|
TODAY'S DICTIONARY
sublimate = transform (something) into a purer or idealized form
trenchant = forceful or cutting in expression or style
emasculation = make (someone or something) weaker or less effective
dyspepsia = indigestion
==============================================================================
DAWN Editorial: 16 January 2025
THE message from politicians regarding Afghanistan is clear: the state needs to talk to the Afghan Taliban, using all channels available.
This was the core point that emerged after representatives of several mainstream and religious parties met the army chief in Peshawar earlier this week.
Those familiar with the lengthy discussions told this paper that the parties wanted engagement with Kabul, whether formal or informal. For his part, Gen Asim Munir observed that the Afghan Taliban “don’t listen to us”.
State media also quoted him as saying that while Pakistan wanted good relations with Afghanistan, the presence of the banned TTP on Afghan soil, as well as cross-border attacks emanating from that country, were the key hindrances in the way of cordial ties.
These developments more or less encapsulate the Afghan conundrum for Pakistan, which has tried both the diplomatic route and force to get the message across to Kabul; neither strategy has obtained lasting results.
However, while Pakistan must defend its frontiers against all hostile actors, the political forces have a point when they say that negotiations with the Taliban must not be abandoned. Some suggested “other ways for engagement”.
Those that have put the suggestion on the table should brief parliament and the Foreign Office on how we can proceed through alternative channels.
Pakistan has every reason to be concerned about TTP terrorism originating from Afghanistan. The last year was a bloody one for Pakistan; most of the attacks are believed to have been the handiwork of the TTP.
Therefore, the matter needs to be taken up repeatedly with Kabul until the threat of terrorist violence abates. Simultaneously, Pakistan must improve its own counterterrorism capabilities so that malevolent actors — both internal and external — are not able to threaten its security.
If the Afghan Taliban are not listening, Pakistan can try giving them incentives to cooperate.
This can include easing regulations with regard to people-to-people contact, particularly medical facilities, as well as removing barriers to the Afghan transit trade. In return, Pakistan must demand that the TTP and all other terrorist groups not be allowed to operate from Afghan soil, and that there is no more cross-border infiltration.
Dealing with the Afghan Taliban is necessary not only for Pakistan’s internal stability but also to ensure that Afghanistan is not isolated regionally.
Recently, the Taliban foreign minister met the Indian foreign secretary. Kabul is free to establish relations with whosoever it wishes; but Pakistan would be making a mistake if it severs ties with the Afghan Taliban, which would allow unfriendly states to strengthen their presence in Afghanistan.
Therefore, while Pakistan must continue to reiterate its concerns regarding terrorism, skilful diplomacy is required to ensure that ties with Kabul do not break down.
Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2025
==============================================================================
Arif Hasan // DAWN 16 January 2025
IT is now clear even to Israel’s apologists that Israel’s war has not been undertaken against Hamas but for the creation of the ‘Greater Israel’ project. Gaza is now non-existent, except for its brave inhabitants. The population of the West Bank is under pressure to leave. Lebanon has been silenced and is compromised for the time being, but Hezbollah is still alive and well. The monarchy in Jordan is a part of the American-European alignment.
Meanwhile, Syria’s defence arsenal has been bombed out of existence; the country has been partially occupied as well. Once again, Israel has emerged as the major Middle Eastern power. It controls the area ‘from the river to the sea’ just as Moses had gifted to the Israelites, and it has been acquired through violence.
The Israeli success has been made possible by its US-supplied air force which has remained intact and cannot be challenged by any other air force in the region. The inaction of the United Nations in the face of the Israeli genocide has been made possible by support for Israel at the UN Security Council by the American and European powers that have also provided the state with arsenal, spare parts, and finances, in violation of international law.
The US alone has committed billions of dollars to Israel for defence equipment on an annual basis. According to one study, in the first year of the war in Gaza, the US spent at least 17.9bn in military assistance for Israel. In addition, the genocide has led to questions about the US role in the Sudan famine and America’s illegal war in Iraq and Syria.
