Category: Analysis

Analysis (1000-1500 words)

COVID-19: The Evil for Globalization

Globalization is the process of social, political, economic, and cultural International Integration. It is not a new development or new manifestation.  It has existed since the dawn of human history, but the process has just accelerated in the contemporary age on account of boosted interaction with the development of means of communication particularly the electronic and social media between individuals, societies, and nations.

These relations and connections even over long distances did exist in historic times in the form of the famous Silk Route that united Asia, Africa, and Europe. Later in the 14th and 15th century Muslim Arabs, Turks, and then Europeans made important improvements in investigating the World Oceans, resulting in the discovery of the sea routes to India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and American mainlands. These discoveries carried along with the variety of languages, cultural habits, and values, and happened to be an important source of dissemination and extension of religions like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Nevertheless, with the discovery of new forms of transportation (such as steamship and railroads) in the 19th- century global interaction and movement of people and goods increased manifold. In the 20th & 21st centuries, the innovation of aircraft, electronic modes of communications (mobile phones and the Internet) further gripped the world and has made the socio-economic integration of the world swifter.

As a result of globalization, the world has become increasingly small. It permits people, ideas, languages, goods, information to flow across national and international borders all the time. No doubt globalization is extremely rewarding for thriving businesses. It is also critical for the development of the international economy. It is also critical for the world economy’s growth. It has facilitated access to diverse markets in support of international trade agreements. It helps in expanding and improving your brand on a worldwide scale.

To enjoy all these benefits there must be no restrictions to traveling to the International level. The liberation to travel everywhere in the world incorporated global supply chains and thriving affiliated markets and national economies have been somewhat missing over the past year.  Since March 2020, travel restrictions and quarantines have been implemented, as well as national lockdowns, significant unemployment, and business closures.

COVID-19 is the biggest peacetime disruptor of globalization in the record of the modern world and in the international trading system, it implies a distinctive threat. The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic gives a unique set-up to recognize and study the distribution of a global production shock along the global value chains for three main reasons. First, it is the largest production disturbance in recent world history. With around 200M cases, 4.25 deaths, and millions of people in quarantine around the world to date, the spread of COVID-19 disease is the biggest pandemics ever suffered in the globalized world. Second, the COVID-19 is not an economic shock in its nature, hence its origin and distribution are independent of the fundamentals of the economy. Third, it is a global shock. Indeed, while the majority of natural crises or epidemics have local proportions, but the COVID 19 has not been confined to China only, but circulated across the world immediately.

Every single economy has been impacted by the pandemic. They faced recession and pessimism. The crisis and the public health reaction are becoming the source of the biggest and quick deterioration in international progressions in modern history.  Worldwide merchandise trade flows reduced considerably in 2020, as Covid-19 disrupted economic activity across the globe. There are a fall of 30-40 % in foreign direct investment and a 44-80% decline in international airline passengers in 2020. These numbers indicate a major rollback of globalization’s current gains, but they do not signal a fundamental collapse of international market integration.

According to WHO from 2020-2021, there is a tremendous decrease in the export of global goods,  which is very hurting, especially in the context of the present larger and more complicated world economy. It has declined to a level last seen in the mid-to-late 2000s.   Even the most pessimistic trade predictions do not imply an escape to a world of detached national markets.

 During the time of quarantine, countries having the percentage of COVID-19 cases to the employed population above 0.05% assign a policy according to which up to one month 60 percent of the labor force is quarantined. Because of this most countries with quarantined labor legion suffer a drop in actual income up to 14 percent, with the most pronounced drops for  China, Finland, and the UK. The role of the global creation linkages in amplifying the effect of the production shock is clear when we look at countries for which we do not commit the quarantine restriction under the quarantine scenario.

In the report of January 2021, the International Labor Organization (ILO) rated that 93 percent of the world’s workers as a result of the global pandemic were living under some form of workplace restrictions and relative to the fourth quarter of 2019 in 2020 8.8% of global working hours were lost. It is also told that the loss in working hours was included of workers who were jobless, but actively urging employment, 2nd workers who were committed, but had their working hours reduced, and 3rd  workers who were jobless and not actively seeking employment. Based on this approach, the ILO estimated that unemployment globally was equivalent to 0.9% of total working hours lost in 2020, while inactivity and reduced hours accounted for 7.9% of total working hours lost. In Europe, the total working hours lost in 2020 is 14.6% and in America it is 13.7%, where Quarantine and lockdowns had been expansive, followed by lower-middle-income economies.

The IMF also concluded the global economic recovery would occur at different speeds across and within individual countries, reflecting differences in the pace of vaccinations, the extent of policy support, and various structural conditions, such as the role of tourism in the economy. Within countries, the employment and earnings of youth, women, and the relatively lower-skilled workers have been affected the most.

