Dawn Newspaper

Best Reading Experience
WEEKLY DAWN EDITORIALS &

OPINIONS DECONSTRUCTION
Dated: Dec 15 to Dec 22 —
2021
ICEP POLICY
We don’t own any of the articles included in this volume, every piece of writing is attributed to
the respective writer.
Knowing the current issues of Pakistan_ internal and external is imperative for Civil service
aspirants. Unlike India, in Pakistan no such digital platform or academic work is available for
aspirants' ease of preparation. Here you are given detailed deconstruction of important news and
articles. Read these editorials and Opinions carefully and keenly. These are important for
widening your knowledge base, improving language skills, understanding key issues, etc. This
section (Editorial/ Opinions) is very useful for English Essay, Current Affairs, Pakistan Affairs
– and sometimes Islamiat papers as the Exam emphasize more on analysis than giving facts.
💬 To the Point
 Competitive Exams
 Essay Writing
 Current Affairs
 Pakistan Affairs
 Global Issues
 Geopolitics
 International Relations
 Foreign Policy
✍️Deconstructed By: M.Usman

GET REGULAR DAWN : WTSP 03222077774
Noun 07
1
(ICEP Dawn Deconstruction)
CSS Vocabulary 27-33
2
3
This Week at a glance:_______________Major
Developments
 Pakistan’s economy performed beyond expectations with all major

macroeconomic indicators showing positive trend amid the Covid-19
pandemic,
4
Current Affairs + GK MCQs
(confirmation is aadvise)
Noun is the name of place
5
6
DAWN+ EDITORIALS SECTION
7
Farm productivity | Dawn Editorial
PRIME MINISTER Imran Khan says his government is enforcing an agriculture

emergency in the country to extend maximum benefit to growers and eradicate
cartelisation (by sugar mill owners). “We are going for an agriculture emergency to
boost agro-yield that will help stabilise the economy. I firmly believe that the
country will rise through the agriculture sector,” he reportedly told a group of
farmers who had called on him the other day. It remains unclear as to what he
meant by ‘agriculture emergency’. Probably, he was referring to the proposed
interventions of Rs100bn spanning a period of three years under the Agriculture
Transformation Plan recently announced to reduce farm input cost to encourage
crop value-addition, enhance milk production, provide fertiliser subsidy, the
construction of grain storage, and so on. These interventions are important to
support agriculture in the short term. But they are not enough to make agriculture
competitive and profitable for growers. For a sustainable and competitive farm
sector, heavy investments are needed in research and development to develop new,
high-yield, drought- and disease-resistant seed varieties, help farmers adopt
modern technologies, improve soil fertility and water efficiency, etc.
Although the share of agriculture in the economy has dropped to below 20pc of
GDP, it is still a very important source of livelihood for the rural populace that
accounts for over two-thirds of the population and provides employment to 39pc of
the entire national labour force. Additionally, Pakistan’s food security and almost
75pc of its exports are dependent on this sector’s performance. However, no effort
or intervention will succeed in revitalising it if the hundreds of thousands of
subsistence farmers and smallholders are left to continue working individually. If
farm productivity is to be improved and growers’ income increased, the government
would have to design a new model to support these small farmers by increasing their
access to credit, encouraging them to partner with one another through the
formation of cooperatives to improve their terms of trade and capacity to bargain
and to enhance their market linkages. These actions will help motivate them to
diversify, become competitive and move towards more profitable, value-added crops
for better profits. At present, subsistence growers, and most smallholders, are not
directly linked with the market and are reliant on middlemen and speculators for
credit to buy inputs by mortgaging a bigger part of their crops. Government support
and partnerships would not only increase farmers’ incomes, they would also revive
agriculture.
8
Vocabulary in Context
to venture into (something) (Phrasal verb) — to go
9
Politics of numbers | Dawn Editorial
10
DAWN VOCABULARY SECTION
11
Important Dawn Phrasal verbs
Phrasal Meaning Example

