihilated almost four million
souls across the globe; living in
an era of oral-poetic (sermons
and speeches) and social media
(viral spread of facts) has
proliferated myths that may
supersede the absurdity of
Greek mythology. A president
of the wealthiest nation
suggested drinking bleach and
putting ultraviolet light into our
bodies to kill the virus; some
folks claimed there is no
pandemic, others that it was an
act of government, not God.
When asked or required to wear
a mask, many refused it as a
‘feminine thing’; others
denounced it as a violation of
personal liberty. And then came
the vaccines against Covid-19,
and some said it is forbidden
because it contains elements of
foetal protein, others that the
vaccine would make you
infertile. Some went so far as to
say that the vaccine will enable
the government to trace your
whereabouts because it instals
an electronic chip in your body.
Videos claiming that a
vaccinated site on your arm
could illuminate a light bulb
were believed by many.
Prominent philanthropists were
misquoted as opposing the
vaccine; a theory that anyone
who received the Covid vaccine
would die within two years was
wrongly attributed to a Nobel
laureate. There were gods
created to ward off the virus,
and one prime minister asked
people to bang pots and pans on
the streets (perhaps thinking it
would scare off the virus).
Millions complied. Many who
were told not to attend religious
gatherings claimed they had
divine protection. Some among
them died.
A hundred years ago, a similar
pandemic was first detected in
the US — the Spanish flu; it
killed 20 million to 100m
people worldwide when the
total population was 1.8 billion
(one per cent to 5pc of the
world population) as compared
to about 3.8m deaths in the
current pandemic with a
population of 7.8bn (less than
0.05pc); we fared so much
7
better this time around. What
went right this time? The same
social media that spread myths
about Covid-19, helped educate
people about prevention. There
was no vaccine in 1918.
Without prevention, we too
could have ended up with
hundreds of millions of deaths.
With all these known facts, why
is there so much myth around
Covid-19? Is it ignorance,
disbelief, or a conspiracy? We
cannot stifle the spread of
legend, but we can certainly
present rational arguments for
those who have an open mind
still uninfected by the virus.
Coronaviruses are a group of
related RNA viruses that cause
diseases in mammals and birds.
Mild illnesses in humans
include some cases of the
common cold (which is also
caused by other viruses,
predominantly rhinoviruses),
while more lethal varieties can
cause SARS, MERS, and
Covid-19. In cows and pigs,
they cause diarrhoea, while in
mice, they cause hepatitis and
encephalomyelitis. The Covid-
19-causing virus was
reportedly transferred from bats
to humans. However, the jury is
still out. President Biden
recently ordered an inquiry to
find out whether the virus
escaped from the Chinese
Wuhan Institute of Virology; or
worse, was it a manufactured
creation (this will make a good

myth). Despite the certification
by the FDA, we are not sure of
the source of the virus — we
may know soon enough but that
will be another theory, and in
all likelihood, we will never
know the answer. It does,
however, teach us the
possibility of using viruses for
biological warfare — a scary
scenario that should awaken
countries like Pakistan, where
such monitoring is not possible.
Viruses are not living entities;
these are a chemistry piece that
existed long before the earliest
sign of life came to earth; we
harbour thousands of viruses in
our body that are friendly
viruses, but the Covid-19 virus
is not. It cannot survive outside
a living body and goes into our
body cells and teaches them to
reproduce it; the body cells
follow the instructions until
they get filled up with the virus
8
and burst open, causing the
virus to spread to other cells. It
There are no medicines that can
affects the lungs as most
help you once you are infected;
coronaviruses do and brings
only your body immunity can
death by suffocation. Like any
handle this menace. Boosting
other virus, it can be inactivated
immunity through vaccination
(not killed because it is not
is the only viable option. Just
alive) by just washing hands or
because a vaccine was
wiping surfaces. A virus cannot
developed quickly does not
fly in the air (it has no wings),
make it less safe. The fast
so the only way it can enter
testing of efficacy came
your body is through fine
because of the rapid spread of
droplets transmitted through an
Covid-19. Any side effects eg
infected person who sneezes or
blood clots are common to
simply exhales. Now we come
many treatments, including the
to the mask; while it is not
use of birth control pills; we
perfect protection, you can
never follow these as we did in
significantly reduce the risk of
vaccines for emergency use. All
both contracting and
vaccines are safe.
transmitting the infection. But
wearing a mask is a change in
lifestyle that is not comfortable
So, pay no attention to the
or acceptable to many. Social
myths surrounding you; we
distancing, a new cliché
have come a long way from the
designed in this pandemic,
era of Greek gods.
helps but is not as good as a
mask.

