|
Editorial // DAWN: May 13, 2025
THE Pakistani and Chinese special envoys for Afghanistan were in Kabul on Sunday meeting various key ministers in the Afghan Taliban set-up under the banner of the trilateral dialogue mechanism linking the three neighbouring states.
Such meet-ups are important for regional integration and security, and send the message that states in the region should cooperate and solve their problems themselves. Islamabad and Beijing’s envoys met the Afghan Taliban’s interior, foreign and commerce ministers, with regard to the main issues that concern all three states: security and trade. Afghan Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani called for “mutual respect and constructive engagement”, while Pakistan’s envoy Ambassador Mohammad Sadiq said “good neighbourly relations [and] regional stability” were emphasised.
While no foreign state — including Pakistan and China — has recognised the Afghan Taliban regime, many states, especially in the wider region, have maintained diplomatic engagement with Kabul’s rulers, simply because there is no other legitimate entity to talk to in Afghanistan.
As Sunday’s meetings indicated, both Pakistan and China want to carry forward their engagement with the Afghan government. During the fifth round of the Trilateral Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue, which was held in Islamabad in 2023, the need to check the activities of the banned TTP and ETIM was reiterated. Both groups, believed to be active in Afghanistan, threaten Pakistan and China’s security, respectively. Therefore, it is welcome that Islamabad and Beijing jointly conveyed their concerns to Kabul.
On their part, the Afghan Taliban want to engage with China and Pakistan to enhance trade links, and help them break out of their diplomatic isolation. These objectives — security guarantees and increased trade — are interlinked, as commercial activities can only pick up when the region is safe from terrorism.
The sixth round of the Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue is due in Kabul. To make this meeting successful, the Taliban authorities should take concrete steps to address Pakistan and China’s security concerns. If terrorist groups continue to find sanctuary in Afghanistan, regional integration and increased trade will be difficult to achieve. Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar was in Kabul last month, and there were indications that the Taliban would respond to Islamabad’s concerns. Pakistan should also address Kabul’s legitimate concerns to benefit all.
The Taliban have a clear choice to make: if they want regional integration and economic revival, they must take verifiable action against malign actors sheltering on their soil and threatening the region. Afghanistan’s integration into the greater Central Asia/ South Asia region would benefit its people through a revived economy. But that can only happen if Kabul enhances trust by putting militant groups out of business.
Published in Dawn, May 13th, 2025
Jawed Naqvi //DAWN May 13, 2025
WHEN dense smoke was billowing from deadly firings across the Line of Control on Friday, smartly turned out military columns from 23 countries were paying homage at Moscow’s Red Square to the 27 million fallen men and women of the USSR who defeated Nazi Germany, captured Berlin and forced Hitler to shoot himself. Had the South Asian neighbours been more agreeably engaged than pursuing a destructive campaign against each other, the thought is too enticing to ignore that Indian and Pakistani troops would perhaps be marching in lockstep with Chinese, Russian, Uzbek, Egyptian and other comrades to pursue a new world order for equitable peace and sustainable prosperity. There are powerful antibodies stalking the possibility, however.
Mercifully, the fires have been doused in South Asia at least for now even though they were doused by the world’s most incendiary nation that ever wielded the firehose. For all their macho victory cries over claims of damage they inflicted on each other amid a display of grief and valour, India and Pakistan found themselves leaning on foreign shoulders yet again to resolve an essentially bilateral issue, illustrating not for the first time that they have not quite attained adulthood to shepherd the destiny of over a billion souls. The brokered peace, nevertheless, links the tragedy in Pahalgam with a world of power politics.
Be sanguine that the pointless flare-up wasn’t triggered by some four mysterious hate-mongers who showed up to kill innocent men in Pahalgam only to disappear without trace (as yet) in one of the world’s most militarised and policed places. That the foursome called out their victims’ religion turned into a tool to profit from with the time-tested game of identity politics. Remember that in the 2002 communal carnage in Gujarat, after a train fire tragedy in Godhra, it was Pakistan that was first named as the accused; only later mobs were unleashed on unsuspecting Muslims.