 According to the WHO, 16 African nations were experiencing their worst period of the pandemic in early July 2021 as a consequence of increasing infection and mortality rates, with even higher numbers anticipated. Some of the most severely affected countries are Namibia, Zambia, Uganda, and South Africa, The WHO revealed the continent was suffering the third wave of infections as a result of the rapidly spreading Delta variant. It has been reported that less than one percent of the continent’s population has been vaccinated.

In July 2021, the OECD calculated the pandemic-related slump cost 22 million jobs in OECD countries in 2020 and 114 million jobs globally, compared with 2019.  Antonio  Guterres, UN Secretary-General suggested that we have reached a unipolar to a no-polar world from a bipolar world, where global powers, be the traditional friends or foes, are unable to work together.

Indeed, the covid-19 has left unprecedented impacts on the world. It has drastically affected lives and livelihoods. It has also disrupted economic activities throughout the world. No nation has remained immune from its repercussions, for what started in China spread across the world like a  wildfire. Resultantly, it has hurt the current globalized world in multifarious ways including by disrupting trade, closing borders, to name a few. It is important that the world community comes up with a unified response to minimize the damages inflicted by the pandemic

“Long Way Home”: Should India be More Prudent in Overseas Investments?

The year 2021 has seen a rapid change of scenario in India’s neighborhood with situations in Afghanistan and Myanmar getting more intense day by day. In the East, the Feb 1 military coup in Myanmar has certainly put India’s long term investment goals in the country in a state of jeopardy. And to the West, as the Taliban gain more strongholds in Afghanistan, concerns arise over the future of India’s huge investments in the country over the past two decades.

So a question naturally arises. Should India be more prudent in conducting its overseas investments? Time and again India has taken the perilous journey of investing huge sums in risky ventures in the likes of Afghanistan and Myanmar. But in the process India is yet to properly utilize their next door neighbors, Bangladesh. Although the amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) from India to Bangladesh has increased in recent years, it remains comparatively low.

Risky endeavors

Myanmar.      In Myanmar, at present there are over 100 Indian companies operating in the country with investments estimated to be over $1.2 billion, according to official statements from the Indian embassy in Yangon. When Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla and Indian Army Chief Manoj Mukund Naravane visited Myanmar last October, India declared that it will invest $ 6 billion to build a petroleum refinery in the country.

Min Aung Hlaing, the Burmese military ruler, announced in a speech marking six months following the coup that the state of emergency declared after the coup will last until August 2023. But continued political turmoil in the country certainly risks the future of Indian investments. In the past Myanmar has dealt with economic sanctions imposed by different international actors. Financial aid cuts, asset freeze, and investment restrictions have all been part of previous economic sanctions on Myanmar. Any sort of investment restrictions certainly has the probability to paralyze Indian investments in the country.

Afghanistan.  In Afghanistan, India has spent $3 billion in a number of infrastructure and commerce initiatives. It has also completed over 400 projects throughout Afghanistan. The most noteworthy among these is the Afghan-India Friendship Dam project (also known as the Salma Dam project), with a capacity of 42 MW. The 218 km long Zaranj-Delaram highway project is another noteworthy mention. This highway built near the Iran-Afghanistan border provides access to Iran’s Chabahar port. Other projects include the newly built parliament building in Kabul, restoration of the Stor palace and many others. But as the Taliban continue their military offensives throughout Afghanistan, and prepare to take control of the country, India faces an uncertain situation. In case of the most catastrophic scenario, India may even lose diplomatic presence in Afghanistan.

Despite being well aware of the risks associated of investing both in Myanmar and Afghanistan, India took the ‘long way home’ and as such there are now serious doubts about the future of these investments.

Avenues unexplored

Bangladesh.   In the case of Bangladesh it is often argued that much of the opportunities which can be mutually beneficial for both parties have often remained unexplored. India’s lack of farsighted attitude can be regarded as a prime reason here. India is yet to explore its next door neighbor properly. Bangladesh, despite being India’s largest trade partner in South Asia, receives only around 1% of India’s outward FDI. Bangladesh is India’s largest beneficiary of the lines of credit (LOC). But that project is also lagging behind. Since 2010, India has only given $739 million of the total $7.36 billion promised.

The geographic location of Bangladesh gives it all the important aspects necessary to become a regional economic hub. With the vast Indian subcontinent in the west, China being on the north and the entire Southeast Asia on the east, Bangladesh is located at a crossroads of a combined market of 4 billion consumers. According to a 2021 World Bank report, smooth transport connectivity between Bangladesh and India can increase nationwide revenue in India up to 8%. But India’s poor record of implementing infrastructure projects in its immediate neighboring countries has pushed them even more towards China.