W HEN schools in
many parts of the
world have resumed
education in varying degrees,
why are our schools still
shuttered? The irony is that this
is the fate of institutions that
cater to the needs of the poor
who are already deprived. I feel
the matter has not been given
serious thought. Even in pre-
Covid times public-sector
education in Pakistan was
rotting. Now it is about to hit
rock-bottom.
Against this backdrop, the
statement of the federal
education minister sounds quite
hollow. He tweeted that for the
government the welfare of the
students is always paramount.
He made this claim when
announcing that a no-objection
certificate had been issued to
the British Council to enable it
to hold special O-level exams
of the Cambridge board in July-
August. These exams had been
cancelled at the scheduled time
due to a surge in new Covid
cases.
It is strange that the matter of
only a few thousand students
appearing for these exams
should be of such official
concern when the government
turns a blind eye to the fate of
50 million children. They are
the five- to 16-year-olds whose
education is the responsibility
of the state under Article 25-A
To open or not?
Zubeida Mustafa, Dawn
of the Constitution. Never has a
word of apology been uttered
by the high-ups in the education
ministry or education
departments for this lapse. No
one has even tried to explain
why 22m children in Pakistan
have been out of school (the
figure is from the pre-pandemic
age). This hardly reflects any
concern for the welfare of the
children of the have-nots.
This inequity is more
pronounced in the impact of the
pandemic on education. The
initial shock and fear inflicted
by the coronavirus were
followed by opposite reactions
in the two circles dealing with
schools. The immediate
response of the government
was to shut down all
educational institutions.
Gradually, the upscale schools
put their heads together and
made their own arrangements
for online teaching to be in full
swing, albeit digitally. They
had the resources to do that.
Although this was definitely
not the best choice, it was the
only one, if education had to
continue in the circumstances.
That is how the private schools
managed to remain afloat with
some semblance of normality.
Public-sector and low-fee
private schools had a different
story to tell. They cater to
nearly 75 per cent of total
school enrolment in Pakistan.
9
The federal and provincial
governments just sat back and
planned nothing. Devices such
as tele-school and online
storytelling were no substitute
for on-site classes.
The government instead raked
up new controversies that were
irrelevant to the immediate
health emergency. Here I refer
to the Single National
Curriculum that should, in any
case, be laid to rest for the time
being. The only major decision
the government did take in
2020 with reference to
education was to cancel
examinations all over the
country.
What next? The policymakers
need to focus on reopening
primary schools to restore the
credibility of education in
Pakistan. Since
February/March 2020, our
public-sector and low-fee
private schools have functioned
for a total of five out of 15
months in an on-again off-again
fashion, and thousands of
students have dropped out of
school in this period.
Most countries recognise the
dilemma they face: how to
balance the health safety
requirements of children and
the latter’s schooling needs.
Whatever solutions have been
devised, public health has not
been compromised. Neither has
any country been accused of

neglecting its children. If
anything, most Western states
take better care of their citizens
who are minors. With the
exception of the initial period of
the shutdown, the primary
schools in many countries (eg
France, Britain and Canada)
have functioned quite
nor---mally with SOPs
observed and courses divided
into smaller segments and
attendance being staggered to
meet the exigencies of the
situation.
No child’s life was at risk. The
fact is that globally far fewer
cases of Covid-19 have been
reported in children under 15 as
it is believed that a child’s
immune system can respond
differently.
According to Dr Naseem
Salahuddin, a leading expert in
infectious diseases, children
can be carriers of the virus.
“But now the vaccine is
available. People are being
vaccinated. School teachers
should be prioritised and
vaccination should be made
10
mandatory for them as has been
done for the medical
profession. Thereafter primary
schools should be opened with
SOPs in place,” she adds.
An analysis of NCOC data
shows a reassuring trend. Since
the vaccination programme was
launched in Pakistan, we have
had a diminishing increase rate
of new cases. In early January,
new cases increased on an
average of 13pc daily. By end
May, they were 11 pc and
continue to decrease.