Religious politics in South Asia of the Hindu-Muslim variety was nurtured into deep fault lines by colonialism as a protection against another 1857 uprising. ‘Divide et impera’ they called it. Saadat Hasan Manto captured religious frenzy in several short stories that accompanied the violent creation of India and Pakistan. ‘Mistake’ was a story about the murder of a wrong man, the error discovered when his dead body was stripped and revealed he belonged to the killer’s community. The popular Indian leader who plies identity politics to fetch electoral windfalls was not around at the time. But he has spoken of a simpler way whereby one could identify Muslims by their attire. (And thereby also figure out the non-Muslims.) The monsters of Pahalgam missed the trick or perhaps needed an audio track for their crime.
Step back from Pahalgam, and you might find a clearer action-reaction pattern. Pahalgam spawned a third military stand-off to involve a BRICS member. It couldn’t be a coincidence that Iran and Russia, key pillars of the coming multipolar world, are in the crosshairs of the West. Unlike the military crisis facing Iran, which has risen as a powerful symbol for the Global South, or Russia, a founding leader of BRICS, which sees itself as a pivot to a multipolar future and therefore is sought to be ‘weakened’ by the West through a grinding proxy war, the South Asian conflict disrupts BRICS more diabolically. India, a founder member of BRICS, balks at the idea of its South Asian rival joining the immensely powerful group. India is a leading member of BRICS but is increasingly perceived as its weak link. Pakistan, on the other hand, being an ardent supporter of BRICS, can become a full member only if India doesn’t obstruct the path. The Pahalgam terror attack of April 22 therefore can be explored as a trigger to sow seeds of discord in the ranks of the Global South and thereby of BRICS.
The mesmeric Victory Day celebrations at Moscow’s Red Square marked a crucial moment for BRICS, the group that terrifies Donald Trump and which Russia and China are feverishly pressing on with. Moscow and Beijing have found unexpectedly large and growing numbers of applicants from across the world keen to join the coalition against Western hegemony controlling their political and economic lives. In attendance at the Red Square to cheer the spectacular pageantry were heavyweights from the rising Global South. Xi Jinping, of course, but not to be ignored were his comrades from Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Egypt, Belarus, practically the entire Central Asian lot, but also notably, Malaysia, Myanmar and Vietnam from the Southeast Asian flank. The heads of Serbia and Slovakia, which is a Nato member, broke ranks with their Western minders to attend.
African leaders rejoiced and cheered on as Vladimir Putin put on a memorable display of music and colour that gave a new cadence to the great coming together. Stanley Kubrick’s awe-inspiring military columns in the cinematic version of Howard Fast’s Spartacus come to mind. The movie was scripted by the former head of the US communist party as an ode to the uprising of slaves against the mighty Roman Empire. The similarity with Friday’s turnout was that these soldiers, too, were celebrating the defeat of a racist regime. Not to miss the smiling face of Vladimir Lenin printed on red flags in the march past. After a long time, the communist emblem of hammer and sickle shone through the marching columns.
Missing, not unpredictably, from the celebrations was Narendra Modi. He had made up his mind to forgo the event months before the shooting war with Pakistan would happen. With the rise of Donald Trump, India has been perceived as tardy in cementing BRICS as a challenge to the West. For this alone, Modi was the winner last week, even if Pakistan claims to have fought a better war.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, May 13th, 2025
===============================================================================
Malik Amin Aslam Khan // DAWN: May 13, 2025
PAKISTAN and India have momentarily stepped back from unleashing the world’s first climate war, defined as a conflict arising out of a climate-induced scarcity. The diminishing resource in this case is water and climate change is injecting a painful unpredictability into it, while adding credence to the prediction by Ismail Serageldin that “The wars of the 21st century will be fought over water.”
Pakistan has just undergone an unexpectedly prolonged, dry winter season with two provinces declaring a state of drought. Also, the research organisation ICIMOD, issued a dire warning for the mountainous region in South Asia confirming a 25 per cent drop in snowfall this year, being the lowest in 30 years. This shrunken snow stock is what melts and accounts for 80pc of the water supply for over two billion people, who are now at risk of a severe water shortage in the near future. This remains the root cause of a spiralling conflict.
What is really alarming is that, instead of being handled rationally and cooperatively, a toxic Hindutva mindset threatened to weaponise water and then bully it through the battlefield, which got a befitting and resolute response from Pakistan.
However, the real threat to the region remains. As per the latest Climate Risk Index report, Pakistan remains among the top 10 most climate-impacted countries while the whole South Asian region confronts the risk of the five deadliest impacts including floods, droughts, heatwaves, forest fires and freak hurricanes. Water, or lack of it, ominously remains the central triggering factor for most of these impacts and this, in turn, validates the unavoidable urgency of the climate threat to the whole region.