Unlike Afghanistan or Myanmar, Bangladesh is an excellent investment destination thanks to a stable government, astute policies, and a vibrant business community. With two special economic zones (SEZs), situated at Bagerhat and Chattogram, dedicated entirely for Indian investments clearly shows the positive attitude of the Bangladesh government. So it is high time that the Indian government and policy makers should re-evaluate their priorities and act more prudent in pursuing overseas investments. From a policy perspective, India’s investments should be aimed at more plausible destinations and Bangladesh, in the current political economic sphere, is the more suitable than any other country.

Battle of Perceptions

Since the beginning of US withdrawal, Taliban have been able to capture large swath of territory in Afghanistan, with little to no resistance from government forces or their allied militias. Taliban claim capturing of more than half of the 421 Afghan districts. Over the years, Taliban have consolidated themselves as a well-organized and well-equipped force.

Successive American and Afghan governments have parroted accusations towards Pakistan for supporting Taliban. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in an interview with ‘Der Spiegel’ magazine accused that Taliban had received logistics, finances and recruitment from Pakistan. Similarly, in a recently published report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) titled, “Pakistan: Shoring up Afghanistan’s Peace Process”, Pakistan has been baselessly implicated for providing logistical support to Taliban in their onslaught against the Afghan forces and aiding them to gain power by becoming part of an internationally recognized power-sharing arrangement. The report further alleged that Pakistan provided sanctuaries to the Taliban Shura and their families and that this was a major bargaining chip for Pakistan in its dealings with Taliban and to shape their behaviour.

However, the ground reality is that Pakistan has been hosting more than 3 million Afghan refugees without any bias or favour to any political, ethnic or linguistic group. It has always tried its utmost to expedite the peace process in every possible way to make it a success. For the said purpose, Pakistan facilitated the Doha Agreement between the US and Taliban to end the war. Further, Pakistan engaged and successfully encouraged Taliban to enter into negotiations with the Afghan government. Prime Minister Imran Khan recently stated that “no country has tried harder to get the Taliban on the dialogue table than Pakistan. We have made every effort, short of taking military action against Taliban in Pakistan.”  He further added that if any country was trying its best out of all other countries in the world, it was Pakistan. In fact, the same ICG report points to US Special Representative for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad’s statement at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on April 27th this year that, “Pakistan had been supportive of our efforts to press Taliban to reduce violence, to enter into negotiations with the government of Afghanistan and to be an active participant in peace negotiations.”  He acknowledged the fact that Pakistan had made all-out effort to support the peace process.

With regards to Pakistan providing sanctuaries to Taliban, the ground realities narrate a different story. Until recently, the Pakistan-Afghanistan border was unregulated with no barriers or physical delineations. People could travel between the two countries with little restrictions. After the US invasion of Afghanistan, there was yet another massive influx of refugees into Pakistan. Taliban and their families, under the guise of refugees, also entered and settled in different parts of Pakistan. In order to stop illegal crossing, Pakistan in 2017 started fencing its porous border with Afghanistan. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and volatile security environment, work on the border fence continued mostly uninterrupted and would be completed by August 14 this year, offering Pakistan a measured prospect of control over illegal human trafficking/border crossing.

Despite the fencing, if the current crises escalate and a civil war erupts in Afghanistan, the possibility of another huge influx of refugees into Pakistan, exists with absolute certainty. The already present Afghan refugees and additional ones will be a great burden on the country’s fragile economy.

Pakistan, after losing 70,000 citizens, successive military operations and huge economic losses, has managed to quell the menace of terrorism within its borders. However, now with the situation in Afghanistan deteriorating, Tehreek-e- Taliban Pakistan (TTP) terrorist elements, who had fled to Kabul after the military operations, may now re-enter Pakistan disguised as refugees. It is also likely that following a civil war, TTP and other terrorist outfits may be spurred to again pick up arms. Pakistan cannot allow such a situation to happen. An all-out effort is thus being made to enable a peaceful settlement of the Afghan quagmire.

In a bid to speed up the dialogue process, Pakistan organized a conference scheduled on 17th to 19th July, 2021. Afghan political leadership, including former President Hamid Karzai were invited. However, upon the request of the Government of Afghanistan, the conference was postponed to be rescheduled for a later date.