South Asia’s authoritarian legacy
Syed Muhammad Ali, Express Tribune
I
t has been over 70 years
since the British left South
Asia. Yet, most of the
countries in the region have not
been able to rid themselves of
their colonial legacy of
exploiting social divides and
perpetuating extractive state
institutions. As a result, many
of the challenges facing South
Asia today can be attributed to
non-representative,
irresponsive, and
unaccountable national
governments whose primarily
objective is hanging on to
power.
Authoritarianism remains a
persistent problem across much
of our region, even if
authoritarian tendencies exhibit
themselves in different forms.
In Bangladesh, for example, the
political sphere has been
dominated by two ruling
dynasties with intermittent
periods of military rule, and
now the near chokehold of the
Awami League on domestic
politics since 2009.
India, the largest democracy in
the world, has shaken off the
dynastic rule of the Congress
but the country’s socio-
economic and political
imagination has increasingly
been dominated by Hindu
majoritarianism. Prime
Minister Narendra Modi was
persona non grata in the United
States for his alleged role in the
Gujarat massacre when he was
the chief minister of that state.
Yet, after he became the prime
minister, Modi has repeatedly
received the red-carpet
treatment not only in the US but
in much of Europe, as the leader
of “the largest democracy in the
world”. Yet, Modi remains
adamant that he will continue
manipulating ethno-nationalist
tendencies to distract from his
lacklustre governance.
In Sri Lanka, on the heels of the
Easter bombing of 2019, we
saw the return to power of the
Rajapaksa brothers who had
crushed the LTTE in 2009.
Their comeback has given wind
to ethno-nationalist Sinhalese
Buddhists, whose disdain has
widened from Tamil Hindus
and Christians to the Muslim
minority in the country. The
Rajapaksa brothers led a brutal
operation against the LTTE,
which evoked much
international criticism. Yet,
both the US and Great Britain
had remained reluctant to back
earlier Norwegian efforts to
negotiate peace with the Tamils
in lieu of greater autonomy, as
this peace deal did not align
with their own perceived
geostrategic interest of
preserving a unitary Sri Lankan
state.
In the case of Pakistan, the
notion of Islam proved unable
to keep Bangladesh from
11
breaking away in 1971
frustrated by the hegemonic
assertions of the western wing
of the country. Yet, the
Pakistani establishment has
continued relying on
politicisation of religion to
legitimate its direct and indirect
political influence. The creation
of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-
Insaaf provided an alternative
option to voters but many
citizens remain disappointed
with the incumbents for their
continued reliance on political
families to assume power, and
for their inability to deliver
meaningful change.
The elite capture of resources
remains a persistent problem in
not only Pakistan but in the
other large South Asian states
as well. While Bangladesh has
performed impressively
compared to its neigbouring
states in terms of improving the
overall lives of its people,
widespread corruption, and
deprivation remain major
problems plaguing all four of
the largest South Asian states.
Increasing liberalisation and
reliance on market-based
policies propagated by the
World Bank and the IMF have
not been able to alleviate
inequalities or deliver
sustainable economic growth
and human development in
South Asia.

While colonialism ended many representative democracy to
decades ago, vested flourish in this most populous
geopolitical interests, region of the world. Defence
perpetuated by local political spending and debt servicing
elites, continue to hinder take an inordinate share of our
12
national incomes while much of
the citizenry remains deprived
of the social investments
needed to ensure a decent
quality of life.

Pakistan’s Afghan problem
Shahzad Chaudhry, Express Tribune
B
acha Khan (Frontier
Gandhi), Asfandyar
Wali Khan’s
grandfather and premier of
NWFP from Congress Party, in
the days leading to Pakistan’s
independence, boycotted the
referendum held under the
auspices of the British governor
to ascertain if the people of the
NWFP stood for an
independent Pakistan — per
Muslim League’s intended
choice. His refrain: the ballot
did not carry the option to
accede to Afghanistan. Not
only Pashtuns, Punjabis too
found a problem initially being
convinced of the proposition of
an independent Pakistan. While
Pashtuns take their name from
the language they speak
(Pakhto or Pashto) on both
sides of the Pak-Afghan border
when asked to define their
‘Qaum’ (nationality is an
incomplete translation) they
invariably will declare
themselves Afghan. Between
this muddle of identities
Pakistan inherited its Afghan
problem.