Verb
Act on To take action because The police were ACTING ON a tip from an
of something like informer and caught the gang red-handed.
information received.
Act out Perform something with They ACTED OUT the story on stage.
actions and gestures..
Act up Behave badly or My computer’s ACTING UP; I think I might have a
strangely. virus.
Add on Include in a calculation. You have to ADD the VAT ON to the price they
give.
Add up To make a mathematical We ADDED UP the bill to check it was correct.
total.
Agree Affect- usually used in I feel terrible- that food didn’t AGREE WITH my
with the negative to show that stomach.
something has had a
negative effect,
especially is it makes
you feel bad.
Aim at To target. The magazine is AIMED AT teenagers.
Allow for Include something in a You should ALLOW FOR delays when planning a
plan or calculation. journey.
Allow of Make possible, permit. The rules don’t ALLOW OF any exceptions.
Angle for Try to get something He’s been ANGLING FOR an invitation, but I don’t
indirectly, by hinting or want him to come.
suggesting.
Answer To reply rudely to Her mother was shocked when she started
back someone in authority. ANSWERING her BACK and refusing to help.
Argue Beat someone in a The teacher tried to ARGUE the girl DOWN, but
down debate, discussion or she couldn’t.
argument.
Argue Persuade someone to She ARGUED him DOWN ten percent.
down drop the price of
something they’re
selling.
Argue out Argue about a problem If we can’t ARGUE our differences OUT, we’ll
to find a solution. have to take them to court.
Ask about Ask how someone is He ASKED ABOUT my father.
doing, especially
professionally and in
terms of health.
Ask after Enquire about Jenny rang earlier and ASKED AFTER you, so I
someone’s health, how told her you were fine.
life is going.
Ask Ask a number of people I have no idea, but I’ll ASK AROUND at work and
12
around for information of help. see if anyone can help.
Ask in To invite somebody into Jon’s at the door.’ ‘ASK him IN.’
your house.
Ask out To invite someone for a He wanted to ASK her OUT but was too shy.
date.
Ask over Invite. They have ASKED us OVER for drinks on Friday.
Ask round Invite someone. We ASKED John ROUND for diner.
Auction Sell something in an They AUCTIONED OFF their property as they
off auction. were heavily in debt.
Back Retreat or go backwards. The crowd BACKED AWAY when the man pulled
away a knife.
Back Retract or withdraw your She refused to BACK DOWN and was fired.
down position or proposal in
an argument.
Back into Enter a parking area in He prefers to BACK his car INTO the garage.
reverse gear.
Back off Retreat. The police told the protesters to BACK OFF.
Back out Fail to keep an He BACKED OUT two days before the holiday so
arrangement or promise. we gave the ticket to his sister
Back out Fail to keep an She BACKED OUT OF the agreement at the last
of agreement, arrangement. minute.
Back up Make a copy of You should always BACK UP important files and
computer data. documents so that you won’t lose all your work if
something goes wrong with the hardware.
Bag out Criticise. Don’t bag out BAG OUT Australian English.
Ball up Confuse or make things The new project has BALLED me UP- I have no
complicated. idea what to do.
Bargain Persuade someone to I BARGAINED her DOWN to half what she
down drop the price of originally wanted.
something they’re
selling.
Bash Mistreat physically. If you BASH your monitor ABOUT like that, it
about won’t last long.
Bash in Break, damage or injure The burglars BASHED the door IN to enter the
by hitting. house.
Bash out Write something quickly I BASHED the essay OUT the night before I had to
without much hand it in.
preparation.
Be after Try to find or get. The police ARE AFTER him because of the theft.
Be along Arrive. The next bus should BE ALONG in the next quarter
of an hour or so.
Be away Be elsewhere; on She’s AWAY on business for three weeks.
holiday, etc..
Be cut out Be suitable, have the She’s not CUT OUT FOR this kind of work.
for necessary qualities.
Be cut up Be upset. She was very CUT UP about coming second as she
thought she deserved to win.
Be down Be depressed. He’s BEEN DOWN since his partner left him.
Be fed up Be bored, upset or sick I AM FED UP of his complaints.
of something.
Be taken Like something. I WAS very TAKEN WITH the performance- it was
with superb.
13
Be up Be out of bed. She’s not UP yet.
Bear Move towards. She spotted him on the other side of the room and
down on BORE DOWN ON him.
Bear on Influence, affect. The judge’s character may well BEAR ON the final
decision.
Bear out Confirm that something Statistics BEAR OUT the government’s positions
is correct. on the issue.
Bear up Resist pressure. How are you BEARING UP under the strain?
Bear up Cope with something He’s BEARING UP UNDER the pressure.
under difficult or stressful.
Bear with Be patient. Please BEAR WITH me a moment while I finish
this email.
Beat down Strong sunshine. The sun WAS really BEATING DOWN and we
couldn’t stay outdoors.
Beat out Narrowly win in The marathon runner barely BEAT OUT his rival at
competition. the tape.
Beat up Attack violently. The mugger BEAT him UP and stole his wallet.
Belong Be in the correct or Does this disc BELONG WITH those on the shelf?
with appropriate location with
other items.
Bend Lower the top half of I BENT DOWN to pick it up off the floor.
down your body.
Big up Exaggerate the He BIGS himself UP all the time.
importance.
Bitch up Spoil or ruin something. I BITCHED UP the interview.
Black out Fall unconscious. He BLACKED OUT and collapsed on the floor.
Blast off Leave the ground- The space shuttle BLASTED OFF on schedule
spaceship or rocket. yesterday.
Block in Park a car and obstruct I couldn’t drive here this morning because someone
another car. had BLOCKED me IN.
Block off Obstruct an exit to The police BLOCKED OFF the road after the
prevent people from murder.
leaving.
Blow Impress greatly. Her first novel BLEW me AWAY.
away
Blow When the wind forces A tree was BLOWN DOWN in the storm.
down something to fall.
Blow in Arrive, sometimes He BLEW IN from Toronto early this morning.
suddenly or
unexpectedly.
Blow off Not keep an We were going to meet last night, but she BLEW
appointment. me OFF at the last minute.
Blow up Explode. The bomb BLEW UP without any warning.
Boil up Feel a negative emotion The anger BOILED UP in me when I saw what they
strongly. had done.
Bone up Study hard for a goal or I need to BONE UP ON my French grammar for the
on reason. test.
Book in Check in at a hotel. WE took a taxi from the airport to the hotel and
BOOKED IN.
Call up Telephone. I CALLED him UP as soon as I got to a phone to
tell him the news.
Calm Stop being angry or When I lose my temper, it takes ages for me to
14
down emotionally excited. CALM DOWN again.
Cancel out Have an opposite effect The airport taxes CANCELLED OUT the savings
on something that has we had made on the flight tickets.
happened, taking things
back to the beginning.
Cap off Finish or complete, often She CAPPED OFF the meeting with a radical
with some decisive proposal.
action.
Care for Like. I don’t CARE FOR fizzy drinks; I prefer water.
Carried Get so emotional that The team got CARRIED AWAY when they won the
away you lose control. championship and started shouting and throwing
things around.
Carry Make something They hope the new management will be able to
forward progress. CARRY the project FORWARD.
Carry off Win, succeed. She CARRIED OFF the first prize in the
competition.
Carry on Continue. CARRY ON quietly with your work until the
substitute teacher arrives.
Decide Choose, select. Jane spent a long time looking at houses before she
upon bought one, but eventually DECIDED UPON one
near her office.
Die away Become quieter or The last notes DIED AWAY and the audience burst
inaudible (of a sound). into applause.
Die back When the parts of a plant The plant DIES BACK in the winter.
above ground die, but
the roots remain alive.
Die down Decrease or become It was on the front pages of all the papers for a few
quieter. days, but the interest gradually DIED DOWN.
Die for Want something a lot. I’m DYING FOR the weekend- this week’s been so
hard.
Die off Become extinct. Most of the elm trees in the UK DIED OFF when
Dutch elm disease arrived.
Die out Become extinct or Some scientists say that the dinosaurs DIED OUT
disappear. when a comet hit the earth and caused a nuclear
winter.
Dig in Start eating greedily. We were starving so we really DUG IN when the
food finally did arrive.
Dig into Reach inside to get She DUG INTO her handbag and pulled out a bunch
something. of keys.
Fawn over Praise someone in an She FAWNED OVER the inspectors in the hope
excessive way to get that they would give her a good grade.
their favour or
something from them.
Feed off Eat a food as part of an The gecko FEEDS OFF mosquitoes and other
animals diet. insects.
Feed on Give someone a He FEEDS his cat ON dry food.
particular food.
Feed up Give someone a lot of She’s been ill for a fortnight so we’re FEEDING her
food to restore their UP.
health, make them
bigger, etc.
Feel up Touch sexually, grope. Someone FELT me UP in the club as I was trying to
15
get to the bar.
Feel up to Feel capable of doing I’m so tired. I don’t think I FEEL UP TO going out
something. tonight.
Get ahead Progress. Nowadays, you need IT skills if you want to GET
AHEAD.
Get ahead Move in front of. I work at home in the evening to GET AHEAD OF
of schedule.
Get along Leave. It’s late; we must be GETTING ALONG.
Give up Stop doing something I GAVE UP taking sugar in tea and coffee to lose
that has been a habit. weight.
Hit on Have an idea. I suddenly HIT ON the solution
Hold off Stop someone from Chelsea couldn’t HOLD their opponents OFF and
attacking or beating you. lost the game.
Hold on Wait. Could you HOLD ON for a minute; she’ll be free in
a moment.
Hook up Meet someone. We HOOKED UP at the conference.
Hunt out Search until you find It took me ages to HUNT OUT the photos.
something.
Jack up Increase sharply. They have JACKED UP the price of oil this month.
Jam on Apply or operate Jack JAMMED ON the brakes when the rabbit ran
something forcefully. in front of his car.
Jaw away Talk just for the point of That shows that your interest is not in helping the
talking rather than student, but in JAWING AWAY.
having anything to say.
Jazz up Make something more The show was getting stale so they JAZZED it UP
interesting or attractive. with some new scenes.
Keep Keep something near I KEEP a dictionary AROUND when I’m doing my
around you. homework.
Keep at Continue with something She found the course hard but she KEPT AT it and
difficult. completed it successfully.
Keep Don’t allow someone Medicines should always be KEPT AWAY from
away near something. children.
Keep back Maintain a safe distance. The police told the crowd to KEEP BACK from the
fire.
Key to Plan things to fit or suit Promotions are KEYED TO people’s abilities.
people or situations.
Key up Make someone excited The noise got us KEYED UP.
or nervous.
Kick Discuss. We KICKED the idea ABOUT at the meeting.
about
Kick in When a drug starts to Her hayfever didn’t feel half as bad once the
take effect. antihistamines had KICKED IN.
Kick out Expel. The family KICKED the au pair OUT when they
found out that she was planning to move to work for
another household.
Knock off Finish work for the day. We KNOCKED OFF early on Friday to avoid the
rush hour queues.
Lash Secure something with We LASHED the tarpaulin DOWN to stop the wind
down ropes or cords. blowing it away.
Lash into Criticise someone He LASHED INTO them for messing thins up.
strongly.
Lash out Suddenly become He LASHED OUT and broke the man’s nose.
16
violent.
Lay on Organise, supply. They LAID ON a buffet lunch at the conference.
Lay out Spend money. They LAID OUT thousands of pounds on their
wedding reception.
Let in Allow someone to enter. The doorstaff didn’t LET him IN the nightclub
because he was wearing jeans.
Let off Not punish. The judge LET him OFF with a fine rather than a
prison sentence since it was his first offence.
Line up Arrange events for We have LINED UP a lot of meetings for them.
someone.
Link up Connect, join. The train LINKS UP the cities.
Live by Follow a belief system to He tries hard to LIVE BY the Bible.
guide your behaviour.
Live down Stop being embarrassed If I fail the test and everyone else passes, I’ll never
about something. be able to LIVE it DOWN.
Live with Accept something It’s hard to LIVE WITH the pain of a serious
unpleasant. illness.
Log in Enter a restricted area on I had forgotten my password and couldn’t LOG IN.
a computer system.
Log into Enter a restricted area of I LOGGED INTO the staff intranet to check my
a computer system. email.
Log off Exit a computer system. When she’d finished working on the spreadsheet,
she LOGGED OFF and left the office.
Log on Enter a computer He entered his password for the college intranet and
system. LOGGED ON.
Log out Exit a computer system. Danny closed the programs and LOGGED OUT
when it was time to go home.
Look up Consult a reference work I didn’t know the correct spelling so I had to LOOK
(dictionary, phonebook, it UP in the dictionary.
etc.) for a specific piece
of information..
Magic Make something He MAGICKED the bill AWAY and paid for us all
away disappear quickly. before I could get my wallet out.
Make Chase. The police MADE AFTER the stolen car.
after
Make Steal. The thieves MADE AWAY WITH the painting.
away with
Make it Arrive or get a result. I thought you weren’t coming, so I was really
pleased you MADE IT.
Make it Try to compensate for He tried to MAKE IT UP TO her, but she wouldn’t
up to doing something wrong. speak to him.
Make of Understand or have an What do you MAKE OF your new boss?
opinion.
Make off Leave somewhere in a They MADE OFF when they heard the police siren.
hurry.
Mash up Mix sources of audio, She MASHED UP the songs into a single track.
video or other computer
sources..
Melt down Heat something solid, They MELTED the gold statue DOWN and turned it
especially metal, until it into gold bars.
becomes liquid.
Mess Not be serious, not use The children were MESSING ABOUT with the TV
17
about something properly. remote control and broke it.
Mix up Confuse. I always MIX those two sisters UP because they
look so like each other.
Move into Start living in a place. They MOVED INTO the house as soon as it was
ready.
Move up Move to make space. Could you MOVE UP and let me sit down?
Nail down Succeed in getting, They are having trouble NAILING DOWN the
achieve. contract.
Name Give someone a name to I was NAMED AFTER my uncle who died in the
after remember another war.
person.
Narrow Remove less important I am not sure which university to apply to, but I
down options to make it easier have NARROWED my list DOWN to three.
to choose.
Nerd out Play safe and avoid I’m going to NERD OUT and not go on the river
taking a risk. trip.
Opt for Choose. I OPTED FOR an endowment mortgage and lost a
lot of money.
Opt in Choose to be part or a If you want them to notify you of updates, you have
member of something. to OPT IN.
Opt into Choose to be a member I OPTED INTO the scheme.
or part of something.
Opt out Choose not to be part of The UK OPTED OUT of a lot of EU legislation on
something. working hours and conditions.
Pack in Stop doing something. I’m trying to PACK IN smoking.
Pack off Send someone away. His boss PACKED him OFF to a regional office.
Pack out Fill a venue. The stadium was PACKED OUT.
Pack up Stop doing something. You should PACK UP smoking.
Pad down Sleep somewhere for the I’m too tired to come home; can I PAD DOWN here
night. tonight?
Pad out Make a text longer by I couldn’t think of much to write, so I PADDED the
including extra content, essay OUT with a few lengthy quotes.
often content that isn’t
particularly relevant.
Pal Be friendly and spend We PALLED AROUND at university.
around time with someone.
Pal up Become friends. We PALLED UP when I started working with her.
Pass away Die. Sadly, Georgia’s uncle PASSED AWAY yesterday
after a short illness.
Pass back Return. I felt awful when the teacher started to PASS BACK
the exam papers.
Pass by Go past without I was just PASSING BY when I saw the accident.
stopping.
Patch up Fix or make things I tried to PATCH things UP after the argument, but
better. they wouldn’t speak to me.
Pay back Repay money borrowed. I PAID BACK the twenty pounds I’d borrowed.
Pay off Produce a profitable or Their patience PAID OFF when he finally showed
successful result. up and signed the contract.
Peel away Leave a group by Some of the crowd PEELED AWAY to get out of
moving in a different the crush.
direction.
Peg out Put washing outside to I PEGGED the washing OUT after it stopped
18
dry. raining.
Phase in Introduce gradually. They are PHASING IN the reforms over the next
two years.
Phase out Remove gradually. They have introduced a compact edition of the
newspaper and are PHASING OUT the broadsheet
edition over the next few months.
Pick at Eat unwillingly. I wasn’t very hungry so I just PICKED AT my food.
Pick up Collect. While you’re in town, can you PICK UP my
trousers from the Dry Cleaner?
Pig out Eat a lot. The food was great, so I really PIGGED OUT.
Pile up Accumulate. Work just keeps on PILING UP and I really can’t
manage to get it all done.
Pin down Discover exact details The government can’t PIN DOWN where the leak
about something. came from.
Pin on Attach the blame to The police tried to PIN the crime ON him.
someone.
Pin up Fix something to a wall, I PINNED the notice UP on the board
or other vertical surface,
with a pin.
Pine away Suffer physically He’s been PINING AWAY since his wife died and
because of grief, stress, is a shadow of his former self.
worry, etc.
Pipe down Be quiet (often as an The lecturer asked the students to PIPE DOWN and
imperative). pay attention.
Pipe up To speak, raise your At first, no one answered, then finally someone
voice. PIPED UP.
Play along Pretend to agree or I disagreed with the idea but I had to PLAY
accept something in ALONG because everyone else liked it.
order to keep someone
happy or to get more
information.
Play Be silly. The children were PLAYING AROUND and being
around annoying.
Play up Behave badly. The children PLAYED UP all evening and drove
the babysitter mad.
Plug in Connect machines to the He PLUGGED the TV IN and turned it on full blast.
electricity supply.
Plump Put something in a place He PLUMPED his bag DOWN and kicked his shoes
down without taking care. off.
Plump for Choose. I PLUMPED FOR the steak frites.
Point out Make someone aware of He POINTED OUT that I only had two weeks to get
something. the whole thing finished.
Poke Move things around or I POKED ABOUT in my CD collection to see if I
about search in a casual way to could find it.
try to find something.
Poke Move things around or I POKED AROUND in my desk to see if the letter
around search in a casual way to was there.
try to find something.
Polish off Finish, consume. She POLISHES OFF half a bottle of gin every
night.
Polish up Improve something I need to POLISH UP my French before I go to
quickly. Paris.
19
Pop in Visit for a short time. He POPPED IN for a coffee on his way home.
Pop off Talk loudly, complain. He’s always POPPING OFF when things don’t suit
him.
DAWN+ OPINIONS SECTION
20
A tale of two talks | Dawn Opinion
Khurram Husain
The writer is a business and economy journalist.
TWO separate talks are being held on two separate tables these days, and it is
increasingly likely that the twain shall meet. One set of talks has been in the news a
lot lately, between the intelligence, military and diplomatic leadership of the United
States and Pakistan. A lot of commentary is revolving around the question of
whether Pakistan will grant permission for an American base for counterterror
purposes after the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. Clearly, this is a big part
of the American ask in these talks.
The ‘leaks’ to the New York Times in which this was first revealed were not
fortuitous. Somebody was communicating with someone else through the media in
those ‘leaks’. Jake Sullivan, the US national security adviser, did not mention bases,
but confirmed that talks are underway on “the future of America’s capabilities” for
counterterror purposes in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of forces.
The other table is a more familiar one: the IMF. The new finance minister, Shaukat
Tarin, has made it clear that Pakistan will be seeking a renegotiation of the IMF
programme that was restarted in April after a year-long hiatus. Specifically, he
wants to wiggle out of the commitments given by his predecessor on power tariff
hikes, revenue measures through the elimination of tax exemptions for corporates,
curbs on spending and hikes in the petroleum development levy, and, quite possibly,
abort the move to usher in greater central bank independence and wind up its
refinance facilities. He has also said that he will seek more funds from the IMF,
possibly through another purchase under the Rapid Financing Instrument under
which Pakistan received $1.4 billion last year as the lockdowns began. To my
knowledge the request for additional resources is taking a back seat while the talks
continue for changing programme targets and structural conditionalities.
In other remarks, Tarin blamed the IMF for higher inflation in Pakistan, though it
was difficult to figure out how the Fund might be responsible, given the government
and the State Bank have been describing rising food prices as “temporary supply
shocks” in repeated statements. He also said the Fund “held a gun to our head and
made us raise interest rates” when the programme began in 2019, which also belies
the many on-record comments made by the State Bank governor during the days
when the policy rate was pushed up to 13 per cent. By his own telling, the governor
used to tell everybody he met in those days that interest rates have to remain pegged
to projected CPI inflation by year end. Even now the State Bank describes present
21
interest rates as “accommodative”, meaning they are negative in real terms (below
inflation) and must remain so to allow growth to continue.
A beleaguered PM, who has many mouths to feed and is feeling the heat of public
anger, cannot afford to walk the line set by the IMF.
The IMF has made known its reluctance to make major alterations to the
programme. In an on-record interaction with journalists, the mission chief
emphasised that sequencing of certain requirements can be changed, but overall
programme objectives and targets cannot. This was back in April. Recent press
reports, sourced to anonymous finance ministry officials, suggest that amendments
to the Nepra Act remain a sticking point, and that the Fund does not seem to be
budging on other issues either, such as revenue measures for next year and
relaxation of spending curbs mandated under the programme.
With the budget only a day away and talks set to conclude today (Thursday), it is
looking unlikely that a breakthrough will materialise across so broad a front, and the
government will be in a delicate position to decide whether to announce a budget
under the IMF terms or its own and continue with the talks. How that will impact
the ongoing sixth review and board approval will be a large question mark.
The prime minister is under extreme pressure to pump growth further next year, as
well as enhance spending. Contrary to what the IMF has been asking, the
development budget for next year is proposed to be hiked by almost 50pc. Civil
servants’ salaries have already been committed to be increased, though we will know
the exact amount on Friday. And equally important, the defence budget is
programmed to be hiked by almost Rs242bn, or 19pc, to Rs1.531 trillion under the
medium-term plan released by the finance ministry only a few days ago.
So a beleaguered prime minister who has many mouths to feed and is increasingly
feeling the heat of public anger as inflation eats away their incomes and wages,
cannot afford to walk the line set by the IMF in its latest programme. And his team
is finding out that renegotiating these commitments is not as easy as they might
have thought initially.
This is the context in which the accelerating pace of contacts between the security
officials of Pakistan and the US should be seen. If there is a way out for them, it is to
find a way to get White House leverage to apply on the IMF to urge it to first relax
the conditions on Pakistan, and then to enhance the access to resources. This may or
may not involve granting basing rights to the CIA that the New York Times article
talked about. But it will certainly mean taking on an expanded role in ensuring
stability in Afghanistan does not deteriorate once the American withdrawal ends in
July.
Rarely have I seen things come down to the wire the way they are today. No
announcement has come from the ongoing talks with the IMF under the sixth
review on the eve of the budget. Meanwhile, the disclosures of the security talks
suggest that the US is increasing the pressure behind its ask at the table. At some
point soon, a decision will have to be made. If Imran Khan wants his growing
economy to continue next year, he will have to find a way to satisfy the Americans in
the security talks.
22
‘Illusion of knowledge’ | Dawn Opinion
Fayyazuddin
The writer is a physicist who served as professor of physics, and dean of Natural
Sciences at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
EDUCATION serves, at the very least, a dual purpose. On the one hand, education
creates a skilled and well-trained workforce essential to a thriving private and public
sector. On the other, through offering at a single location — the university — a
multiplicity of areas of study, a certain sensibility and culture is created that one
might call social capital. By bringing together scholars in a variety of disciplines, the
university cultivates a citizenry that appreciates the interconnectedness of disparate
fields of study and the elements needed to create a vision for the future and to
develop a sense of common purpose.
Moreover, in promoting higher education, a nation declares that it values learning

for its own sake and welcomes the innovation and creativity that often results from
it. Ideally, the university becomes a site that transcends the petty goals of individual
careers and helps to elevate the needs of society as a collective body.
Our educational system fails to accomplish either of the goals outlined above.
Although we have seen the proliferation of universities over the last few decades,
most of them have inadequate academic standards and are run as businesses
committed to the mass production of graduates with very little actual education. At
a basic level, it is due to the lack of well-qualified faculty but it is also due to a lack of
commitment to education as a goal in itself.
Concomitant with the inadequacy of the education provided by these institutions, a

second negative development is undermining their purpose: the forced mass
production of ‘research’ papers. This development is taking place due to the needs of
a bureaucratised education system too lazy or incompetent to evaluate the quality of
research output by itself. Instead, it has substituted quality control of research with
simply counting the number of research papers produced as a metric for evaluating
competence. By instituting this easily gamed system, they have set themselves up for
widespread fraud.
There is new turmoil in Pakistan’s higher education system.
The majority of research papers produced at our institutions do not pass rigorous
peer review. If they are published at all, it is in journals with low standards or
through the occasional random one passing the filters of peer review despite their
low quality. The emphasis in promoting research has thus shifted from quality to
quantity and is being used to create what Daniel J. Boorstein has called the “illusion
of knowledge” and as he states, it has become an obstacle to discovery and the
production of actual knowledge.
23
The aforementioned imposition of quantitative metrics was introduced by the
Higher Education Commission, which was formed during Gen Pervez Musharraf’s
reign as military dictator. The HEC replaced the University Grants Commission. Dr
Atta-ur-Rahman was appointed as the chairperson of the HEC. While the
commission did some good work, its impact was overwhelmingly negative due to the
policies formulated by the HEC in shifting the emphasis from quality to quantity
with the adverse consequences that have been outlined above.
There is new turmoil in the system of higher education in Pakistan. In order to

discuss it in proper perspective, it is helpful to revisit The Magna Charta of
European universities, which was approved and adopted in 1988 in Bologna. While
the entire document is of relevance to thinking about universities and higher
education, a particularly relevant part for Pakistan states that the university’s
“research and teaching must be morally and intellectually independent of all
political authority and economic power”. That is, government and business interests
must not interfere in the running of the university.
In the case of Pakistan, one may also add that the university should be free of any
externally imposed ideological constraints. Recent changes made by the government
in the structure of the HEC has put the system of higher education under
government control and is causing turmoil among the educated of Pakistan.
These changes go against the Magna Charta referenced above and are undermining
the open and free atmosphere of universities and other institutions of higher
learning and research in the country. By constraining freedom of speech and
thought, openness to intellectual influence, and by imposing ideological constraints,
the government is depriving the university of the essential ingredients it needs to
promote a culture of learning, innovation and creativity. Without these elements, it
is undermining the very basis for a thriving national culture.
24
Pakistan’s paradigm shift | Daily Times
Saif Ur Rehman
The writer is a senior journalist and TV analyst.
Many analysts are apprehensive about what the aftermath of United States’
withdrawal from Afghanistan will look like.
Prime Minister Imran Khan, while confident about Pakistan’s enhanced role in
ensuring regional stability, is also wary of increased militancy in the absence of a
political settlement. These fears are also held by the ECO (Economic Cooperation
Organisation) member states, particularly Tajikistan; which remember only too well
what happened when the Soviets left this region some 40 year earlier. Since then,
Afghanistan has endured proxy wars, fierce clashes, suicide bombings, target
killings, forcible occupations and, above all, the unending fight between the Afghan
Taliban and US-led NATO forces. Despite being unable to compete with the US in
terms of sophisticated weaponry — the Taliban has still given Washington more
than a run for its money; fighting ferociously against ‘marauders’ whether they be
Soviet forces or those of the Coalition forces. Even the Kabul government, which
enjoys full US military support, has not managed to exert its writ over the whole
country. Indeed, local media reported back in February of this year that the Taliban
controlled 52 percent of the country.
Pakistan has suffered directly from the violent unrest next-door. The civil-military
establishment, during on-background meetings with senior journalists, have often
claimed that India has been fomenting this violence, through the TTP-ISIS-NDS
(National Directorate of Security) nexus, all of which have proved to be the spoilers
of Afghan peace.
As for Afghanistan’s political elite, they have mostly served their own interests
instead of those of the people.
Thus, the country’s never-ending uncertainty and concomitant instability owe to