This region is also neither the first, nor the only one, facing climate-induced unrest. The interlinkages of climate change and national security are now well researched and categorise the issue as a ‘risk multiplier’, which can exacerbate existing tensions and spark conflicts in regions already stressed with scarcity of resources such as water.
The Sahel region in Africa remains a case study where, over the past few decades, increased temperatures, reduced rainfall and unsustainable usage have dried up almost 90pc of Lake Chad which borders Chad, Niger, Nigeria and Cameroon. This area is now considered a global security hotspot, not only for the environmental catastrophe but also because it is triggering conflict, unrest, as well as extremist terrorism in the region. In neighbouring Sudan, a prolonged climate-induced drought is said to be one of the major causes of the Darfur conflict, which, for more than two decades, has mired the population in an unending civil war.
The lessons from these conflicts are very clear. Triggering them is easy; as famously cautioned by Nikita Khrushchev: “Any fool can start a war.” However, avoiding or resolving them is neither easy nor immediately possible. The sensible way out lies in firstly, accepting the inevitable climate-induced extremities, and secondly, cooperatively assessing the risks while finally undertaking collective mitigation measures that enhance resilience and generate alternative livelihood opportunities in these conflict zones. None of them offers a painless prescription and all of them necessitate problematic cross-border cooperation, but the alternative choice of conflict and war is a sure recipe for disaster with no real winners.
While the world is beginning to grasp the important lessons from these climate-induced conflicts, the South Asian region, disturbed by Indian hubris, is dangerously flirting with an unwinnable war. The extremely perilous situation is also ridiculously irrational, because the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) already provides a robust platform for cooperation that has stood the test of troubled times and remained operational even through previous wars. More importantly, active nuclear deterrence on both sides ensures that any escalation of conflict can only lead in one direction — a state of mutually assured destruction.
In this context, Pakistan’s resolve and capacity to protect its lifeline, ie, the water flows of the Indus, should never be underestimated or undermined. The recent hard-hitting response to unprovoked hostilities should serve as a wake-up call to any delusions of resource dominance in the region. However, the climate-induced scarcity of water remains an inescapable reality and also intrinsically links to the unresolved Kashmir dispute. It needs to be addressed with sane minds remaining within the confines of the IWT and through data, dialogue and diplomacy, not a climate war pushing the region towards becoming a suicidal playground for weapons of mass destruction. The writer is a former climate change minister.
The writer is a former climate change minister.
amin.attock@gmail.com
X: *@aminattock*
Published in Dawn, May 13th, 2025
==============================================================================
Dr Niaz Murtaza Published May 13, 2025
AN economic, security, and political polycrisis had ravaged us after 2021. Luckily, our most risky crisis — war with India — didn’t occur at that time. But just as some of its axes had eased, conflict erupted, which may worsen the crisis. The April 22 terrorist act in Pahalgam was shameful. But a series of errors undid India’s valid quest to find the killers. Some of these errors by India are noted below.
Political: Failing to pacify the Kashmiris despite India’s global claims to the contrary.
Intelligence: Failing to anticipate the attack or substantiating its allegations against Pakistan.
Strategic: Misreading the situation and assuming that talks were the best option and that the US would not want war among nuclear foes, as India is neither a blue-eyed boy like Israel nor are Pakistanis orphans like the Gazans.
Military: Starting a war without any proof and failing to land a knockout punch.
Direct talks are the best way to end the threats.
Informational: Unleashing war hysteria and blatant lies via the Modi media, hurting India’s own image.
Pakistan aptly used only robust self-defence tactics and avoided escalatory, pre-emptive, or punitive acts that are illegal under UN law like India’s attack. Hawks egged us on to deliver a knockout punch to deter future Indian attacks. That would have been unfeasible, risking a nuclear war. Both sides can achieve pre-emptive aims only through talks. A draw is a sane aim, as even that against a stronger foe, despite all our other problems, was a big political win.
No one gained a strategic edge from a futile war. But the heroic downing of Rafales may be its abiding memory, like the 2019 MiG-21 episode. So, our professionally focused and low-profile air force was again our best defence asset and saviour, and deserves a significant share of our defence outlays. But as triumphalism grips a long-glum nation, it’s wise to grasp a harsh reality. Wars continue in covert ways even after ending overtly, and their later impact is often greater for a more vulnerable state. Despite a political win, even a mini-war may worsen all axes of our polycrisis.