This is not to demean Pashtun
commitment to Pakistan in
anyway — Pashtuns have
always shone bright in a galaxy
of stars in all aspects of our
nationhood and continue to
make remarkable contribution
to and enrich the national
landscape. But that is
essentially how we began this
journey. And while Bacha
Khan, a revered figure in
NWFP history, may have
challenged the veracity of the
referendum in his unique way
for its pre-destined
determination, the aspect of
nationhood as an identity has
continued to plague how
Pashtuns, Afghans and Pakistan
have dealt with its historicity.
Afghanistan was the only
country opposed to Pakistan’s
recognition by the UN in 1947;
the Afghans have never
acknowledged the Durand Line
or its fidelity as the
international border between
the two countries — they claim
Pakistan’s limits extend only to
the extent of the Indus River;
there have been repeated
skirmishes through history on
the border between the two
nations and Afghan soil has
been frequently lent to
instigate, support and launch
insurrection in Pakistan.
The current medley of forces in
Afghanistan is composed of the
Taliban of all hues including
those that are directed against
Pakistan and supported by India
and numerous other terror
groups. State and quasi-state
security outfits in Afghanistan
through incompetence or
complicity enable space to
these groups to direct their
attacks against the Pakistani
military. There are two wars in
Afghanistan: one inside
13
Afghanistan that has gone on
against foreign occupation for
the last four decades, and the
other against Pakistan from
Afghan soil causing a parallel
internal strife as well as an
active border that erupts with
great regularity. Pakistan
restrains from matching
response to keep escalation in
check if not give cause to those
who willy-nilly blame Pakistan
for each and all of Afghan
predicaments. Pakistan holds
most Pashtuns — 42 million —
compared to Afghanistan’s 15
million. Pakistan has housed
between five to six million
refugees since 1979. Presently
2.5 million remain in various
camps and habitations around
the country in permanent
settlements while an equal
number has naturalised as
citizens across the national
landscape. Yet the rub remains.
Skirmishes broke out between
the two countries in 1960 after
Afghanistan was found
supporting armed separatists in
Pakistan’s NWFP region.
Diplomatic relations remained
suspended for two years
between 1961-63. Afghanistan
claimed all of the NWFP and
half of Balochistan as its parts
and Pakistan’s Pashtun
nationalists ascribed to it in
their support for Pakhtunistan.
Many later found refuge in
Afghanistan. This has been the
norm over decades. Even today

dissident Baloch are harboured
in Afghanistan as they continue
insurrection against the state of
Pakistan. Ditto Pashtun
nationalists whether of the
militant or political hue who
find willing partnership in
Afghanistan with elements
aiming to spawn unrest and
strife in border areas of
Pakistan adjoining
Afghanistan.
Pakistan had a separate Afghan
desk in its Directorate of
Intelligence even before it had
one on India. That was the level
of threat it assessed from
Afghanistan. ZAB converted
the desk into a full section when
relations further soured under
Sardar Daud who came to
power with Soviet backing. His
tenure betrayed another round
of open hostility with Pakistan.
The Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan in 1979 began a
kinetic war on the western
border of Pakistan with
frequent forays deep inside
Pakistan. The Taliban tenure
from 1996 triggered another
challenge of religious
extremism which kept
hibernating between religious
militancy and outright terror
through groups given to ignite
defiance and initiate a The infamy out of Kabul is
pervasive insurgency against
the state in the tribal regions
and its hinterland. It has taken
Pakistan 14 years at an
enormous human and economic
cost to fight the malignancy off.
Yet every other day remnants
and sleepers will stir the quiet
with deadly attacks as a
reminder of the sentiment of
decades and unending wars that
have plagued the region.
It is not to forget what may still
be coming as the United States
leaves Afghanistan after 20
years of occupation. Failing to
find political accommodation
between various factions may
yet be another slide into the
abyss. For Pakistan the fallout
and the spillover will be
ominous. Withdrawing
American troops leave
unattended spaces which are
taken up by terror outfits
directed at Pakistan by equally
vicious patrons to spawn strife
and instability. Despite
simmering hostilities,
parliamentarians — past and
present — still favour Kabul for
a retreat. Such is the fervour
that binds some Pashtuns to
their Afghan identity. The
Pakistani economy caters to the
needs of the Afghans in their
staples and all else that is
needed for subsistence by a
landlocked neighbour and
delivers these dutifully. And
then listens to the bile that must
of necessity accompany every
request to assist the current
order to find peace and quiet.
relentless. The young Kabuli is
imbued with the belief that his
and his nation’s woes are all
rooted in Pakistan. Talk of
generational hostility and
perpetual animosity.