these elements which have remained engaged in a game of double-crossing over the
last four decades. In Afghanistan, it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate
between friend and foe.
Other actors have been funneling of millions of dollars into different existing
structures that remain active inside Afghanistan. Moreover, the 20-year presence of
foreign forces has demonstrated little interest in a purely Afghan-led and Afghan-
owned solution to this longstanding turmoil. Pakistan has paid dearly for this with
70,000 killed in the so-called war on terror. However, Pakistani armed forces-
sustained IBOs (Intelligence-based operations) dealt a mighty blow to both Taliban
factions. External as well as internal pressures have continued to mount on
Pakistan, sometimes in the form of the ‘Do More’ mantra and, at other times, in the
shape of unreasonable American expectations of ‘taming’ the Taliban. Nevertheless,
Pakistan’s civilian and military top brass have maintained a unified approach to the
25
Afghan quagmire. It has been a formidable task and still, it is, given the rising
expectations of US and other stakeholders. Afghan government leaders are,
however, are not playing fair as they are expecting Pakistan to play a more effective
role while simultaneously maligning the country. One example of this was the recent
outburst by National Security Adviser Hamdullah Mohib, who accused Pakistan of
being a “brothel house”; mentoring and supporting the Taliban.
Yet Kabul must realise that in the wake of the hurried American withdrawal –
Pakistan is regional importance will be more pronounced. This holds particularly
true if the US completes its exit from Afghanistan by July 4, American
Independence Day.
Washington is also looking for a counter-terrorism base in Afghanistan’s near

abroad, as well as seeking continuation of its surveillance flights. Pakistan has firmly
ruled out hosting a US military base on its soil. It will only allow its airspace and
specified land routes to be used for withdrawal purposes.
In truth, Pakistan has already done more than enough for Afghan peace while also
managing US security and strategic concerns. It has been the main driving force
behind bringing the Taliban to the negotiation table. This is not to forget that
Pakistan has hosted more than three million Afghan refugees. Pakistan, sharing a
porous border with Afghanistan – and whose population shares religious and ethnic
affinity with its neighbour – has high stakes in Afghanistan’s stability. However, the
key spoiler of Afghan peace, namely India, wants regional instability. Thus, it is
playing dirty in Afghanistan while strengthening the nexus between various militant
groups as well as working hand-in-glove with Afghan intelligence.
Prime Minister Imran Khan has confirmed that Pakistan no more adheres to the old
‘Strategic Depth’ model. This recent paradigm shift to geo-economic and strategic
connectivity is yet another milestone on the path of peaceful co-existence which can
also bring normalcy in and around Afghanistan. Recently, this scribe had a live
zoom discussion with Pakistan’s National Security Adviser, Dr Moeed Yusuf, in
which the latter publicly announced the priority of making Pakistan geo-economic
destination instead of a merely geo-strategic platform, as in the past.
26
In need of climate change governance | Daily
Times
Munir Ahmad
The writer is a freelance journalist and broadcaster, Director Devcom-Pakistan, an
Islamabad-based policy advocacy and outreach think tank.
June 5 saw Pakistan host World Environment Day 2021 in partnership with the UN
Environment Programme. This year’s theme is ‘Ecosystem Restoration’. Some world
leaders sent pre-recorded video messages and others spoken virtually, in real time.
President Joe Biden stayed away from this global event despite the US comeback to
the Paris Agreement on climate change. This once again shows Pakistan’s status on
this new administration’s priory list. Back in April, Islamabad was humiliatingly not
among the first 40 invitees to Biden’s much-touted virtual climate change summit
and was only included at the last minute; following shamelessly repeated requests
for a seat at the table. So, this is where Pakistan currently stands regardless of any
talk of successful historic moments.
We must congratulate Special Assistant to Prime Minister (SAPM) Malik Amin

Aslam, a non-elected but selected position, for relentlessly spotlighting Pakistan’s
climate agenda. And while he has not managed to deliver on all fronts — he has,
nevertheless, secured some feathers in his cap. Unfortunately for Malik, though,
Pakistan needs more than an environmental wordsmith.
There have been increasing murmurs of late about how Malik is an expert at using
professionals and their ideas before dumping them just so; takin over others’ space
before maneuvering into his designated position. The general consensus is that he
has always strived to overshadow Minister of State for Climate Change Zartaj Gul,
an elected MNA no less. So far, Aslam has been successful. Gul now stands virtually
sidelined; with or without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, one cannot say. Yet
there are those who are ready to point to Zartaj Gul’s case as evidence of a blatant
gender discrimination that does not even spare women parliamentarians.
Malik Amin Aslam has relentlessly spotlighted Pakistan’s climate agenda. And while
he has not managed to deliver on all fronts — he has, nevertheless, secured some
feathers in his cap. Unfortunately, Pakistan needs more than an environmental
wordsmith
Malik Amin Aslam, undoubtedly, knows a lot about the environment and climate
change. Perhaps, more than anyone else in the PM Imran Khan’s cabinet. On a
personal level, I have the utmost respect for his climate vision and related initiatives
for this country. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to support and promote these
where necessary. But this does not mean turning a blind eye to manoeuvring that
has seen a handful of people at the Ministry of Climate Change (MOCC), including
the officials of the Pakistan chapter of International Union of Conservation of
Nature (IUCN, run things in an entirely insular manner. The result being that the
rest of the practitioners and organisations remain out of the loop.
27
Malik is one of the IUCN global council vice presidents and is also an an aspiring
candidate for the presidency in the upcoming elections, due later this year. Yet this
has, at times, given way to a conflict of interests within the MOCC. Such as when the
Ministry ‘disappears’ letters forwarded by Malik that are not from the IUCN and its
aides. Thereby undermining commitments to fair and just policies as well as equal
opportunity. The priority should always have been translating the PM’s entire
‘climate vision’ into outcome-based action. But this has not happened. Already,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa audits have pointed to the prevalence of a “bubble
performance” regarding the Billion Tree Tsunami project. Soon, the audits will
speak about the Ten Billion Tree Tsunami. Although not much is expected from
these since Malik has appointed both IUCN Pakistan and WWF Pakistan to conduct
the mid-term review of this project; both of which are his blue-eyed boys.
I would therefore advise PM Khan that before pledging to restore natural

ecosystems, he needs to revamp the ‘ecosystem’ of the MOCC. The IUCN global
secretariat should also take note of the discrepancies within the Pakistan chapter. Or
will the IUCN overlook this and risk the organisation’s global repute, dedicated work
and professional ethics? Remember: reputation and goodwill is built over decades
and lost in a matter of mere days.
The event at the Jinnah Convention Centre in Islamabad was yet another golden
opportunity for Khan to speak to the global community. A live telecast delivered his
well-thought out speech on ‘Ecosystems Restoration’. It was good to hear different
parts of past addresses included in this one. Good to hear the repeat.
Nevertheless, the PM rightly mentioned that: “some issues needed the world’s
attention to reduce carbon emission leading to glacier melting posing threats to
countries like Pakistan and Central Asia where rivers were fed by glaciers. Eighty
percent of Pakistan’s water comes through glaciers that are being severely affected
due to global warming. India and several other countries will also be impacted by
this [glacial melt].”
We can only hope that he is in the know vis-à-vis the MOCC implementing a Green
Climate Fund (GCF) project, phase-II of the Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOF)
with the technical support of the UNDP. The $35-million project’s duration has run
from March 2017 and will conclude in December 2022 and is in dire need of an
independent audit, especially given that the project manager’s appointment was
delayed for a year. It is still unclear why the previous manager was let go. Thus the
GLOF secretariat’s ecosystem also needs close attention. Not least because GCF
funding would be jeopardised if any sort of corruption or even bad management
came to light.
The top political leadership must therefore first tackle the challenges of climate
governance and restoration of the socio-political ecosystem. For a questionable
hierarchy does not suit a party that is mandated to uphold justice, equal
opportunities and fair play.
28
Psychological assessment of Malala's statement
on marriage | Daily Times
Inam Ul Haque
The writer teaches law at the Multimedia University Malaysia and holds a Ph.D
Clad in red drape she exudes vitality, a rather subtle nod to strong willed yet
energetic women. British Vogue, a bow to the fashion and art industry. But that
takes the back seat when a Muslim woman of colour ‘dejects’ the views on
institution of marriage, nudging the leftist right where it hurts. The views that have
majorly been taken out of context make the headlines of all Pakistani newspapers. A
rather subtle cue to dissing the matriarchal efforts that people have zero tolerance
for.
Being an independent researcher, I opted not to savour on the commonly fed

narrative and read the full interview just to get a clearer view of what she opined. To
understand what made her phrase her sentiments in a way that were considered so
volatile and initiated gas lighting. So, after undoing the deeply seated nuances of her
interview, I share my thoughts with the intention of giving factual knowledge to
myself and others.
First, the environment from where she is getting education and taking influence, her
surroundings, friends and the world around her. Besides, her age, (20s) during this
phase we evolve our thoughts constantly, on the other hand, this is the time when
most of us fall in love for the first time and start getting exposed to new
relationship(s). We see our friends getting ditched by a bad person, their breakups
and sometimes their happy endings too.
Being an expat, and a person who has also acquired a foreign degree and had a
chance to observe the European lifestyle closely, I can relate to her sentiments (I
would call them fear) towards a “traditional” marriage. Moreover, the views she
expressed are nowadays a common understanding of “relationship” among youth.
That’s why her words were not new to me, perhaps we feel the same when we
witness disturbed marriages within our own families. It shakes our trust in the
whole institution of marriage and making a family. With this, patriarchy makes
things even worse from a girl’s point of view and family background, especially the
relationship between parents also adds up. Kids grown up in suppressive families
tend to reject the whole idea of getting married. Many of my friends used to share
their hatred against marriage just because they grew up in a family where abuse
(domestic or verbal) was a common practice.
Lastly, youth finds it’s easier to get involved in a relationship rather than getting
married because according to them it’s less demanding, less harmful and there is
always a way to escape from a (toxic) relationship. However, in the case of marriage
we vow for life and of course there are more liabilities attached to it.
29
Do not confuse the word “traditional marriage” with the Islamic marriage. There are
issues with traditional marriages where even people do not follow Islamic teachings
they just follow traditions. These are very serious issues and should be taken as a
threat to Islamic teachings. For instance, taking a girl’s permission or asking for her
choice, is not being practised even though it is her right. We are a male-dominated
society whereas Islam protects the rights of women equally.
On a concluding note, Malala’s thoughts are personal and she has every right to
express them. We can call them immature but not totally incorrect. We have to
answer her concerns and fears attached to a “traditional marriage” where women
have no say and without addressing the root cause, we should not simply reject
them.
30
Free Speech: A Global debate | Foreign Policy
Jacob Mchangama
The writer is the executive director of Justitia, a Copenhagen based think tank
focusing on human rights.
In a new global survey, respondents overwhelmingly

supported freedom of expression—for anyone they
agree with.
Who cares about free speech? Almost everyone, according to a new global
survey commissioned by Justitia (of which I am the director). In fact, across
populations in 33 countries, a whopping 94 percent think it’s important for people
to be able to say what they want without censorship. Likewise, the rights of the
media to report as they see fit and of people to use the Internet without censorship
are supported by 93 percent and 93 percent, respectively.
But if an overwhelming majority of respondents are enthusiastic supporters of free

speech, why has this freedom been in global decline for more than a decade?
To answer this seeming paradox, we need to ask not merely whether but

how sincerely people support free speech. Once people are forced to measure their
support in the abstract for free speech against trade-offs and (supposedly)
competing values, the near-universal support quickly plummets. It seems many
people cherish the right to speak freely for themselves but attach less value to the
opinions of others that might clash with their own values and priorities.
Across all countries, only 43 percent support the legal protection of statements
offensive to minorities, while 39 percent are in favor of prohibiting statements
offensive to their own religion and beliefs. Tolerance for statements supportive of
same sex-relationships varies from near universal support in Denmark and Sweden
(91 percent), to less than a third in Pakistan (27 percent). Seventy-two percent of
Danes and Americans are willing to tolerate insults to their national flags, compared
to only 16 percent and 18 percent in Turkey and Kenya, respectively.
According to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, the First Amendment