Politically, wars can impose a security-first and autocratic mindset. For us, it may amplify such existing tendencies by much. A political win over a major external foe may embolden a similar approach against local peaceful opponents. Action against them, sadly, continues despite the need for unity.
Economically, uncertainty may deter foreign flows and induce outflows. Defence outlays may out-prioritise welfare ones. Potentially useful economic ties with India are now unlikely in the near future. India may up efforts to harm us economically through its global influence and water disputes. Strategically, the West may increase scrutiny over whether militants still find space in Pakistan, even though it has not accused us regarding this attack, and even if this attack’s simple scope does not suggest a foreign hand — unlike Mumbai in 2008 and Jaffar Express in 2025
Lastly, security risks may rise. India’s huge war machine embarrassingly failed to secure strategic gains in 2019, 2020-21 and 2025 against us and China, even under a gung-ho Modi. These quick triple blows may prompt it to invest militarily to match its global economic heft and aspirations, in order to perform better in a future attack on us. More sinisterly, it may see the high all-round cost of overt war against us, and its limited gains, as pressure from the West to avoid nuclear risks. Thus, it may increase its covert aid to the BLA and TTP for terrorist attacks inside Pakistan, and escalate such support if an attack occurs on its own soil, to seek domestic face-saving.
Direct talks between the conjoined twins are the best way to end these threats. US ceasefire messages aptly mention wide-ranging talks at a neutral venue. Direct talks pushed strongly by both the US and China are the best option. But given the gulf of mistrust that exists, a host-facilitator role for a nearby neutral state can help build initial trust and prevent minor incidents from derailing talks. Qatar has demonstrated such skills effectively during the Taliban-US and Israel-Hamas talks.
Water issues must be a top priority. Talks must also find a neutral way to investigate the Pahalgam attack, as Pakistan has offered. Even an ongoing mechanism to check if militants still find space may help, as it would address global concerns and counter Indian aims to levy baseless charges to attack us. Militants still attack Pakistan. Eradicating them may aid both sides. Success on these issues may push both sides to later tackle the knotty Kashmir issue.
The writer has a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, in political economy and 25 years of grassroots to senior-level experiences across 50 countries.
murtazaniaz@yahoo.com
X: @NiazMurtaza2
Published in Dawn, May 13th, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 13 May 2025
AS people breathe a sigh of relief after being locked with India in a hair-trigger stand-off, there are those for whom a lingering fear remains. Villagers living along the LoC in Azad Kashmir, once more find their lives have been upended by forces beyond their control. It is these people who bear the brunt of India-Pakistan hostilities. In the recent escalation, over 30 lives were lost and more than 1,100 families displaced, while hundreds of homes lay in ruins. Even as a fragile ceasefire holds, children continue to suffer the psychological scars of violence and a feeling of dread prevails. The state of emergency declared across several districts underscores the gravity of the humanitarian crisis. While educational institutions are set to reopen, safety concerns remain, particularly with reports of unexploded ordnance near civilian areas. Schools must not become sites of tragedy, and thorough safety sweeps are essential before children return to class. In the displacement camps, families remain huddled in overcrowded shelters, stripped of privacy and dignity. The most vulnerable — women, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities — face heightened risks, including disease outbreaks and gender-based violence. Islamic Relief Pakistan found that over 58pc of affected communities lacked access to clean water and sanitation, and nearly 91pc experienced food insecurity.
The authorities must step in. To begin with, they must ensure that displaced families receive adequate shelter, clean drinking water, food supplies, and medical aid. Cash grants should be distributed to help meet basic needs with dignity. Above all, unexploded ordnance in civilian areas must be cleared quickly. However, humanitarian relief alone is not enough. Long-term solutions must focus on building resilient communities along the LoC. Setting up permanent, well-equipped civil defence shelters, improved early warning systems, and safe evacuation routes is essential to protect civilians. Access to mental health and trauma counselling must also be prioritised, particularly for children grappling with the psychological toll of displacement and conflict. Above all, one hopes that both sides honour their commitment to peace. Civilians along the LoC cannot remain perpetual hostages to hostility. Their right to safety, education, and a dignified life must take precedence over the destructive cycles that have scarred this region for too long.
Published in Dawn, May 13th, 2025
===============================================================================
FROM THE NEWS ROOM
|