It is in this maze that Pakistan
needs to tread ever so carefully.
14
The border must be controlled
for entry and exit as for any
modern state. Fencing will help
as will the over 800 pickets,
posts and forts when fully
manned. Fencing entails its
own cost in lives as Afghan
national forces and the many
malicious groups in concert
resist the effort to keep the
border open for unrestrained
movement. Where needed
garrisons must be created to
bolster support to the deployed
troops as well as keep a stable
inner front. CPEC, Balochistan,
and a thriving hinterland
economy in a secure and a
stable environment is our and
this region’s passport to a
prosperous future. The earlier
Afghanistan settles to this
newer dynamic and plugs-in the
greater shall be its returns in
prosperity. Though the initial
few weeks after American
withdrawal will need a robust
defence of the western border.
Just as Punjabis, Sindhis and
the Baloch on either side of
their respective borders have
settled into divided national
denominations yet share
cultural and heritage
similarities, so do most
Pashtuns. Economic progress
and shared prosperity remain
proven anchors to common
stakes. That is what keeps most
naturalised Afghans from
returning back to Afghanistan.
The romance of idealism tapers
down in the face of promising
realism. It must be our foremost
priority to offer that reality.

COVID’s Haves and Have-Nots
Raj Shah, Foreign Affairs
S
ince the United States
began COVID-19
immunizations in
December, more than 297
million vaccine doses have
been administered nationwide.
As of this writing, 41 percent of
U.S. residents are fully
vaccinated and returning mask
free to businesses, bars, and
ballparks. They’re not alone: in
a handful of wealthier countries
with high vaccination rates,
including the United Kingdom
(39 percent), Israel (57
percent), and the United Arab
Emirates (63 percent), life is
steadily returning to normal.
But vast swaths of the world
remain unvaccinated, and the
emergence of dangerous new
coronavirus strains has exposed
dramatic inequities in global
access to vaccines. In India,
where just over three percent of
the population is fully
vaccinated against COVID-19,
the virulent B.1.617 variant has
been devastating, leaving
funeral pyres afire 24 hours a
day in many Indian cities.
Similar deadly scenarios now
threaten to play out in other
developing countries with low
vaccination rates, including
Brazil (11 percent), Colombia
(seven percent), and Nepal
(three percent).
There is wide agreement among
that vaccinating the world is the
only way to end the pandemic.
But no one has yet
operationalized a plan or
marshaled the support to
achieve it. The result is a world
divided into two parts: one
vaccinated and the rest
threatened by COVID-19 for
years to come. Past initiatives
make it clear that vaccinating
the world is possible—but
doing so will require more of
every country, including the
United States. By leveraging
global buying power and
improving production capacity
in different countries, world
leaders can in the weeks and
months ahead not only set the
course to end this pandemic but
promote public health for years
to come.
VACCINES FOR THE
WORLD
Vaccinating the world against
COVID-19, and keeping it
vaccinated, is no small task. In
order to achieve sufficient
immunity, an estimated 70
percent of any given population
must have been vaccinated or
developed antibodies to the
virus. While nearly two billion
shots have been delivered thus
far, many billions more will be
required, including for
boosters. Only 1.2 percent of
the population in Africa, 4.8
percent of the population in
Asia, and 14 percent of the
population in South America
have been vaccinated so far.
15
With COVAX, the global
initiative to vaccinate just 27
percent of the populations of 92
low- and middle-income
countries this year, drastically
underfunded and short
supplied, the world needs to
reimagine its vaccination
efforts. Nearly 20 years ago, I
was a part of the team that
helped create the International
Finance Facility for
Immunisation, a key
component of Gavi, the
Vaccine Alliance, which is
supporting COVAX. That
experience and other recent
vaccination initiatives make
clear that a successful COVID-
19 global vaccination plan must
address three main obstacles:
supply, delivery, and financing.
The world must first focus on
how to develop the billions of
doses of effective vaccines
(particularly since variants
have already challenged the
efficacy of some) necessary to
keep the world vaccinated.
Thus far, supply has been
determined by contracts with—
and production by—vaccine
makers, including Pfizer,
Moderna, and others.
Countries, including the United
States, have donated some of
their own surplus. U.S.
President Joe Biden has
committed to sending 80
million doses abroad by the end
of June, and Europe plans to
send another 100 million.