has made the United States “the most speech protective of any nation on Earth, now
or throughout history.” Worryingly, American support for such “free speech
exceptionalism” may be on the wane. True, 88 percent of Americans think free
speech should include the right to criticize the government, the very “bedrock
principle” of the First Amendment. But this reflects a small but significant drop
compared to a 2015 PEW survey, which may indicate increasing American unease
about free speech following the incendiary presidency of Donald Trump and its
violent conclusion with the attack on the Capitol. This interpretation is supported by
the fact that Biden voters are generally less supportive of free speech than Trump
voters, a somewhat surprising result given Trump’s repeated attacks against the
media as “enemies of the people.”
31
The future of free speech in America may lead to even more of a pivot away from
free speech exceptionalism. Young people (18-34 years old) are less supportive of
free speech than older generations, except when it comes to insulting the Stars and
Stripes. This includes a significantly lower tolerance (shared by women and Biden
voters) for statements that are offensive to minority groups. This suggests that many
younger Americans view free speech and equality as values that are (sometimes)
conflicting, rather than mutually reinforcing. This is a departure from the idea that
“[t]he right of speech is a very precious one, especially to the oppressed,”
as eloquently expressed by the great 19th-century abolitionist Frederick Douglass.
For much of human history, permissible speech has been severely restricted in the
name of religious belief. At its most explosive, religious intolerance may lead to
deadly violence as witnessed by jihadist attacks against cartoonists in Denmark and
France, anti-Muslim violence by Hindu extremists in India, and attacks on LGBT-
people by extremist Orthodox Christians in Russia. When asked whether the
government should be able to restrict offensive statements against “my own religion
or beliefs,” 73 percent say yes in Turkey and 75 percent in Pakistan, but so do 37
percent in the United Kingdom and France and 47 percent in Germany.
But there are also optimistic results in the survey for those who cherish the right to
speak freely. Since free speech is a sensitive topic, people tend to answer questions
in a manner viewed favorably by others such as the government or peers. To tease
out such “social-desirability bias” and reveal true preferences, we implemented a so-
called list experiment. When comparing the responses to our list experiment with
the responses to our direct questions about the acceptance of offensive statements
on religion, it seems that many people are more tolerant of criticism of their religion
in private than they are ready to admit in public. In Russia, the difference is a
staggering +36. A similar tendency is found in a number of Muslim-majority
countries that punish religious offense: Turkey (+22), Lebanon (+17), Tunisia (+14),
Egypt (+12), and Indonesia (+15).
To assess and rank the overall support for free speech in the 33 countries surveyed,
we created the Justitia Free Speech Index, and some unlikely champions emerge,
including Hungary and Venezuela which were 5th and 7th respectively. It may be
that Hungarians and Venezuelans, affected by government capture of traditional
media and the marginalization of opposition voices, recognize the dangers of taking
free speech for granted. This development provides hope that free speech can
survive the current wave of authoritarianism. Likewise, despite tight policing of the
public sphere, there is substantial popular support for the right to criticize the
government in low-ranking countries such as Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and the
Philippines.
In the industrial age of traditional media, the state was the ultimate arbiter of
speech whose limits it defined and enforced. However, in the digital age of social
media private platforms make more daily decisions about speech limits than most
governments will ever face. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not bound by the
First Amendment or international human rights law, yet their content moderation
has huge ramifications for the global spread of ideas and information. This raises
the difficult question of who gets to decide and enforce the limits of free speech on
social media. Should it be states, and if so, should each state get to wall off its corner
of the Internet with its own specific laws? Or should private platforms, whose
policies lack direct democratic legitimacy, and transparency and operate outside the
constraints of fundamental rights, get to decide?
32
This conflict is currently playing out in India where the government is putting
extreme pressure on Twitter to remove “misinformation,” which includes criticism
of the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. But European
democracies such as Germany and Austria have also adopted laws forcing social
media companies to remove “illegal content.” As our survey vividly demonstrates it
is impossible for large centralized platforms to comply with the clashing limits of
tolerance of people across the world. Inevitably some will insist that the platforms
remove too little, while others will protest that they remove too much.
Majorities in all surveyed countries agree that some regulation of social media is
preferable to none. But interestingly, majorities in two thirds of the countries
surveyed—including Venezuela, Hungary, the United States, Nigeria, Japan, and
Sweden—prefer platforms to be solely responsible for regulating themselves as
opposed to government regulation alone. Despite the amplification of hate speech
and disinformation on social media, it seems that many value the ability to impart
and access information without government censorship.
What to make of all this data? There is a clear, positive association between public
support for free speech and the actual enjoyment of this right. Accordingly, the more
people support the difficult and counterintuitive principle of free speech, the greater
the likelihood that they actually get to exercise it without censorship or repression.
This requires the development of a robust and tolerant culture of free speech. Alas, a
global consensus on free speech maximalism is unlikely to emerge anytime soon.
33
The Abraham Accords Passed Their First Big
Test | Foreign Policy
Anchal Vohra
The writer is a Beirut-based columnist for Foreign Policy and a freelance TV
correspondent and commentator on the Middle East.
When war broke out in Gaza, Arab countries chose

rapprochement with Israel over solidarity with
Palestinians.
Barely days after Israel and Hamas signed a cease-fire to end the recent cycle of
violence, a museum in Dubai called Crossroad of Civilizations featured an exhibition
dedicated to the history of the Holocaust and the horrors of antisemitism. Soon
after, on June 2, Israeli and Emirati businessmen at Dubai’s Global Investment
Forum discussed bilateral trade as their governments signed a double taxation
avoidance treaty, and the Emiratis invited Israel to set up shop in a free trade zone.
Israel’s disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians bothered its newest

Arab partners but not enough to question the normalization of relations created by
last year’s Abraham Accords. Those diplomatic deals triggered billions of dollars of
economic activity and bolstered national security for Israel and the four Arab
countries involved. No one was interested in sacrificing those gains, even during a
war that killed around 250 Palestinians, including 66 children. It was an early test of
the theory that peace in the Middle East would be attained not in exchange for land
but for the sake of business and mutual protection against common enemies.
Although there was an outpouring of pro-Palestinian sentiment on social media in

Abraham Accord countries, there were few signs of outrage on the streets. The
agitation didn’t come close to rattling the governments, much less forcing them to
change their policy.
The recent clashes did, however, expose how the United Arab Emirates especially
has little leverage on Israel. Israel embarrassed the UAE’s ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin
Zayed Al Nahyan, when it stormed the al-Aqsa mosque, a revered place of worship
for Muslims. The UAE condemned Israel without threatening any consequences. As
Hamas fired rockets and Israel launched airstrikes, the UAE’s reproach was even
more perfunctory. This reflected the antagonism of both the Emiratis and the
Bahrainis toward Hamas, the Palestinian group whose parent organization, the
Muslim Brotherhood, is the biggest internal threat to their rule. But it also displayed
the Arab countries’ commitment to rapprochement with Israel. In March, the UAE
announced a $10 billion investment in Israel in fields ranging from natural gas to
technology to water desalination.
34
Shmuel Bar, a former Israeli intelligence officer and currently the owner of an
Israeli software company that does business with many Arab nations, said his phone
has been buzzing with texts from Arab well-wishers since the clashes started.
“Nothing has changed,” Bar said. “I haven’t heard anyone say that the recent
tensions have had a bearing on business deals. No one has called me to cancel any
deal. I have at least 15 WhatsApp texts from contacts from various places in the
Arab world who inquired if I was alright and that they hoped no rockets were falling
near me.”
There has been a marked rise in sympathy for Palestinians in the West, especially in
the United States, where younger adults and liberal Democrats showed a clear tilt in
their favor, according to a Gallup poll held in early February. But in the Arab world,
experts say, people are burdened with so many other worries, and leaders so gripped
with the fear of being ousted, that Palestine has been pushed far down on their list
of priorities.
A rise in a Muslim or an Arab national identity, general fatigue with the Palestinian
problem, economic and political crises at home, multiple wars, insurgencies, and
brewing famines all have contributed to a slide in sympathy among the Arabs for
their Palestinian brethren.
The monarchies who either are signatories to the Abraham Accords like the UAE or
wish to be like Saudi Arabia have been pushing Palestinians instead to be realistic.
Their own desires to wean their economies off oil as well as the need to combat the
internal threat from political Islamists and the external threat from an expanding
Iran has changed their outlook toward the problem entirely. Some religious and
academic influencers in the Emirates have said that the conflict is between Israelis
and Palestinians, not Israelis and Arabs, a sentiment that reflects a tectonic
intellectual shift in the UAE and also elsewhere in the region.
There was one big rally held in Qatar, which shelters Hamas, supports the Muslim
Brotherhood, and is an ally of Iran and Turkey—the civilizational foes of most
Arabs, including those who signed the accords. In Bahrain and Jordan there were
demands to expel the Israeli ambassador, but to no avail.
None of the Arab governments resorted to their diplomatic toolkit to send a stronger
message to Israel. Rather, they used plain and routine condemnation. “Their
criticism was mere rhetoric,” said Yoel Guzansky, a senior research fellow at the
Institute for National Security Studies specializing in Gulf politics and security.
“They did nothing on the ground. They did not expel ambassadors or threatened to
walk out of the accords or initiated intra-Arab negotiations.”
Guzansky said the Arabs were undoubtedly unhappy with Israel over storming the
al-Aqsa mosque, but as the conflict moved to Gaza, their tone softened. “They
blamed Israel for what happened in the mosque, for what happened in the city. That
is more understandable because of Jerusalem’s religious importance to Islam,” he
added. “But as Jerusalem became quieter and Hamas started shooting rockets, it
played into the hands of Abraham Accord countries. It offered them a chance to be
more balanced and divide criticism between Israel and Hamas. I noticed that
several Saudi outlets criticized Hamas very loudly. They blamed Hamas for the
situation that the people in Gaza found themselves in. Saudi [Arabia] and the UAE
didn’t want Hamas to come out of the conflict with an upper hand.”
35
Ibrahim al-Assil, a Middle East analyst, said a large segment of the Arab population
is overwhelmed with their own struggles and priorities, and some of them even raise
questions about why their struggles do not get the same attention globally. “It is an
important and an interesting development in the Arab public opinion,” Assil said.
“The Palestinians are getting much more global sympathy, but in the region itself,
this trend is reversed. Many see it through the lens of their own conflicts with Iran
and are concerned about how Iran will find a way to co-opt Palestinian grievances.”
He added the Abraham Accords were never meant to solve the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict—nor could they. “Even if all Arab states normalize with Israel, the conflict
will continue because of its Indigenous local roots,” Assil said. But he admitted there
was a hope the UAE and other Arab states would at least have leverage over Israel in
such situations. “The relationship between Israel and the UAE is still newborn and
wasn’t ready for the test. The UAE found itself in a difficult position and much faster
than it expected.”
It wasn’t the first and sadly won’t be the last of the clashes between Israelis and
Palestinians. The question is whether the UAE and its biggest ally, Saudi Arabia,
which tacitly supports the Abraham Accords, would begin to pressure Israel and
demand they have a say at times like these. If they don’t, they might still succeed in
keeping their people quiet, but they might also enhance the appeal of Iran, Qatar,
and the political Islamists they so detest.
Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a prominent political scientist in the UAE and former advisor
to the Emirati crown prince, said the accord is here to stay. “As far as the UAE is
concerned, it is a strategic asset and irreversible,” Abdulla said. “The UAE is on two
parallel tracks: Supporting Palestinians for a state of their own is one track, and
Abraham Accords is another. There is no turning back on either.”
But to walk on both paths simultaneously has become more untenable as far-right
Israeli leader Naftali Bennett is set to replace Benjamin Netanyahu as Israeli prime
minister. Bennett has vehemently supported illegal Israeli settlements and opposed
a two-state solution.
The Abraham Accords have passed the first challenge. By the time there is a second
or a third or a fourth test, relations may not be able to withstand the tensions—and
the region will only discover the breaking point after it is too late.
36
Beijing's Population Control Plans for Uyghurs
Are Genocidal | Foreign Policy
Adrian Zenz
The writer is a senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism
Memorial Foundation in Washington, an attorney specializing in international
criminal law and reparations.
A member of the Uyghur community holds a placard as he joins a demonstration in London.
In January, the U.S. government determined China’s actions in its northwestern

Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region constituted genocide against its Uyghur
ethnic minority population. Four other national parliaments have since followed
suit. These determinations were mainly based on evidence of
systematic suppression of births, since the United Nations’ 1948 Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide stipulates the act of “imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group” constitutes an act of genocide
if it is “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group.”
Some legal experts have questioned whether Beijing’s atrocities against the Uyghurs

meet the high threshold for a genocide determination. To date, evidence that
Beijing’s campaign of preventing births is intended to destroy the Uyghur people at
least substantially “in part” has remained somewhat inconclusive. Even though an
intent to commit genocide can be inferred from a pattern of conduct, this is more
complicated in the absence of mass murder. What is the Chinese government’s long-
term intent behind sterilizing large numbers of Uyghur women?
37
The answers to these important questions can be found in the words of Chinese
officials themselves. In an upcoming peer-reviewed publication in Central Asian
Survey (available in preprint here), Adrian Zenz, a co-author of this piece, presents
comprehensive and compelling new evidence based on published statements and
reports from Chinese academics and officials. Their core message is straightforward:
The Uyghur population as such is a threat that endangers China’s national security.
Its size, concentration, and rapid growth constitute national security risks that must
be mitigated if the region’s “terrorism” problem is to be solved.
Beijing has begun suppressing Uyghur birth rates to “optimize” ethnic population
ratios for counterterrorism purposes. In southern Xinjiang alone, where Uyghurs
are concentrated, this would reduce population growth by preventing between 2.6
and 4.5 million births by 2040, likely shrinking the number of Uyghurs as a whole.
Liao Zhaoyu, dean of the Institute of Frontier History and Geography at Xinjiang’s
Tarim University, has argued the region’s terrorism problem is a direct result of
high Uyghur population concentrations in southern Xinjiang. Due to a recent
exodus of Han, “the imbalance of the ethnic minority and Han population
composition in southern Xinjiang has reached an unbelievably serious degree.” Liao
argues southern Xinjiang must “change the population structure and layout [to] end
the dominance of the Uyghur ethnic group.”
Xinjiang’s most high-profile voice on this highly sensitive subject is Liu Yilei, deputy
secretary-general of the party committee of Xinjiang’s Production and Construction
Corps and a Xinjiang University dean. In 2020, Liu argued “the root of Xinjiang’s
social stability problems has not been resolved.”
“The problem in southern Xinjiang is mainly the unbalanced population structure,”

Liu added. “Population proportion and population security are important
foundations for long-term peace and stability. The proportion of the Han population
in southern Xinjiang is too low, less than 15 percent. The problem of demographic
imbalance is southern Xinjiang’s core issue.”
In 2017, the year when the mass internment campaign began, Chinese President Xi

Jinping himself issued instructions related to “Researching and Advancing the
Optimization Work of the Ethnic Population Structure in Southern Xinjiang.” The
related document has not been made public.
Other Chinese researchers have argued the “foundation for solving Xinjiang’s
counterterrorism” is “to solve the human problem.” Specifically, this requires
“diluting … the proportion of ethnic populations” by increasing the Han population
share and reducing the shares of populations with “negative energy,” such as
religious and traditionally minded Uyghurs. This process of targeted ethnic
dilution, first proposed by Xi during his visit to Xinjiang in 2014, is referred to as
“population embedding.” A consistent theme in the discourse around this “human
problem” is the eugenics-based concept of “population quality” (or “renkou suzhi”),
a long-standing concept in Chinese Communist Party thought where Uyghurs are
considered to be inherently “low quality” as a minority ethnic group.
To boost Han population shares, Beijing has to induce millions of Han to move to
southern Xinjiang. By 2022, it plans to settle 300,000 Han people there. However,
the south is also Xinjiang’s most ecologically fragile region. Arable land and water
are scarce. Urbanization and industrial development vastly increased per capita
38
resource utilization. Chinese studies estimate Xinjiang as a whole was already
overpopulated by 2.3 million persons in 2015, significantly exceeding its ecological
population carrying capacity.
Boosting Han population shares without significantly exceeding carrying capacities

requires drastic reductions in ethnic minority population growth. Calculations show
the most ideal range for this growth is in fact negative: around negative 2.5 per mile.
By 2040, the state could boost Han population shares in southern Xinjiang to nearly
25 percent by settling 1.9 million Han. This would dilute Uyghur population
concentrations in line with counterterrorism targets. The ethnic minority population
there would shrink from currently 9.5 million to 9 million by 2040, a decline that
could pass unnoticed by outside observers. A smaller population is also easier to
control and assimilate.
Based on adapted projections that were recently published by Chinese researchers

in Sustainability, a peer-reviewed international journal, southern Xinjiang’s ethnic
minority population could increase to an estimated 13.1 million people by 2040
without severe measures to prevent births.
The 4.1 million person discrepancy between 9 million and 13.1 million people can be
understood to constitute the “destruction in part” caused by the state’s
“optimization” of ethnic population ratios. This would reduce the projected ethnic
minority population during the coming 20 years by nearly one third (31 percent).
How realistic is this plan? After a draconian campaign of suppressing births, natural

population growth in southern Xinjiang is already trending toward zero. Some
regions planned to push it below zero for 2020 and 2021. Recently, Xinjiang has
told family planning offices to “optimize the population structure” and carry out
“population monitoring and early warning.” The region has created all the necessary
preconditions for “optimizing” its ethnic population structure. It also no longer
reports birth rates or population counts by region or ethnic group.
These findings shed important new light on Beijing’s intent to physically destroy in
part the Uyghur ethnic group by preventing births within the group. The new
publication convincingly argues other measures aimed at achieving ethnic
population changes since Han will not accomplish the overall goal due in part to
ecological, economic, and other practical constraints. As such, the prevention of
Uyghur births is a critical and necessary part of China’s overall “optimization” policy
in Xinjiang—a policy considered to be a matter of national security. Importantly,
understanding the role that birth prevention and long-term population reduction
plays in this overall policy distinguishes China’s actions against the Uyghurs from its
general national population control measures and from its treatment of other ethnic
and religious minorities, such as Tibetans.
In its 2007 judgment in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case,