A ‘Greater Israel’ will consist of a population which is solidly against Israel.
However, the genocide has changed many other things. International law, covenants, and institutions no longer have the legitimacy that they once enjoyed. Secularism and human rights, which are the foundation of international law, have been violated, leading to a serious division in the world on a North-South basis.
It is obvious that the white world is in no position to provide leadership to the world at large. It is also obvious that antisemitism and Holocaust laws protecting the Jews and Israel against critical speech or actions are in the process of becoming myths, and are already subjects of ridicule, or at least a source of amusement for the people. It is obvious that the Western media can no longer be believed; its pro-white biases are very clear. Many allege that it is bribed to lie while its correspondents invent stories that favour the positions taken by the US and Europe. It is also obvious that Muslim countries are more interested in protecting their own national interest rather than supporting the concept of a larger Islamic world.
It is obvious to the citizens of the West that elections in the US as well as European policies are governed by large global corporations controlled by pro-Israel elements and that US policy is determined by the state of Israel. In the West, especially in America, there is public anger that the tax dollars paid by the citizens are used as economic aid for Israel and to fund arms supplies to it.
It is also clear that the majority of the youth in the North are solidly behind the anti-genocide movement; this is more than apparent in the huge demonstrations held by young people on the streets and university campuses in cities across the US and in European capitals. Such demonstrations appear to have few parallels in the history of the West. The youth are also angry that the values they have been taught in schools and universities can no longer serve as a guide for them. There is a search for an alternative to what has been destroyed. The older generation of politicians, on the other hand, is doing everything possible to maintain the status quo with the help of the media.
For the West, the purpose of the genocidal war is the creation of a ’Greater Israel, which can control the Middle East and the immense resources that it contains.
However, a ‘Greater Israel’ will consist of a population in which the majority is solidly against Israel and the policies of the West, and in search of an alternative global order. It would also be a state surrounded by Arab states and an angry young generation, which has seen murder and has been humiliated and tortured. It has also witnessed the destruction of its education and medical infrastructure. The question is, can such a situation last? And if it cannot then what will replace it? And what will be the replacement process given the actors involved in this complex drama?
The writer is an architect.
arifhasan37@gmail.com
www.arifhasan.org
Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2025
==============================================================================
{A difficult to understand column for beginners, but it is interesting and informative.}
Ali Tauqeer Sheikh
DESPITE dismissing climate change as a hoax, the incoming Trump administration’s strategic interest in the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada suggests an implicit recognition of climate change’s geopolitical implications. President-elect Donald Trump has not ruled out the use of military force, if needed, to secure the canal and Greenland, and “economic force” in the case of Canada. This reflects a broader strategy of seizing climate opportunities while denying climate change’s existence.
The apparent contradiction is recognised by American foreign policy expert Richard Haass who has highlighted the growing recognition of climate change’s role in shaping global power dynamics, even among climate change sceptics. The US is planning to checkmate Chinese trade and investments, particularly in America’s backyard, by reincarnating the Monroe Doctrine that now seeks a US sphere of influence stretching from southern and central America to the outer reaches of the Arctic regions.
Trump has questioned the artificially drawn border lines — a global gift of colonialism and perpetuated by nationalism since the Napoleonic wars. Apart from plans to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the US has laid claim to the following three strategic assets, all driven by climate change impacts.
Panama Canal: The waterway faces significant challenges due to climate change. Severe drought in 2023, for example, has reduced daily vessel transits by 36 per cent. Washington has opposed Chinese investments to develop alternatives including a Nicaragua canal, and a rail system in Colombia or Mexico, to connect the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Trump’s consideration of military action to ‘reclaim’ control reflects concerns about both climate vulnerability and China’s economic presence enabled by this crucial maritime chokepoint.