Yesterday, the White House
promised that an initial
allotment of 25 million
vaccines would be shipped "as
quickly as we can logistically
get those out the door.”
Such contributions, while
unlikely to present a sustainable
or sufficient path to enhancing
global supply at the scale
required, should be
encouraged, especially in the
short term. As is now clear,
achieving sufficient levels of
inoculation will require a
certain degree of efficacy.
Donations must do no harm: the
vaccines must be safe and
effective enough to meet World
Health Organization
guidelines, and the
contributions themselves must
avoid earmarking and
favoritism that will sow
additional inequity or stoke
nationalism.
In addition, by supporting
COVAX, global leaders can
boost supply by helping
buyers—whether individual
nations, blocs of nations, or
multilateral institutions—to
obtain contracts to purchase
effective vaccines. As existing
producers see declining
demand for vaccines from the
United States and Europe, they
will have more capacity to
fulfill orders from developing
countries and multilateral
organizations. Supporting
would-be buyers with
connections and resources will
encourage manufacturers to
increase their production.
Global support can also
decrease the cost of vaccines.
16
Already, there is variability in other mechanism. And to make
pricing: some richer countries these agreements successful,
have paid $30 per dose, these same countries can help
whereas nations in Africa are enhance coordination and
paying between $3 and $10. capacity in the supply chain for
The more countries pool their vaccine ingredients, equipment,
purchasing power through and manufacturing supplies.
initiatives such as COVAX, the
DELIVERY CHALLENGES
lower that price can be driven.
In addition, producers should Although there has been a great
be able to reduce marginal cost deal of global concern about
as orders grow. Such low prices producing vaccines, less
should be sustainable given attention has been paid to
how well vaccine makers have delivering vaccinations into the
been compensated already by arms of the people who need
sales to richer countries. them. Delivering COVID-19
vaccines is likely to prove far
Boosting supply will also
more challenging in low-
require responsible technology
income countries than it has
transfer, so that developing
been in rich ones. In India, for
nations can begin
example, health-care workers
manufacturing vaccines
have struggled to deliver
themselves. As the Biden
vaccines in rural areas with
administration’s recent
little reliable electricity, while
decision to support a patent
their counterparts in Brazil
waiver demonstrates, the
must devise vaccination
regulatory work required to
campaigns for favelas where
expand manufacturing has
government authority is
already begun, but it is
limited. Two-dose regimes and
currently progressing too
cold-storage requirements
slowly to significantly boost the
further complicate the logistics
global supply of vaccines by the
and increase the expense.
end of next year.
Fortunately, the world has seen
Beyond waivers, global leaders
how the U.S. President’s
need to urgently encourage
Emergency Plan for AIDS
producers of safe, effective
Relief (PEPFAR), the Global
COVID-19 vaccines to license
Fund, and other partners
and transfer technology to
massively expanded the
proven partners in developing
delivery of HIV/AIDS
economies. Such arrangements
medication without detracting
are nothing new:
attention and resources from
pharmaceutical companies
other needed health programs.
have made similar agreements
Rich nations, along with Gavi,
for treatments for COVID-19,
the Vaccine Alliance and other
hepatitis C, and other maladies.
partners, must help middle-
To promote these sorts of
income and lower-income
initiatives, richer countries
health authorities expand
could agree to pay licensing
vaccination infrastructure while
fees through COVAX or some

meeting other health
commitments. Such support
will include hiring, training,
and paying additional health
workers, building out cold-
chain and other infrastructure,
and establishing ways to track
progress and certify
immunizations.
While the infrastructure in low-
income countries is more
limited, vaccine campaigns in
advanced economies also offer
useful lessons about increasing
access and minimizing
resistance. In the United States
and elsewhere, political leaders
have taken an active, visible
role in promoting and
managing vaccination
campaigns. Taking the vaccines
directly to homes and
workplaces—as well as places
where people congregate, such
as beaches and bars—has also
proved effective in wealthy
countries. Developing nations
should consider similarly
unorthodox delivery methods.
INVESTING IN IMMUNITY
Vaccinating the world enough
to end the pandemic will
require greater resources than
are currently available. Until
this week, Covax was billions
of dollars short of the funds
needed this year to vaccinate 27
percent of the population in
lower-income countries.
Thankfully, at a June 2 meeting
in Japan, donor nations,
philanthropies and multilateral
institutions committed much of
what was required for 2021; but
this investment is still far short
of what's needed to reach
sufficient immunity.