the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial body that has jurisdiction over
disputes between states in relation to the Genocide Convention, held that “the intent
must be to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group.” The ICJ
expanded on the criteria for assessing the “substantial part” threshold in its
2015 Croatia v. Serbia judgment, holding it is not merely a numerical assessment
but also takes into account the intent to destroy “within a geographically limited
area” and the “prominence of the allegedly targeted part within the group as a
39
whole.” We argue that a long-term policy of preventing millions of Uyghur births
meets this threshold.
Two additional factors are important to understanding the gravity of the current
situation facing the Uyghurs. First is China’s systematic imprisonment of Uyghur
religious, intellectual, and cultural elites, with the increased imposition of lengthy
sentences as opposed to arbitrary detention. The systematic removal of persons
central to maintaining and transmitting Uyghur culture and identity is accompanied
by a policy of family separations, where Uyghur children are taught to adopt the
majority Han culture. Second is the concern that China’s assumption of the needed
“optimization” levels may change over time if the Uyghur population, even when
reduced in number, does not assimilate as envisioned. Genocidal intent can develop
and strengthen over time as it has done in past genocides. The perception of
Uyghurs as a human threat to China’s national security suggests birth prevention
targets could increase over time, increasing the threat to the continued existence of
the group as a whole.
Much of the debate surrounding the classification of China’s actions against the
Uyghurs in terms of states making a genocide “determination” focuses on the legal
question of establishing “genocidal intent.” Specifically, debates have arisen
regarding the burden of proof applicable to findings based on circumstantial
evidence and inferences, based primarily on the legal framework of international
criminal law. We question whether this framework and evidentiary inquiry is
necessary for purposes of a state making a genocide determination. A state is not a
judicial body nor is it reaching a determination that implicates the fundamental
human rights of an individual (such as fair trial rights or the right to liberty). Most
importantly, state genocide determinations are intended to inform policy responses,
which are fundamentally different from the purpose of international criminal law or
judicial proceedings generally. This point could not be more clearly made than by
the fact that it is only this week that the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia has finally confirmed the conviction of Ratko Mladic for the
Srebrenica genocide, a genocide that took place 26 years ago.
International criminal law is an important accountability tool, such as after a crime

has been committed, but is not an appropriate tool for purposes of preventing or
responding to an unfolding genocide. The new findings present compelling evidence
of a genocidal policy that is only now beginning to unfold and which will take place
over decades.
In our view, when states attempt to mimic international judicial proceedings and
apply evidentiary standards that relate to individual criminal liability, this creates
significant risks that they will not meet their obligations under international law as a
state. The Genocide Convention obligates all state parties to the convention to
prevent genocide. In its 2007 Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and
Montenegro judgment, the ICJ held that this “obligation to prevent, and the
corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should
normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be
committed.”
The U.N. Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect has
identified risk factors for “atrocity crimes” (meaning genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity) in its Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. Risk
factor 10, which is specific to genocide, provides indicators for “signs of an intent to
40
destroy in whole or in part a protected group.” Notably, this framework was used by
the U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar in its 2019
findings on the situation facing the Rohingya. We suggest this is the more
appropriate framework that should guide state genocide determinations, bearing in
mind their distinct policy response purpose. Applying this framework, many of the
signs of genocidal intent outlined under risk factor 10 are present with respect to
China’s actions against the Uyghurs.
In sum, the newly published research provides states and the international
community with compelling evidence that a genocide is slowly being carried out. Of
particular concern is China’s perception of concentrated Uyghur populations as a
national security threat. Other signs of genocidal intent under the U.N. framework
are also clearly present. However, even those states that may not share this
conclusion cannot deny that, at a minimum, there is a serious risk of genocide
occurring. We argue states are therefore obligated to act urgently on that knowledge.
Adrian Zenz is a senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism

Memorial Foundation in Washington and supervises doctoral students at the
European School of Culture and Theology in Korntal, Germany. His research focus
is on China’s ethnic policy, public recruitment in Tibet and Xinjiang, Beijing’s
internment campaign in Xinjiang, and China’s domestic security budgets. Zenz is
the author of “Tibetanness” Under Threat: Neo-Integrationism, Minority Education,
and Career Strategies in Qinghai, P.R. China and co-editor of Mapping Amdo:
Dynamics of Change. He has played a leading role in the analysis of leaked Chinese
government documents, including the “China Cables” and the “Karakax list.” Zenz is
an advisor to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and a frequent contributor
to international media.
Erin Rosenberg is an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati College of

Law and an attorney specializing in international criminal law (ICL) and
reparations. She worked for a decade in ICL, beginning at the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on the Ratko Mladic case, before
moving to the International Criminal Court, where she worked in the Appeals
Chamber and at the Trust Fund for Victims. She is the former senior advisor for the
Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum,
where she was the lead author for the report series, Practical Prevention: How the
Genocide Convention’s Obligation to Prevent Applies to Burma. She is a member of
the editorial committee of the Journal of International Criminal Justice and the
American Bar Association’s working group on crimes against humanity.
41
China Is a Long-Term Competitor but Not a
Deadly Threat | Foreign Policy
Ali Wyne
The writer is a senior analyst with the Global Macro practice at Eurasia Group.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian speaks at the daily media briefing in
Beijing.
U.S. policymakers consider China’s resurgence to be the greatest test yet posed by a
rival nation-state to the United States’ security and prosperity. The White
House’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance concludes Beijing “is the only
competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and
technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open
international system.”
All four of those dimensions of power have grown in the last year. China is more
central to the global economy than it was at the outset of the coronavirus pandemic
in late 2019, and the International Monetary Fund projects it will grow 8.4 percent
this year and 5.6 percent in 2022, compared to 6.4 percent and 3.5 percent
respectively for the United States. By deepening its sway within core postwar
institutions, such as the United Nations, and pursuing extra-system efforts, such as
the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), it is increasingly shaping both the architecture
and the norms of global governance.
Military frictions are intensifying in the Asia-Pacific, and U.S. officials are
increasingly focused on redressing U.S. vulnerabilities in potential South China Sea
42
and Taiwan Strait contingencies. Finally, as China works toward achieving greater
technological self-sufficiency, backing its vision with billions of dollars in state-
directed capital, the United States is contending with the implications of a
potentially bifurcated, if not further fragmented, technology ecosystem.
Yet the growing gap between Beijing’s economic heft and its diplomatic aplomb will
limit its potential influence. It is possible to imagine a scenario where China
possesses the world’s largest economy, by a considerable margin, yet finds itself
even more estranged from the advanced industrial democracies that will still
collectively account for the preponderance of economic power and military capacity.
China had a promising window in which to consolidate medium- and perhaps even
long-term strategic advantages during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s
administration. Beyond undercutting views of the United States abroad, the
administration’s “America First” foreign policy often caught U.S. allies and partners
in its crosshairs. Beijing had an especially compelling opportunity to strengthen ties
with major powers in and beyond its neighborhood last year, when a pandemic, a
recession, and protests against racial injustice were concurrently roiling the United
States.
China did, of course, make some progress in expanding its influence during the
Trump years. It concluded the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a
trade pact that will deepen intra-Asian trade flows, and finalized the Comprehensive
Agreement on Investment (CAI) with the European Union. It also continued adding
countries to its roster of BRI partners and grew its technological footprint across the
developing world; a recent study found Huawei has inked 70 agreements with
governments or state-owned enterprises in 41 countries over the past 15 years,
predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
These advances coincided with the emergence of China’s more assertively

nationalistic diplomatic tone, often referred to as “Wolf Warrior diplomacy” after
Rambo-like movies of the same name, which feature Chinese fighters defending
their country’s honor. Particularly following initial international criticism of
Beijing’s early response to the COVID-19 outbreak, many Chinese diplomats began
pushing back strongly against critiques of China’s actions by highlighting other
countries’ shortcomings and touting Beijing’s accomplishments. Chinese diplomats
overseas have increasingly adopted this approach, including in interactions with
journalists and on social media.
The Trump administration’s headline-grabbing diplomatic style often gave cover to

China’s abrasive approach. In contrast, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration’s
steady, undramatic approach to repairing U.S. alliances and partnerships has
shifted the diplomatic spotlight toward Beijing’s conduct. It is not only the United
States’ disposition toward China that is hardening. The European Union is also
taking a more skeptical look, having recently voted to freeze its review of the CAI
until Beijing lifts sanctions on European parliamentarians and think tanks. Tensions
with Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom are elevated. Relations
with India sharply deteriorated after bloody border clashes began last
May. Japan and South Korea are reinvesting in strengthened alliances with the
United States and are taking tentative steps to improve their own bilateral
relationship. Finally, Taiwan’s international stature has grown while its wariness of
the mainland has risen.
43
With many of China’s key bilateral relationships facing headwinds, democratic
coalitions are mobilizing more actively. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue
arguably has more momentum than at any other point since its inception. NATO has
grown more pointed in its criticisms of Beijing, with Secretary-General Jens
Stoltenberg calling it “a power that doesn’t share our values” in late March. G-7
foreign ministers issued a statement in early May expressing concern about China’s
repression in Xinjiang and Tibet, its erosion of Hong Kong’s democracy, and its
coercive economic practices. In an unprecedented step, Canada, the European
Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced coordinated
sanctions in March in response to China’s mass internment of Uyghur Muslims.
China has lashed out in return, casting itself as the object of a containment
campaign. Such messages play well to the public at home. But as political scientist
Jessica Chen Weiss explained, they do not travel well abroad. And as China’s
leadership harnesses nationalistic sentiment, it simultaneously constrains its
freedom of foreign-policy maneuvers. The kinds of recalibrations that might enable
Beijing to stabilize ties with other major powers, after all, could be interpreted as the
kinds of concessions to external pressure that Chinese President Xi Jinping has
avowed a more confident and capable China no longer needs to make. That dilemma
stands in contrast to the relative flexibility China’s leadership enjoyed in the 1980s,
when it was able to rescind many past territorial claims to settle long-standing
border disputes with Russia and other countries.
The Chinese Communist Party’s narratives feed growing Chinese nationalism.

Xi stated in January “time and the situation are in our favor.” Chen Yixin, the
powerful secretary-general of the body overseeing China’s domestic
security, rendered a similar judgment that same month: “The rise of China is a
major variable [of the world today] … while the rise of the East and the decline of
the West has become [a global] trend, and changes of the international landscape
are in our favor.”
China’s leadership is advancing two propositions: First, Beijing is inexorably moving

to resume its rightful centrality within world affairs, rectifying an unjust strategic
imbalance. Efforts to alter that trajectory will be futile and counterproductive.
Second, a fading Washington is anxiously looking to maintain its present
preeminence by obstructing China’s resurgence.
Not all Chinese analysts are as bullish about Beijing’s prospects, as one of us (Ryan
Hass) concluded after conducting more than 50 hours of Zoom-based dialogues
with Chinese interlocutors and completing a thorough review of recent speeches by
Chinese officials and commentaries by Chinese scholars. According to Renmin
University professor and government advisor Shi Yinhong, for example, “the appeal
of China’s ‘soft power’ in the world, the resources and experiences available to
China, are quite limited, and the domestic and international obstacles China will
encounter, including the complexities created by the coronavirus pandemic, are
considerable.”
There are many reasons for Chinese observers to interrogate the assumption China
will be able to sustain its present momentum indefinitely. Beijing’s foreign-policy
commitment to nonalignment limits its ability to form alliances and other trust-
based relationships it can leverage to counter pressure from the United States and
its friends. China’s productivity remains low compared to developed countries, and
44
it must contend with serious demographic issues as well as significant obstacles to
achieving self-sufficiency in targeted areas like semiconductors.
Beijing is still on course to overtake Washington in overall economic size—adding

considerable weight to its threats, implied or otherwise, against countries that
oppose it, especially in the developing world. But aggregate economic heft does not
immediately yield commensurate diplomatic stature. Although the United States
overtook the United Kingdom in overall economic size in the late 19th century, it did
not emerge as the world’s preeminent power until the end of World War II. And the
combined size of democratic economies will exceed China’s gross domestic product
for many decades yet, even in Beijing’s most optimistic growth scenarios.
There are at least two clear policy implications. First, China’s self-limiting
diplomacy gives the United States breathing room to pursue a foreign policy that is
informed but not governed by Beijing’s resurgence. Washington should neither
allow its response to Beijing’s behavior to override its pursuit of other important
foreign-policy priorities nor convey the impression China’s decisions will determine
how it renews itself at home and repositions itself abroad.
Second, even as it leverages China’s strategic errors to renew its relationships with
allies and partners, the United States must take care not to view China too narrowly
within the frame of “great-power competition.” Washington should primarily
engage its friends not around a country they aim to contest but around the outcomes
they seek to achieve—foremost among them a post-pandemic order that can more
effectively manage both short-term crises, such as COVID-19, and longer-term
challenges, such as climate change. There are and will continue to be, after all,
significant divergences between advanced industrial democracies’ threat
perceptions and policy priorities vis-à-vis China. Although shared concerns can
impel coalitions, affirmative undertakings can more reliably sustain them.
One might counter the United States defined its foreign policy during the Cold War
in oppositional terms, casting itself as the antithesis of the Soviet Union.
Importantly, though, Washington challenged Moscow under the auspices of a
broader, forward-looking effort: constructing an order to forestall the calamities
that had made one necessary in the first place.
If, amid the triumphalism that attended the Soviet Union’s fall, the United States
was too quick to dismiss China’s competitive potential, it may now be at risk of
overstating it. Beijing is neither on the precipice of disintegration nor on a path to
hegemony; it is an enduring yet constrained competitor.
U.S. efforts should proceed from both a clear-eyed recognition that strategic
competition with China will persist over the long term and a dispassionate appraisal
of Beijing’s competitive strengths and liabilities. The United States can afford to
approach that competition with quiet confidence. The more it concentrates on
advancing an open and equitable society, restoring its democratic institutions, and
maintaining its initiative on the world stage by galvanizing efforts to address
transnational challenges, the better it will be able to demonstrate the strength of its
own system. Prestige ultimately derives from performance. Improving the United
States’ performance at home and abroad should be the overarching focus of U.S.
policy.
45
When Biden Meets Putin | Foreign Affairs
MICHAEL KIMMAGE
The writer is Professor of History at the Catholic University of America and the
author of The Abandonment of the West: The History of an Idea in American
Foreign Policy.
U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who are scheduled
to meet in Geneva on June 16, may know each other too well. They first met in 2011,
when Biden, then U.S. vice president, by his own account told Putin, then Russian
prime minister, “I don’t think you have a soul.” They clashed again after 2014, when
Biden was tasked with bolstering Ukraine in the wake of its protests and pressuring
Russia to scale back its military interference in eastern Ukraine.
Putin then tasked himself with pushing back against Biden and the strain of U.S.
policy he represented. The Russian president had his intelligence services interfere
with the 2016 U.S. presidential election in the hope that Donald Trump, once
elected, might reverse the Obama administration’s stance on Russia. In the ensuing
years, Putin’s minions likely passed along information or misinformation on Biden’s
son Hunter, which Trump’s minions eagerly received and did their best to deploy in
the 2020 campaign. With so much jagged history between them, the latest meeting
between Biden and Putin will be awkward at a personal level.
But the absence of rapport may be overshadowed by the absence of substantive