Greenland: The strategic importance of this territory has increased dramatically as climate change accelerates ice melt, revealing vast deposits of rare earth elements (REE). The US Geological Survey (USGS) believes that Greenland may have the largest untapped REE reserves outside China. This also creates new shipping routes while raising US security concerns about increased accessibility to China. With Greenland’s icesheet melting, trans-Arctic shipping routes are significantly shorter than traditional ones such as the Suez Canal. China and Russia are developing the Northern Sea Route (NSR) following the Sino-Russian shipping corridor and the Arctic Express to boost their trade with Asia. The US has deployed Nato’s Arctic Strategy that contains Russia, an Arctic country, and refuses to accommodate China’s claim of being a ‘near-Arctic’ country.
Canada: The country’s vast Arctic territories contain an estimated $1trillion worth of minerals essential for clean energy technologies. The USGS reports that Canadian rare earth deposits could potentially supply 25pc of global demand. Trump’s approach to bilateral ties with Canada focuses on securing unhindered access to these resources while challenging Canadian climate policies.
Trump’s electoral promise to cut gas prices by half will hinge on Canada revisiting its climate commitments, particularly cutting carbon tax and cancelling the energy cap, and Quebec’s agreement with California on carbon trading. Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ mission has significant implications for North American energy markets.
Geopolitical strategy to counter China: It seems that the emerging US strategy to counter Chinese influence focuses on controlling key maritime routes and resource deposits. The Pentagon’s 2024 Indo-Pacific Strategy Review emphasises the critical nature of securing strategic chokepoints and resource-rich territories. Chinese investments in Panama are said to have exceeded $10 billion over the past decade, while Arctic investments have topped $90bn according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
Control over maritime routes has become increasingly critical as climate change opens new shipping lanes. The NSR could reduce shipping times between Asia and Europe by up to 40pc. Chinese shipping through Arctic waters is said to have increased by 300pc between 2018 and 2023.
Climate change paradox: While Trump has repeatedly called climate change a scam, the Department of Defence has identified it as a threat multiplier. The Pentagon’s 2024 Climate Adaptation Plan highlights the strategic importance of assets affected by climate change, including Arctic territories and maritime chokepoints.
Nato’s Strategic Concept has, for the first time, recorded China as a “systemic challenge” to Euro-Atlantic security. It addresses the need to balance collective defence with environmental security, and expresses concern at unilateral military actions affecting alliance members’ territories. The Chinese response on the other hand, has emphasised economic cooperation and scientific collaboration, while warning against the militarisation of climate-vulnerable regions.
Trump’s approach represents a complex interplay between climate denial and the pursuit of climate-affected strategic assets. It is a contradiction between public rhetoric and strategic planning. This approach has implications for the global security architecture, economic ties, and global cooperation on climate change. The aggressive posture towards securing climate-vulnerable assets will strain traditional alliances and bilateral ties.
Implications for Pakistan: Pakistan’s maritime interests are limited to its immediate proximity, but it could still be affected by uncertainties surrounding control over global shipping routes. Our maritime trade accounts for 95pc of our international trade volume; it passes through volatile regions and chokepoints in the Indian Ocean. Our position is particularly precarious given the country’s climate vulnerability.
Pakistan’s position in this evolving geopolitical landscape is complex given its strategic partnership with China. The country’s participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, with investments exceeding $62bn in CPEC, makes it overly sensitive to the US-China competition.
The Gwadar port, developed under CPEC with a Chinese investment of $1.1bn, has a crucial role in China’s Maritime Silk Road strategy. Any disruption to global shipping patterns or increased US control over strategic waterways could impact Pakistan’s maritime trade, valued at around $100bn annually. Can Pakistan reduce this vulnerability by boosting its transborder trade with India and other neighbours? Regional trade corridors are perhaps the cheapest insurance against the unfolding geostrategic chessboard and changing climate.
The writer is an Islamabad-based climate change and sustainable development expert.
Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2025 |