At next week's G7 meetings in
the United Kingdom, leaders
must look beyond this year and
take the steps—and find $25 to
50 billion in additional
resources—to vaccinate around
70 percent of populations
around the world in 2022. This
is a great deal of money, but it
is a relative steal compared with
the trillions of dollars countries
have already spent responding
to COVID-19 and restarting
their economies. It’s an even
greater bargain compared to the
$9.2 trillion one estimate
predicts the world will lose this
year without adequate vaccine
access in developing
economies.
At the G7, leaders will need to
get creative to finance not just
the manufacturing of billions of
doses but also the vaccination
campaigns and health
infrastructure, including
production capacity, necessary
to keep the world healthy for
years to come. In a new report
on what’s required to finance
and operationalize a global
vaccination campaign, my
organization the Rockefeller
Foundation outlines several
options, including the
International Monetary Fund’s
international reserve asset
Special Drawing Rights. The
IMF executive directors have
already voiced support for a
new allocation of SDRs this
year, which could produce $650
billion, and the matter is on the
agenda for a meeting this
month. If agreed upon, rich
countries could find creative
means to recycle at least $100
billion of the resulting liquidity
17
from high- to low-income
countries to fill the pandemic-
response funding gap,
including vaccines, and to meet
other economic recovery needs.
A UNIVERSAL
EXPERIENCE
None of this will be easy.
Vaccinating enough of the
world to control the pandemic
by the end of 2022 will require
legions of actors, billions of
dollars, and herculean levels of
coordination. Still, even if the
scope and sweep of this
initiative is without historical
precedent, the world knows
how to meet this moment: it has
both the vaccines and the
experience with global
inoculation and broader health
initiatives. But the world has
also learned that the success of
any plan is in its
implementation.
At the G-7 next week and in the
months ahead, President Biden
and other leaders can make the
commitments necessary to
vaccinate the world. That will
require doing more—and doing
it longer—than any nation has
yet to muster in combating the
pandemic beyond its own
borders. If today’s leaders take
these steps, the benefits will be
greater than even the
pandemic’s end. The
experience of rolling up a
sleeve and getting a COVID-19
shot will become universal,
shared by billions. Vaccinating
the world will unite it in a way
few things ever have
 India’s and Pakistan’s Public Responses to the Violence in Israel
and Palestine
Ari Tolany, South Asian Voices
F
ollowing the attempted
evictions of Palestinians
in the neighborhood of
Sheikh Jarrah, Israeli security
forces have ramped up attacks
and arrests in occupied East
Jerusalem, including four raids
on al-Aqsa mosque, among the
holiest sites in Islam. The
militant group and political
party Hamas responded with
rocket attacks into Jerusalem,
as violence also erupted
between Israeli settlers and
Palestinian citizens of the
occupied West Bank. The
Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)
are now conducting a blistering
series of air raids and artillery
shelling into Gaza. As of Friday
May 14, at least six Israelis and
126 Palestinians, including 31
Palestinian children, have been
killed, and more than 920
wounded.
The conflict’s global
resonance—particularly
against the backdrop of the final
week of Ramadan, the holy
month of fasting in the Islamic
calendar—is clear.
Misinformation about the
escalating violence has
proliferated on social media as
governments and elected
officials issue statements, and
protests and crackdowns on
protests occur worldwide,
including throughout South
Asia. India’s and Pakistan’s
public response to the crisis in
Palestine speaks to each
country’s unique positionality
to the Israel-Palestine conflict,
as well as the goals of their
last week’s statement from
respective ruling political
parties. Khan and Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammad bin Salman re-
In Pakistan, where Prime
affirmed Saudi Arabia and
Minister Imran Khan has on
Pakistan’s commitment to
several occasions compared the
returning Israel and Palestine to
situations in Kashmir and
their pre-1967 borders. While
Palestine, Khan has repeatedly
Saudi Arabia has not formally
addressed the crisis to highlight
recognized the state of Israel,
Pakistan’s influence among
the Kingdom and Israel have
Muslim-majority countries and
quietly cooperated on a number
shore up support for his
of shared concerns in recent
embattled Pakistan Tehreek-e
years. In light of purported
Insaf (PTI) party. In recent
fraying Pakistani-Saudi ties and
years, Pakistan and Turkey
a to-date tepid response from
have invested heavily in their
the Arab League over the
bilateral relationship, including
Sheikh Jarrah evictions, it is
soft power initiatives like
perhaps unsurprising that Prime
goodwill tours by a popular
Minister Khan elected to use
Turkish soap stars across
the crisis to publicly highlight
Pakistan, as well as more
Pakistan and Turkey’s
conventional defense ties like
cooperation. The violence in
arm sales and rumored co-
Palestine allowed Khan and
manufacturing initiatives. It
Turkish President Recep
comes as no surprise, then, that
Tayyip Erdoğan to reiterate
Pakistani and Turkish
their common visions and
government officials have
overlapping “Islamic values.”