agreement. Biden did not campaign on a reset of U.S. relations with Russia, and he
46
has not pursued such an approach as president. Instead, his Russia policy presumes
a high degree of friction with Moscow. It recognizes the many ways in which Russia
damages U.S. interests, from meddling in elections to occupying eastern Ukraine to
seeking to diminish U.S. influence worldwide. Biden’s goal is not to transform
relations with Russia but to “restore predictability and stability to the U.S.-Russia
relationship,” as Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, explained when
announcing the summit.
There is thus a limit to how much the Putin-Biden summit can accomplish. With
each leader mistrusting and surely disliking the other, neither will go out of his way
to deliver anything of significance. Even so, there is real value to the optics of
consultation and deliberation. With luck, such optics can evolve into the reality of
consultation and deliberation. These are the underpinnings of true stability, and
they can keep Russia and the West from getting pulled into a direct confrontation—
one that would be as undesirable as it would be undesired.
PUTIN’S CALCULUS
Putin will likely frame the Geneva summit more around his own diplomatic skills
than around any particular deliverables. He knows that Biden will not lift U.S.
sanctions anytime soon. The game of driving wedges between the United States and
its European allies, which Putin enjoyed playing in the Trump era, will pay fewer
dividends with Biden, who has shored up the transatlantic alliance; there are no
propaganda points to be scored here. In fact, even the 2018 summit with Trump in
Helsinki did little for Putin. The American president, asked about Russian election
meddling, gleefully sided with Russia’s leader over his own intelligence
professionals, marking a nadir for U.S. diplomacy. Yet this apparent public relations
bonanza furnished Russia with no new geopolitical opening, and Trump’s words in
Helsinki, as was so often the case, had little bearing on his administration’s policies.
With Biden, Putin will play the role of a statesman. He will try to get the summit to
register as a meeting of equals. By in no way deferring to Biden, he will strive to
demonstrate that Russia is a great power. Let other world leaders beg for the kind of
U.S. attention that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been
publicly craving since Biden entered the Oval Office. Let the Europeans gather with
Biden in their byzantine multilateral forums. Let others wait out in the cold, too
marginal or undemocratic or annoying to garner a meeting with the U.S. president.
Putin will meet with Biden one-on-one—as, in his view, is Russia’s right.
Yet beyond international stature, Putin is also seeking the same things Biden wants:
predictability and stability. True, Putin has not shied away from destabilizing
Russia’s neighbors or even the United States. He may or may not have assisted the
Belarusian government’s operation to force down a passenger plane to arrest a
journalist flying from Greece to Lithuania, but he certainly condoned the act
afterward. For all the talk of Russia as a “revisionist spoiler,” however, the country
revises and spoils much less than it could. In Ukraine, it has declined to march on
Kyiv. In the Middle East, it has continued to allow Israel access to Syrian airspace.
And in the United States, it has held back from deploying its full arsenal of cyber-
capabilities, which could surely wreak havoc on the U.S. economy.
An increasingly out-of-touch autocrat presiding over a worsening economy, Putin

cannot afford an uncontrolled intensification of international conflicts—especially
with the United States. Putin needs levers to manage conflict. A working
relationship with Biden would cost him nothing, and it might well purchase him the
47
geopolitical respite he needs to address the fraying tapestry of domestic Russian
politics.
BIDEN’S GAME
Biden should approach the summit by balancing the long-term with the immediate.
A worthwhile practical gain would be to improve consular services for Russians in
the United States and Americans in Russia. Over the past several years, in
retaliation for the election meddling and for the harassment of U.S. diplomats, the
United States expelled Russian diplomats and shuttered the Russian consulate in
Seattle and San Francisco, as well as the Russian trade mission in Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, Russia expelled scores of U.S. diplomats. The United States, in turn, felt
compelled to close consulates in Vladivostok, Yekaterinburg, and St. Petersburg,
leaving the embassy in Moscow as its sole diplomatic mission in Russia—which the
Kremlin is currently threatening to deprive of its Russian staff.
The lack of consulates in both countries makes it extremely difficult for citizens of
either country to visit the other, cutting off the cultural and scientific contact that
has historically benefited both. The people-to-people situation now is worse than it
was during most of the Cold War. To correct it, Biden should offer to relax some of
the conditions—enabling the reopening of Russia’s consulates in the United States
or at least an expansion of U.S. consular services in Russia—in hopes of ending the
tit-for-tat reactions of the past several years.
Arms control will also be on the agenda in Geneva. Just a week after Biden took
office, he and Putin agreed to renew the New START treaty, but there is room for
improvement. Not only could more arms control save money but it would also set a
good example to other countries. If Russia and the United States, the world’s
preeminent nuclear powers, cannot find an agreement on reducing their arsenals,
then arms control agreements with Iran and North Korea are bound to fail. The
area, fortunately, is ripe for progress. By its nature, arms control requires slow,
painstaking work undertaken by scientists who are less preoccupied with bilateral
irritants than are policymakers and diplomats. As a first step, the two leaders could
establish working groups, some of them multilateral, to conceptualize future arms
control challenges.
Biden’s long-term goal should be to normalize U.S.-Russian relations. Simply by

taking place, a Putin-Biden summit would help on this front, by suggesting that it is
normal for Russian and American presidents to meet and meet often. President
Barack Obama had a good first meeting with Putin in Moscow in 2009. That was
followed in 2010 by the cheery “hamburger summit” with Dmitry Medvedev—who
replaced Putin as Russian president for four years—during which the two youthful
presidents shared a photo op at a restaurant in Arlington, Virginia. But then things
went downhill. In 2013, Obama canceled a planned summit with Putin after Edward
Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who released thousands
of classified documents, was granted asylum in Russia. After that, with the
exception of tense meetings on the sidelines of bigger international gatherings, there
was only the July 2017 summit between Trump and Putin, which was as
unproductive as it was embarrassing.
During the Cold War, even as the two sides’ proxies battled each other across the
globe, the United States and the Soviet Union held regular diplomatic summits,
which signified that the conflict was not itself a conventional war. Its end state was
not unconditional surrender but a wary and imperfect coexistence. By contrast, the
48
post–Cold War summits between U.S. and Russian leaders were supposed to
express partnership. They came to a halt during the second half of the Obama
administration, when the pretense of partnership could no longer be sustained. So
twisted and uncertain has the relationship become now that it must be shown that
Russia and the United States are not at war. Even a summit composed entirely of
preset talking points would help do this.
For the Biden administration, the Geneva summit does not just concern diplomacy.
Under Trump, policy toward Russia and Ukraine got tangled up in U.S. politics.
Trump had any number of strange connections to the Russian government,
although evidence that he was a Russian asset never surfaced and accusations that
he colluded with Russia were often driven by partisan motivations. Objectively,
however, Trump allowed Russian misinformation or intelligence about Biden’s son
Hunter to inform his reelection campaign. These were the dirty dealings for which
Trump was impeached in 2019. By starting to normalize U.S.-Russian relations,
Biden can restore Russia to its rightful place within the United States: as a matter of
foreign policy, not domestic politics.
WHAT’S AT STAKE
Expectations for the Putin-Biden summit are rightly low. The stakes, however, are
high. Russia and the West are currently sleepwalking toward the abyss. Neither side
feels any pressure to compromise. Domestic politics in both countries rewards
toughness. Each side is convinced that the other is in decline, making compromise
that much less desirable, since one side’s collapse—and, by extension, the other’s
victory—is only a matter of time.
Little will get resolved in Geneva. Some six years after Russia invaded Ukraine,
Crimea remains annexed, and eastern Ukraine has become yet another of the
region’s frozen conflicts. The diplomatic agreements forged by Germany, France,
Russia, and Ukraine to end the conflict are an irrelevant footnote to the situation on
the ground. Meanwhile, Belarus is under the leadership of a mad dictator, Alexander
Lukashenko, who will either achieve North Korea–style isolation for his country or
fall trying. The United States and its European allies want Belarus to be
democratized, while Russia, which has a substantial military presence within the
country, insists that it remain tied to Moscow. In and around Syria, the U.S. and
Russian militaries are in close proximity but have entirely distinct objectives.
All these incompatibilities will persist for decades. They admit no clear solution and
may never get solved. But they cannot be allowed to metastasize. That is Biden’s
mandate in Geneva: to begin the arduous journey toward predictability and
stability.
49
Drone Dilemma | Foreign Affairs
ANOUK S. RIGTERINK
The writer is Assistant Professor in Quantitative Comparative Politics at the
Durham University School of Government and International Affairs.
The United States’ use of airstrikes carried out by drones, or unmanned aerial
vehicles, to kill suspected terrorists abroad began during the George W. Bush
administration but picked up speed during the Obama era. These strikes target
high-value terrorist leaders as well as rank-and-file terrorists and terrorist
infrastructure. Since 2004, the United States has reportedly launched over 14,000
such strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen alone.
On his first day in office, President Joe Biden ordered a review of this practice and
announced that until the review is completed, all U.S. drone strikes outside active
war zones must be authorized by the White House. The review will likely assess
what conditions justify the authorization of a drone strike. How much certainty
should the United States have that a drone strike will not cause civilian casualties?
Are the military and the CIA obliged to report the number of casualties to the
public? What level of threat must the target pose to justify a strike? But the review
may not ask the most important question: Do drone strikes further the United
States’ military and counterterrorism goals?
Evidence from the record of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan indicates that such
attacks—particularly those against terrorist leaders—may in fact work against those
goals. Drone strikes that kill terrorist leaders may ultimately lead to more, not
fewer, terrorist attacks. They also produce a staggering number of civilian
casualties: some studies suggest a third of drone casualties are civilians, and others
put that proportion even higher.
The Biden administration’s review should consider the full spectrum of policy
options. Given the low efficacy and high costs of drone strikes, the best option could
be to abandon them altogether.
TARGETING TERRORISTS
To investigate if drone strikes further U.S. interests, it helps to begin with the
attacks that kill high-value terrorist leaders who pose a high level of threat and are
frequently surrounded by other terrorists rather than civilians. If even these
relatively uncontroversial drone strikes do not further U.S. interests, that might cast
doubt on drone strikes more generally.
Judging purely by the number of terrorist leaders killed, the United States’ use of
drones has been remarkably successful. Between 2004 and 2015, U.S. drones killed
at least 15 high-value terrorist leaders from five terrorist groups in Pakistan alone,
including top figures in al Qaeda and the Taliban.
50
Such killings might weaken terrorist groups by reducing their ability to conduct
attacks in the United States and by forcing them to compromise with governments
in the areas where they operate. However, eliminating a leader can also have the
opposite effect. In a leadership vacuum, low-level members of the group are freer to
do what they want rather than what the leader may have preferred. If they tend
toward more violence than did the leader, terrorist attacks might increase. In the
words of a Hazara proverb, “Broken glass becomes sharper.”
It isn’t far-fetched to think that terrorist followers are more violent than leaders.
Terrorist leaders have the organization’s long-term goals in mind and realize that
especially atrocious attacks might alienate potential supporters. Rank-and-file
soldiers, often selected for their willingness to perpetrate violence, may not share
that view. Indeed, a 2019 academic study examined more than 1,000 members of
radical groups who had committed crimes and found that followers were more likely
than leaders to engage in violence.
HIT OR MISS
One way to consider the efficacy of drone strikes is to compare the aftermath of
operations that hit their targets with the aftermath of those that missed. Consider,
for example, the 45 drone strikes that the United States carried out during the Bush
and Obama administrations against terrorist leaders in Pakistan. There was no
significant change in the number of attacks carried out by the groups these men led
in the six months prior to the strikes that targeted them.
In the aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, a different pattern emerged. In the six
months after the drone strikes that targeted the terrorist leaders, groups whose
leaders were hit carried out between 43 percent to 70 percent more attacks
(depending on the month) than groups whose leaders were missed. Groups whose
leaders were hit were also substantially more likely to splinter, which resulted in
new groups—many of which announced their arrivals with fresh attacks.
In the case of Pakistan, U.S. drone strikes on terrorist leaders also complicated
negotiations that the Pakistani government intermittently held with terrorist
groups. For example, the leader of one of the most lethal groups in Pakistan, Tehrik-
i-Taliban Pakistan, agreed to engage in peace talks with the Pakistani government in
2013. The day before the two parties were due to meet, however, he was killed by a
U.S. drone strike. At the time, Pakistan’s interior minister said this spelled “the
death of all peace efforts.” Indeed, the TTP splintered into three factions, and
attacks spiked.
ABANDON SHIP
Biden’s review should go beyond merely assessing the conditions under which the
United States should carry out drone strikes. It should also answer a more
fundamental question: Do such strikes serve U.S. interests? Considerable evidence
from Pakistan suggests that they do little to keep U.S. citizens safe, even as they take
the lives of many innocent people. Biden’s review should investigate whether this
holds true elsewhere, most notably in Afghanistan, where a scarcity of publicly
available information about drone strikes has made it impossible for researchers
unconnected to the Pentagon to draw conclusions.
51
If drone strikes are similarly inefficacious outside Pakistan, Biden’s best option
would be to abandon them altogether. This would be a politically difficult option. If
he pursued it, Biden might face a nightmare scenario in the event that a terrorist
group led by someone who could have been killed by a U.S. drone commits an attack
that costs American lives. Dreadful as that outcome would be, there is no guarantee
that killing the leader would have prevented his group from launching attacks. Even
though drone strikes killed many leaders of terrorist groups in Pakistan between
2004 and 2015, the groups they led carried out five times as many attacks in 2015
compared with 2004. What is more, drone strikes against terrorist leaders risk
making their organizations more fragmented, more violent, and more difficult to
monitor.
Any review of U.S. drone policy must grapple with this complex record. Drones have
been touted as a low-cost, low-risk tool of counterterrorism. The evidence suggests
that image is at best incomplete and at worst fundamentally wrong.
52
America or China: Pakistan in Catch-22 | Pak
Observer
Rizwan Ghani
The writer is a senior political analyst based in Islamabad.
If India gives any military base(s) to America, China will annex its territories.Beijing’s
policy is clear from China’s troop deployment along India’s borders and the areas visited by
the India’s Army chief lately.
There are media reports of China centric Quad military base(s) for the US Navy on the
islands under India’s control when required. This ambiguous policy helps Quad but it also
allows Beijing to justify its India policy.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has categorically denied giving military bases to America during
his last US visit.
The agreement has ended because Obama called off war against terrorism in 2013. Biden
has also ordered US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan to end forever US wars.
It is good opportunity to have long-term alliance with America to build modern