discussed the Israeli attacks and
In so doing, they spoke both to
affirmed their public support
their constituents and those
for Palestine. Shah Mehmood
living in Muslim-majority
Qureishi, Pakistan’s Foreign
countries who may be
Minister, announced on
unimpressed by their own
Thursday that Pakistan and
governments’ response to the
Turkey were calling on the
Israel-Palestine conflict.
United Nations to hold a
meeting on Palestine, adding India, meanwhile, has
that the two countries planned demonstrated a more tempered
to jointly convene a ministerial response to the crisis in
meeting of the Organization of Palestine. Historically, India’s
Islamic Cooperation. rhetorical commitment to
Nehruvian anti-colonialism and
Qureishi also called Saudi
subsequent leadership in the
Arabia’s Foreign Minister,
Non-Aligned Movement meant
Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-
that, at least publicly, India took
Saud, to express concern about
a staunchly pro-Palestine line.
the attacks on Gaza, noting that
Behind the scenes, however,

India granted Israel de jure
recognition and ties warmed
over time. After India
normalized relations with Israel
in 1992, the countries enjoyed a
brisk trade relationship,
particularly in defense. In 2004,
India inked an agreement to
purchase several Israeli
Phalcon warning and control
systems, which Israel had
initially attempted to sell to
China before the United States
scuttled the deal. In 2020, the
India acquired two more
Phalcons, cementing India’s
position as the largest buyer of
Israeli military technology.
Israel is India’s second-largest
defense supplier, behind only
Russia.
Beyond this defense
cooperation, Prime Minister
Narendra Modi’s ruling
Bharatiya Janata party (BJP)
relies on the ideology of
Hindutva to maintain its
coalition, a brand of
nationalism with rhetorical and
theoretical parallels to the
Israeli Prime Minister
Benyamin Netanyahu’s right-
wing Zionist ideology.
Netanyahu and his party,
Likud, imagine Israel as a
religiously Jewish state,
diverging from the more
secular bent of earlier Zionists
like David Ben-Gurion. Just as
Netanyahu erases the historical
divide between Mizrahi and
Ashkenazi Jews to focus on the
Arab “other,” portrayed as an
external threat, so too Modi
collapses differences of caste,
class, and region among Hindus
to imagine a singular, static
Hindu identity in opposition to
19
an often Muslim other, which Turkey. Narendra Modi has
Hindu nationalism conceives of preferred to highlight other
as foreign to the subcontinent. issues, illustrating the current
pro-Israel tilt of both the Indian
While Imran Khan and Shah
state as a whole and the Hindu
Mehmood Qureishi have used
nationalist BJP.
their Twitter platforms to voice
support for the Palestinians, to
date neither Modi nor Indian
Foreign Minister
Subrahmanyam Jaishankar
have made any statements on
the conflict. This is despite the
death of an Indian citizen in
Israel from a purported Hamas
rocket attack. Commenting fell
instead to the Indian
Ambassador to the UN T.S.
Tirumirti, who lamented the
death of an Indian national and
called for calm in a Security
Council meeting on
Wednesday. Although
Tirumirti criticized violence by
all parties, he focused
particularly on Hamas’s
rockets, instead of Israeli settler
evictions of and attacks on
Palestinians or the IDF’s
shelling and air raids on
civilians in Gaza. This framing
speaks both to India’s defense
cooperation with the state of
Israel, as well as the simpatico
ideologies of the dominant
parties in Israel and India.
Pakistan’s firmly pro-
Palestinian reaction and India’s
quieter response to the crisis,
then, speaks to both country’s
positions on the global stage
and their respective internal
concerns. Imran Khan has
seized the moment to affirm
both his own personal and the
state of Pakistan’s support for
Palestine. He has also reiterated
Pakistan’s public diplomacy
with its burgeoning ally,