parliamentary democracy, judiciary, education, training, individual freedoms, media,
accountability and transparency.
Islamabad has been warned on military bases, which is unacceptable. Like any country,
Pakistan has every right to adopt balanced policy to protect its national interests.
Our past military alliances have destroyed our democracy, constitution and global standing.
Pakistan should reengage with rest of the world but on its own terms to build real multiparty
parliamentary democracy, a strong economy, IT, individual freedoms and free media.
These things cannot be provided by one country, a monarchy or a presidential system. Public
wants end of corruption, which is result of our alliance with the West.
The majority of US wars were illegal because presidents started them without the approval
of Congress. They outsourced these wars to fund them.
It was mostly done with the help of corrupt regimes through alliances, illegal arms sales and
drug smuggling.
Since the Vietnam War, the majority of American governments have been equally corrupt
and hiding facts from American public. It is time to challenge the West on self-acclaimed
high moral grounds to have equal relations.
53
The policy of destruction of Pakistan merits to be replaced with support. The US Presidents
kept asking Pakistan to do more while the American taxpayers’ $2tn was stolen from
Afghanistan.
This amount is more than 2021 US $1.7tn Infrastructure Development Program. Biden is not
ready to recover it, which is violation of Patriot Act.
Washington should stop abusing FATF, IMF etc to hollow Pakistan’s economy and instead
help Islamabad so that it stops looking for alternate options and adopting them permanently.
To have healthy relations with Pakistan, America has to review its policies.
Biden should restore true democratic values of America’s founding fathers to win public
support in Pakistan.
It should end mega corruption of our ruling elite in both countries by upholding US Bank
Secrecy Act to stop $6.7tn money laundering through western banks and other allied corrupt
practices to have long-term bilateral relations based on equality, transparency, accountability
and good governance.
Biden should enact real police reforms to end colonization of the US and its allies. The
police should be demilitarized, cut its powers and withdraw its immunity to make it
accountable to rule of law.
History shows that America colonized Latin American countries with police to protect its
corporate interests (Banana Republics’).
Modern research is clear that crime can be controlled by cutting 90% of police powers,
funding and reinvesting it on education, training and housing of the community. Foreign
alliances should not undermine judiciary.
Politicians control judiciary in America. The UK judicial reforms also aim to stifle judiciary
to avoid democratic accountability on illegal wars, human rights violations or individual
freedoms.
The Constitution of Pakistan was changed to facilitate so-called Afghan war against
terrorism which merits to be restored so that judiciary can serve public not rulers and their
foreign masters.
The parliamentary form of democracy of Pakistan should not be changed for other countries.
It is the best way to serve public and deliver good governance. The Election Commission
can use Alternate Vote to end ballot paper stealing, vote tampering, election rigging and safe
seats.
AV will update ballot paper for multiparty system. It will end outdated FPTP system
because it can only be used in two party elections.
The use of paper ballot will secure vote online of international recommendations including
US SAFE ACT 2019.
Covid has exposed West’s double standards. West failed on people’s vaccine, patent sharing
and Covax leaving 100 plus countries without Covid vaccine.
India sold Covid vaccine and oxygen for profit and now Modi government is facing fallout
of ‘Make in India’ as public demands accountability for Covid deaths.
54
In the UK, the seven deadly claims of Dominic Cummings have exposed criminal, unfit and
corrupt leadership, accountability for Covid deaths, and dire consequences of privatization
of public health.
The West has to respect international law to preserve peace, trade and commerce. The UK
naval mission with US fighter planes for South China Sea is unwarranted.
If West will push with such antagonistic policies, it could backfire in the form of occupation
of Taiwan like the annexation of Crimea.
Hong Kong is another case in point. West needs to solve Kashmir, Palestine and Myanmar
to help humanity.
It is, therefore, time to stand for Pakistan to make it strong with help of its neighbours and
the West.
55
Why the US should seek a military base from
Pakistan ? | Pak Observer
Muhammad Hanif
The writer, a retired Col, is an ex-research fellow of IPRI and senior research fellow
of SVI, Islamabad.
TO implement the US-Taliban peace deal signed by the

Trump Administration in February 2020, the US President
Joe Biden has recently declared, it was time “to end
America’s longest war” as he announced that all the
US/NATO troops would return home from Afghanistan by
11 September 2021.
Biden added, ”we went to Afghanistan for two reasons: get rid of bin Laden and to
end the safe haven. I never thought we were there to somehow unify Afghanistan.
It’s never been done.” Biden also said, “While the US will continue to do the
diplomatic and humanitarian work in Afghanistan, it was also now time for other
countries to play a bigger role in Afghanistan, Pakistan in particular, but also
Russia, India, China and Turkey.
Each of those countries has its own overlapping interest in the country, interests
that don’t necessarily intersect with U.S. goals in Afghanistan. After Biden’s speech,
all NATO members also announced to adhere to the Biden’s plan of withdrawal of
troops from Afghanistan.
Since signing of the US-Taliban deal in February 2020, while the Taliban has made
positive efforts to have meaningful talks with the Ghani Government and a few
rounds of talks were also held, the talks remained stalled due to Ghani government’s
delaying tactics.
Even Bliken’s last minute effort of asking Ghani to start the talks by saying that the
window of opportunity was limited, did not move the Ghani Administration.
After Biden’s withdrawal announcement, news emerged that the US has sought a
military base from Pakistan.
Seeing such news, whereas the Afghan Taliban has warned the neighbouring
countries for not allowing their military bases to the US, Pakistani Foreign Office
has also denied news by stating that Pakistan will not provide military bases to the
US.
Now the question arises, in view of the US’s above-mentioned position about
Afghanistan, why should it seek a military base in Pakistan at this stage.
56
The signing of the peace agreement with the Taliban, makes it evident that the US
has accepted the Afghan Taliban as the main stakeholder in the Afghan politics.
Likewise, in view of the danger of the Afghanistan based IS to the neighbouring

countries, and having seen the Taliban’s success in eliminating the IS, except India,
all other neighbours of Afghanistan, like, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, CARs, Russia and
China, have also accepted the Taliban as the main stakeholder in Afghanistan.
This is also based on the declared policy of the Taliban that if they come to power in
Afghanistan, they will not interfere in any other country’s internal matters.
Hence, after completing the withdrawal, the US/NATO members and all these
countries, including Pakistan should prefer to facilitate an intra-Afghan dialogue to
form an all inclusive interim government in Afghanistan, including the Taliban to
amend the Afghan Constitution and hold the general election.
And if the Ghani Government, continues to resist/delay the talks, the US and the
aforementioned countries should discourage such efforts.
In view of the above, if the US intends to pursue the above policy of working for
sustainable peace in Afghanistan, it should suffice to use its diplomatic and
economic support/pressure for sustaining the intra-Afghan dialogue, rather than
conducting counterterrorism operations in support of the Ghani Government by
using its existing bases located in some Gulf States or by seeking a military base
from Pakistan.
Therefore, at this stage, if the US asks Pakistan for a military base, it would mean
that it wants to sustain the Ghani Government and India’s presence in Afghanistan,
by providing it the military support by using Pakistan’s soil.
Moreover, asking for the military base from Pakistan at this stage can be construed
by some as an effort to fix Pakistan in the US’s Indo-Pacific policy, meant to contain
China.
Hence, if the US seeks a military base from Pakistan at this stage, it should deny that
to avoid following negative implications. Pakistan’s past gains will be lost, and
India’s objectives in Afghanistan will be served.
Pakistan’s relations with the Taliban will be adversely impacted, Ghani government
and India nexus will remain and Pakistan will remain vulnerable to terrorism,
emanating from Afghanistan. The decision might also negatively impact Pakistan’s
relations with China.
Moreover, ultimately, when the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan, then

Pakistan may not have a friendly Afghanistan on its west.
In view of the above, at this stage Pakistan should not take any sides in the
Afghanistan conflict and it should sincerely work for facilitating the Afghan-led and
Afghan-owned dialogue between all the Afghan stakeholders, including the Ghani
administration and the Taliban to succeed and form an all inclusive interim
government.
This is very important to bring a long due and sustainable peace in Afghanistan, to
facilitate the CPEC-based economic development of this region.
57
As far as Pakistan’s relations with the US are concerned, those would be
strengthened if Pakistan facilitates the US’s future interests in Afghanistan by
supporting and making the peace process a success.
Or, if due to the negative role of the Ghani Government, the Taliban succeed in
gaining control of Afghanistan by using force and forming their government, then
Pakistan should facilitate their relations with the US. Pakistan should also mediate
to help improve China-US relations.
Pakistan will remain important for the US to keep peace in South Asia and the
Middle East.
In the above context, President Biden’s mention in his speech that the US would
look to reorganize its counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan to help prevent
the reemergence of threats to the homeland, the worries of the British Chief of
Defence Staff, General Sir Nick Carter, and the US Gen. Kenneth Frank McKenzie,
commander of the US Central Command, expressed in their recent statements
indicate that the US might request, or Pakistan for a military base, and if Pakistan
denies that, then it might seek an air corridor for the use by the US airborne forces
operating from its aircraft carriers in the open sees or from its military bases in
some Gulf countries.
58
Police reforms | Pak Observer
Ilyas Khan
The writer is a contributing columnist, based in Islamabad.
POLICE reforms is one of the points of election manifesto of almost every political
party contesting in general election in Pakistan.
Sad and unfortunate observation has been that whoever came into power in the last
thirteen years of continued democracy did nothing to devise police reforms, one of
the country’s urgent needs.
Police in Pakistan needs complete restructuring, training, remuneration, uniform,

equipment, means of mobility, well defined regular duty hours, discipline,
accountability, performance reward, conduct and interaction with the civil society.
These points must immediately and seriously be addressed by the respective

authorities to formulate police reforms.
Current police system is inherent “Chowkidari Nizam” from the colonial British rule,
where all executive powers were with the ruling British elite.
The society needs to redefine the role of its police by giving the police its due
authority, power and legitimate degree of freedom to carry out its civil services so
that police, besides delivering its good services, should also earn public confidence
and due respect as the protector and implementer of the law.
Parliament must act in the common interest of the civilians to work on police
reforms without further delay.
Sacredness of the Constitution and sanctity of Parliament is a frequent and common

chorus of the parliamentarians, be they are in power or in the opposition, yet nation
could not see anything coming out from Parliament House in the form of police
reforms in the past thirteen years. Onus mainly lies with Parliament. Nothing is
impossible for those who have willing heart.
For parliamentarians of Pakistan, perhaps police reforms are at the lowest level of
the priorities, or not a priority at all.
Sluggish style of working, old methods of combating crime in modern digital age,
excessive and abusive police behaviour (due to lack of accountability), twisting of
59
the basic facts by the police at the filing of first information report are the common
woes of the people seeking police help.
Rich, powerful and influential buy police loyalties. Inaccurate, faulty and twisted
FIRs, which police submits in the court of law, result in the form of denial of true
justice to the party aggrieved, and criminal gets away with his crime without getting
punished.
That makes him more brazen to take law in his hands without any sense of guilt,
rather he enjoys impunity.
Most of our policy makers, think tanks are at loss over the alarmingly rising rate of
the crimes in the society.
Mere criticism or shedding tears over woes resulting from faulty police system is not
the objective here. Objective is to take immediate and drastic measures to overhaul
the entire police system uniformly across the country.
A few suggestions are here for every reader: 1. Cities should be divided into smaller
sectors to improve police management, mobility and fight against crimes. 2. Police
chief and police personnel should be local. 3. Police chief should be elected by the
residents of the sector, not deputed by federal or provincial government.
This may prove to be the first step towards depoliticizing the police. 4. An
independent committee must be set up to look into the service record of each police
personnel.
Those found guilty of serious crimes must be terminated from their services with
immediate effect.
Those with less serious crimes should be given last warning before termination.
Those with outstanding performance must be promoted and duly rewarded.
5. Police foundations across the country must hold professional trainings for each
and every police personnel.
Essence of those trainings must be to improve ethics, professionalism and

harmonious relations with the civilians.
Pakistan has been served by some great police chiefs, like Dr Shoaib Suddle and
many others, whose services are still being hired internationally.
Help must be sought from such competent experts, retired or in service, to design
the training contents. 6. Police trainings, mentioned above, must be periodic and
recurring. 7. After training, accountability process must be extremely strict and
honest. 8. Service rules must be redefined with performance oriented
reward/punishment concept. 9. Police-Civilian liaison cell should exist in each
police station.
10. Widely available Internet facility must be used to report and record First
Information Report (FIR). 11. A monthly or a quarterly meeting of Police-Civilian
Liaison Committee and the local residents must be held at a designated place and
date.
60
Lots of other valuable and practical suggestion, will flow in if policy makers,
intellectuals, reformers and teachers are asked to participate in this serious society
mission.
The mission to set the society to be livable equally for each member of the society,
with respect, honour, dignity, sense of security, irrespective of his/her social status,
religious or political views/affiliation, caste, creed or colour.
Nothing is impossible, needed most is true conviction, proper utilization of available

resources, honest and dedicated efforts from the policy makers, police and the
members of the society.
Human history has witnessed nations taking 180 degrees turn (gradual not radical)
from barbaric to civilized societies.
Change is possible only when one is willing to change him or herself, not otherwise.
61
The Afghan triangle | Daily Times
Iftikhar Khan
The writer is a Lahore-based columnist.
The withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan seems quicker than anticipated. This
has left the Ashraf Ghani government in a real quandary over what to expect and
how the situation will unfold once all foreign troops have left. Predictably, violence
will erupt throughout the country; a tug of war ensuing among various tribal
factions.
Some erroneously believe that the US-led exit will not mean victory for the Afghan
resisting forces, or the Taliban, or whatever one prefers to call them. If the military
pullout from Afghanistan — after two decades of war and bloodshed — isn’t
tantamount to a conclusive defeat, most of us have no idea what is. After all, the
Americans have lost some 3,500 of their own soldiers, with thousands more
incapacitated for life, while sinking a staggering $2.26 trillion into an unwinnable
war.
The US and its NATO allies tested their most modern weapons in Afghanistan. They
killed and maimed a huge number of civilians and forced hundreds of thousands to
seek refuge in the neighbouring countries. In his book ‘The New Rulers of the
World’, journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger serves up a chilling
quote: “Geoffrey Hoon [former British Defence secretary] said that cluster bombs
were the best and most effective weapons we have.” Yet these were dropped in
Afghanistan as cluster ‘bomblets’ and thousands still lie unexploded; leaving
Afghanistan as the world’s most ‘land-mined’ country. Unfortunately, Pakistan at
that time readily assisted the US — by opening up air space and leasing out military
bases — in its quest to inflict atrocities on one of the poorest countries in the world.
Now that US forces are departing from Afghanistan and insurgent forces have
escalated their attacks against Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), President
Ashraf Ghani faces a precarious situation. Even reports of desertions in the Afghan
army have increased, which must be unsettling for Ghani. We must keep in mind
that the Afghan people constitute a tribal society. Meaning that tribal bonds are held
closer to their hearts than loyalty to the ANSF, which had been propped up and
controlled by foreign militaries. Thus, all that Afghans would have to do to join their
respective tribes would be to simply slip out of their uniforms, put on their turbans
and walk away along with their official weapons.
Presently, US negotiators lament that the Taliban are not abiding by the terms of the
bilateral negotiated peace agreement. Yet this is one side of the story. Afghan
insurgent forces believe that since they won the two-decade-old war, there is no
reason to uphold terms and conditions imposed by the defeated superpower. The
old dictum that warns ‘losers cannot be choosers’ applies now more than ever. It
should also remind the good Americans how the Russians withdrew in 1989. They
also left their proxy ruler in power in Afghanistan, thinking that their regional
62
interests would continue to be looked after. Russian withdrawal was more of a rout
than an organised pullout. The only difference now is one of faces. In 1989, it was
Mohammad Najibullah. Today, in 2021, it is Ashraf Ghani. May he live long!
However, the hotly discussed issue is the American request that Pakistan hosts US
military bases so that in the post-exit climate Washington can monitor the situation
in Afghanistan. It is indeed a very sensitive subject. As it is, there is not much love
lost for the US here in this country due to its foreign and defence policies. The
superpower has a compulsion to wage wars on one pretext or the other since it is
home to a war-based economy. Muslim lands for this purpose have proved the best
choice.
William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Programme at the Centre for
International Policy, wrote in a recent article, ‘Selling Death’:“When it comes to
trade in the tools of death and destruction, no one tops the United States of
America. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published
its annual Analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was
the U S of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37 percent of total
international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia,
and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China.” Giving up
attacking defenceless countries would mean shutting down the businesses of
weapon manufacturers, Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and the rest.
Let’s consider the Afghanistan situation as a triangle of conflicting interests. The

first point of the triangle is occupied by US troops, the second by the US-imposed
Kabul government, and the third by the Afghan resisting forces. Having lost the war,
foreign occupants on the first point of the triangle want to quit without looking
back; occupants on the second point want their foreign backers to stay, and, of
course, those on the last end, having spilled their blood for freedom, want to be rid
of the first two sooner rather than later. Stay tuned!
63
Uighurs and the wall of silence | Daily Times
Fiza Husnain Shah
The writer is a post-graduate student of international relations.
National integration is essential for not only nation-building but also for national
security. Sociology contends that there are many different paradigms towards this
end. The differentials model represents one such example and prescribes the
eradication of ethnic minorities as a means of national integration. The idea being
eliminating separatist elements while curbing dissent in order to make society as
homogenous as possible. In real terms, this translates into chaos by cultural and
identity genocide. This can be seen in the ongoing and prolonged Israeli atrocities
against the Palestinians as well as China’s treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority
population.
“There was and is and always will be trouble in Xinjiang,” writes British journalist
and author Tim Marshall in his book: ‘Prisoners Of Geography’. The autonomous
Xinjiang region remains one of China’s most mineral-rich provinces. The site of an
underground nuclear site, the area borders eight countries and is home to around 12
million Uighurs. This minority group, which also includes Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and
ethnic Turks, have twice declared the independent state of East Turkistan in 1930
and 1940, respectively. Xinjiang represents a major trade route and China cannot
afford any unrest there. Not least because it lies at the heart of Beijing’s ambitious
BRI (Belt, Road Initiative) project; connecting East Asia to Europe.
There have long been reports, dating back to 2018, of Uighurs being rounded up and
put in detention camps. China insists these are ‘vocational educational and training
centres’ and are aimed at uplifting people out of poverty. Yet Xinjiang has seen a
clampdown on mosques and even Muslim names are banned. Social media, for its
part, is full of first-hand accounts by former inmates that speak of indoctrination
and torture. There are testimonies of women detainees being gang-raped, enduring
forced sterilisation and forced abortions. Some 2 million Muslims are reportedly
incarcerated in 1,400 camps. This is genocide.
Yet we must also ask how all this came to pass. To answer this, we need to go back to
the 2009 Ürümqi riots, when clashes erupted between the majority Han Chinese
and the Uighurs. Then, in 2014, suspected Uighur militants went on stabbing spree
at Kunming train station, killing 31. All of which prompted China to clamp down on
dissent while pouring a lot of money into the region. This coincided with an
orchestrated media campaign against the Uighurs and moves to relocate the Han
ethnic majority to Xinjiang. Beijing paints the Uighurs as terrorists and extremists
while invoking the war on terror narrative to justify the treatment of this minority
group.
On the world stage, we have the US, which keeps bringing the Uighur issue to
attention of the UN. This is, of course, the very same US which held the UN hostage
over the recent Israel-Palestine violence. Pakistan, on the contrary, spotlighted the
64
plight of the Palestinians at the world body while maintaining silence on the Uighur
Muslim genocide. Thus, we may conclude that some Muslims are more equal than
others, to borrow and play around with George Orwell’s famous ‘Animal Farm’
quote. It all boils down to foreign policy.
The world has borne witness to Israeli atrocities and voiced its concern. Yet the
world has been largely silent when it comes to the suffering of the Uighurs. What
little has come to light has been mainly due to western media coverage. Even here,
there is no altruism to be found. Rather, the West is riled by China’s economic
progress and is committed to smearing the country’s public image at every turn.
This is often preferable than going down the UN route given that Beijing enjoys veto
power at the Security Council. As for Pakistan, it can ill afford to upset the CPEC
(China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) applecart. Thus, we have no option but to trust
Prime Minister Imran Khan — who has termed the Uighur issue as too sensitive to
be discussed publicly — that he is, as pledged, bringing it up behind closed doors.
And in the meanwhile, we, the citizenry, can and must raise our voices for all the
oppressed. Whether the Hazara, the Shia, the Uighur or the Palestinians. Because,
simply put, all Muslims are equal in and outside of the nation state construct.
65
Reasons behind poverty | Daily Times
Iftikhar Ahmad
The writer is former Director / Chief Instructor National Institute of Public
Administration (NIPA) Government of Pakistan, a political analyst, a public policy
expert, and a published author.
Why the poor remain poor is a question that requires a look at linkages of poverty.
The culture of poverty passes poverty from one generation to the next through the
process of socialization. The poor lack skills and so get low wages or are
unemployed. Poverty and low wages benefit the rich. The existence of poverty
makes sure some low paid jobs get done. The stigma attached to claiming benefits
means many go unclaimed. The inadequacy of the welfare state means benefits are
too low to eliminate poverty. The welfare states favor the better off. This creates an
excluded underclass. The poor lack power to change their position. The generosity
of the welfare state creates a dependency culture and a work-shy underclass.
Wealth, poverty and welfare discussion raises an important question about poverty
and value judgment. Defining and measuring poverty is inevitably a value-laden
exercise. The definitions, measurements and explanations of poverty, and the social
policies adopted to tackle the problem, rely to some extent on the value judgments
of researchers and politicians. For example, if you adopt an absolute definition of
poverty. Then you will find very little in modern society.
The solutions to poverty often reflect the political/ideological values of the

researchers and their different interpretations of a similar range of evidence. The
role of the welfare state in relation to poverty ultimately rests on judgements about
what kind of society we should have. The assumptions that the problem of poverty is
primarily created by the nature of the poor themselves, and therefore the poor need
harsh, punitive policies like cuts in benefits as an incentive for them to change their
behavior.
More liberal researchers are less likely to blame individuals for poverty. They are
more likely to focus on the structural constraints on the poor arising from the
unequal nature of society. Such researchers are likely to see solutions to poverty in
providing opportunities for the poor to escape their poverty, through means like the
national minimum wage, better education, better health care, more job
opportunities, more children care support and higher pensions. These different
analyses and policy to solutions often rest on a similar base of evidence, but the
different values of the researchers lead to different interpretations of that evidence.
Does this mean that poverty research is therefore so value laden as to be pointless?
The answer is ‘No’, because the intense sociological, political and media debates
about the definition, measurement and solutions to poverty have overcome the
value judgments of individual researchers. Poverty research, regardless of values,
has certainly exposed the extent to which many people in a society face social
66
exclusion, and are cut off from what most of us take for granted as a normal life.
This alone makes it a worthwhile and productive research area.
While the welfare state has provided some assistance to the poor, widespread
deprivation remains. Poverty persists, some argue because benefit levels are too low
to lift people out of poverty. From this view point, the welfare state is not generous
enough. This has led to an alternative view of the underclass.
Sociologists like Frank Field and Peter Townsend suggest this underclass consists of
groups like the elderly retired lone parents, the long term unemployed, the disabled
and long-term sick. These groups are forced to rely on inadequate state benefits
which are too low to give them an acceptable standard of living.
Structural approach explains poverty as arising from the inequality of capitalist

society, which is an unequal distribution of wealth, income and power. Poverty is
seen as an aspect of social inequality and not merely an individual problem of poor
people.
The Marxist approach such as that adopted by Miliband and Vestergaard and
Ressler suggest, wealth is concentrated in the hands of the ruling class, and this
general class inequality of poverty is the inevitable result of capitalism, The
privileged position of the wealthy ultimately rests on working class poverty. The
threat of poverty and unemployment motivates workers, and provides a pool of
cheap labor for the capitalist’s class. The existence of the non-working poor helps to
keep wages down, by providing a pool of reserved labor which threatens the jobs of
the non-poor should their demands become excursively high. Poverty divides the
working class, by separating the poor from the non-poor working class, and
preventing the development of working-class unity and a class consciousness that
might threaten the stability of the capitalist system. A dynamic balance is the need.
And to further clarify concepts and prospects.
67
America or China: Pakistan | Daily Times
Huzaima Bukhari
The writer, lawyer and author, is an Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of
Management Sciences (LUMS)
“Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the
little ones get caught”– Honoré de Balzac
The interesting thing about legislation is that those who understand its significance
are the ones who actually observe the law while those who do not blatantly flout it
without any fear of prosecution. In the words of Hilary Mantel: “When you are
writing laws you are testing words to find their utmost power. Like spells, they have
to make things happen in the real world, and like spells, they only work if people
believe in them.”
Here in Pakistan, a few issues continually rise to the fore. One, laws are made in a
foreign language not understood by the majority of the population. Two, laws,
especially those that pertain to everyday life (sales tax, income tax etc) are
cumbersomely worded. Three, laws are understandably violated by those who do
not know English as well as those who do but are sufficiently rich and powerful
enough to escape accountability. Four, only the economically weak and those
without connections are apprehended and prosecuted; since ignorance of law is no
excuse for breaking said law.
A cursory glance at Pakistan’s traffic might better explain how this works. After all,
the shabbiest of vehicles (mainly motorcycles) are stopped, searched and fined for
the minutest of offences as they are easily stoppable. By contrast, an expensive land
cruiser is allowed to whiz past a red light and no policeman attempts to stop it or
even give chase. When traffic wardens were newly-inducted in the Punjab, there was
a short period of discipline combined with effective enforcement of rules. Yet just as
things began to run smoothly — all this vanished largely into thin air.
Similarly, the public is supposed to abide by the law when it comes to paying
customs duty, sales tax on goods and services, income tax, federal excise duty and
property tax. However, many of these statutes, pertaining to everyday life, are so
technical that they remain mostly incomprehensible unless professional advice is
sought. Besides, due to the rapidly evolving nature of these laws, it becomes difficult
for even experts to keep track of developments. This is because by the time disputes
are settled before the courts many amendments have usually been made. One can
only wonder at the ingenuity of the legislature that appears hellbent upon
promulgating laws but does so without doing its homework. Consequently, when
anomalies and impracticalities come to light, massive changes are sought which defy
the sensibility of certainty. One almost admires the genius of violators who
effectively manage to circumvent provisions; much to the dismay of the legislature
and enforcement bodies. Perhaps ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu was not
68
wrong when he said: “The more law and order are made prominent, the more
thieves and robbers there will be.”
Undoubtedly, we are living in an advanced era in which societies are regulated at

both local and international levels. All individuals, whether they realise it or not, are
tightly encased in layer upon layer of moral and statutory regulations and any
deviation risks peril. Now, if these laws are of such extraordinary importance and
vital for a peaceful society, should they not be written in accessible language(s), as
emphasised in Article 251 of the Constitution which provides for English to be
replaced by Urdu and by provincial languages where necessary.
When parliaments of civilised democratic countries legislate, the process is a long

drawn out one. Matters are thoroughly researched, backed up by essential data,
highly debated, feedback of stakeholders is presented and, depending on the
outcome, the law is either scrapped or promulgated while honouring public
expectations as well as government concerns. In her paper, “Ten tips for
transitioning to legal writing”, prominent American lawyer Danielle Pineres
succinctly describes the process: “Research, pre-write, draft, research again, think,
re-organise, re-write, revise, proofread and finally — do it all over again after you
have received feedback.”
Thus, legislative exercise is no joke and requires tremendous efforts on the part of
lawmakers. It can be likened to designing and manufacturing a motor vehicle which
calls for meticulous attention to details while guaranteeing the comfort and safety of
passengers. The amount of input that goes into creating a hi-tech object cannot be
measured by a non-technical person. Likewise, legislation, too, demands a
professional approach and cannot be left to the whims of those who know nothing
beyond strictly guarding their own privileges and that of their loyalists. When this
happens, the broader public interest is usually ignored and the end result is unrest
and resistance to laws.
69
America or China: Pakistan | Pak Observer
Rizwan Ghani
The writer is a senior
70
Rizwan Ghani
71
Rizwan Ghani
72

Dawn Newspaper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dawn Newspaper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Reading Experience

WEEKLY DAWN EDITORIALS &

✍️Deconstructed By: M.Usman

 Pakistan’s economy performed beyond expectations with all major

Noun is the name of place

PRIME MINISTER Imran Khan says his government is enforcing an agriculture

to venture into (something) (Phrasal verb) — to go

Phrasal Meaning Example

DAWN+ OPINIONS SECTION

Moreover, in promoting higher education, a nation declares that it values learning

Concomitant with the inadequacy of the education provided by these institutions, a

There is new turmoil in Pakistan’s higher education system.

There is new turmoil in the system of higher education in Pakistan. In order to

Thus, the country’s never-ending uncertainty and concomitant instability owe to

Washington is also looking for a counter-terrorism base in Afghanistan’s near

We must congratulate Special Assistant to Prime Minister (SAPM) Malik Amin

I would therefore advise PM Khan that before pledging to restore natural

Being an independent researcher, I opted not to savour on the commonly fed

In a new global survey, respondents overwhelmingly

But if an overwhelming majority of respondents are enthusiastic supporters of free

To answer this seeming paradox, we need to ask not merely whether but

According to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, the First Amendment

When war broke out in Gaza, Arab countries chose

Israel’s disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians bothered its newest

Although there was an outpouring of pro-Palestinian sentiment on social media in

A member of the Uyghur community holds a placard as he joins a demonstration in London.

In January, the U.S. government determined China’s actions in its northwestern

Some legal experts have questioned whether Beijing’s atrocities against the Uyghurs

“The problem in southern Xinjiang is mainly the unbalanced population structure,”

In 2017, the year when the mass internment campaign began, Chinese President Xi

Boosting Han population shares without significantly exceeding carrying capacities

Based on adapted projections that were recently published by Chinese researchers

How realistic is this plan? After a draconian campaign of suppressing births, natural

In its 2007 judgment in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case,

International criminal law is an important accountability tool, such as after a crime

Adrian Zenz is a senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism

Erin Rosenberg is an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati College of

These advances coincided with the emergence of China’s more assertively

The Trump administration’s headline-grabbing diplomatic style often gave cover to

The Chinese Communist Party’s narratives feed growing Chinese nationalism.

China’s leadership is advancing two propositions: First, Beijing is inexorably moving

Beijing is still on course to overtake Washington in overall economic size—adding

But the absence of rapport may be overshadowed by the absence of substantive

An increasingly out-of-touch autocrat presiding over a worsening economy, Putin

Biden’s long-term goal should be to normalize U.S.-Russian relations. Simply by

It is good opportunity to have long-term alliance with America to build modern

TO implement the US-Taliban peace deal signed by the

Likewise, in view of the danger of the Afghanistan based IS to the neighbouring

Moreover, ultimately, when the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan, then

Police in Pakistan needs complete restructuring, training, remuneration, uniform,

These points must immediately and seriously be addressed by the respective

Sacredness of the Constitution and sanctity of Parliament is a frequent and common

Essence of those trainings must be to improve ethics, professionalism and

Nothing is impossible, needed most is true conviction, proper utilization of available

Let’s consider the Afghanistan situation as a triangle of conflicting interests. The

The solutions to poverty often reflect the political/ideological values of the

Structural approach explains poverty as arising from the inequality of capitalist

Undoubtedly, we are living in an advanced era in which societies are regulated at

When parliaments of civilised democratic countries legislate, the process is a long

You might also like