Pakistan has categorically stated that it will not take sides in the Afghan conflict and will stand alongside the decision taken by the people of Afghanistan. It has been making an all-out effort to ensure a peaceful settlement of the Afghan conflict. In this scenario, the statements by Afghan officials falsely accusing Islamabad of steering unrest in their country are adding to the complexity of an already fragile situation. Rather than wasting their energies on Pakistan bashing, they need to focus on ways and means to resolve the conflict so that a peaceful settlement be achieved.

Critical Analysis of “New Wars” Thesis

World War II ended in 1945 and the battlefield shifted from West i.e., Europe to the third world countries. Third world countries are referred as the Global South and West is denoted as the Global North. Objective nature of war hasn’t changed but subjective nature has somehow changed. Most of wars taking place in the contemporary world are Intra-state. Battlefield has shifted to third world countries; conflicts are extra-state and even sub-state. There is also shift of goals in new wars. Intensity of war is also a factor which distinguish new wars from old wars. Today, intensity of armed conflict has declined. In contemporary times, ethnic and religion based wars are taking place instead of ideology. On this basis, wars in the contemporary world are termed as “New Wars”. On the basis of several arguments, it is argued that most of the techniques which distinguish new wars from old wars, were already used in the past so new wars cannot be termed as new.

New war thesis suggests that line between combatants and the civilians has become blur which means that deaths of non-combatants are more than those of combatants in new wars and overall number of deaths have decreased today. New wars are protracted due to which displacement of some population is inevitable and number of refugees’ increase which affects other countries in negative way. In case of Afghan war, people were displaced and many came to Pakistan which created multiple problems for Pakistan. Non state actors gather finances from different low life means which include kidnapping, smuggling, drug trade etc. Also, finances are decentralized as non-state actors are funded by like-minded people, diaspora and even other states. Today, women and men are raped and it is considered as a weapon of war. This is used as a weapon and is used as a tool to humiliate the enemy. This is considered as part of the psychological warfare. This act is extensive in contemporary conflict zones. Rape of men and women affect victims physically, psychologically and in societal context e.g., the case of the Bosnian war.

Children are being used for terrorism and are recruited by the violent organizations as combatants. Children are an easy target for non-state actors as they can easily be influenced. In most of the suicide bombings, children are used after brainwashing. Population is deliberately hit by armed organizations because the objective of combatants is to prolong the war which can be done by hitting civilians and to create fear in hearts and minds of people. Also, the economies of states are collapsing due to intra-state conflicts. State’s monopoly over violence is being challenged by non-state actors. In inter-state wars, one state’s objectives were achieved but today the same objectives are not necessarily pursued in such wars. Belligerents use religious and ethnic causes to get support of specific people which creates a long-term problem in the society. Once these issues are rooted in the society then it becomes difficult to eradicate them.

Most of the above-mentioned techniques were used in the past. There is nothing new in “new wars” as many scholars suggest that all of the above violent techniques are being used in wars for very long. Civil wars existed many centuries ago. The displacement of population has happened in almost every war, e.g., even in World War II, millions were displaced from Eastern Germany. Many scholars argue that causalities in contemporary wars have decreased but the fact is, the statistics of casualties in new wars only include combatant deaths and deaths of non-combatants are not included which gives an idea that number of overall casualties have decreased but most of casualties are of the civilians in conflict between state and non-state actors.

In old wars around ninety percent of casualties were of combatants but in new wars around ninety percent deaths are of the civilians. Indirect deaths of the civilians during war or after the war also take place which include deaths due to diseases, shortage of food, malnutrition, unclean water, deliberate destruction of hospitals etc., which suggest that number of casualties haven’t decreased. In this globalized world, inter-state wars have reduced because of invention of nuclear weapons and advancement of conventional weapons. Lethality of conventional and nuclear weapons are the main reasons for reduction of inter-state wars.

Another critic on new wars thesis is that mercenaries and private militias were present in the old wars including the colonial wars. Scholars argue that the Prussian strategist Clausewitz is not applicable in the contemporary wars, but the primary trinity of Clausewitz is still relevant in new wars. Primary trinity includes firstly, primordial violence, enmity, hatred; secondly, play of chance and probability; and lastly, rational purpose or political objective. In every war whether it is new or old, there is play of chance and probability, a rational objective is the main reason which derives state or non-state actor for the war. The war takes place and is fought because of hatred and enmity too. The concept of protracted war is also not new as in the past many wars were fought for long period of time. Even there are number of wars which were fought for more than 100 years.

Rape was also seen as socially acceptable and was considered within rules of warfare e.g., ancient people considered their legitimate right on women in the areas conquered by them. Children were recruited as soldiers in old wars and are also used in new wars for terrorism etc.

In a nutshell, the term new war is used for wars in contemporary world but the tactics used in contemporary era are not new as they existed long ago. In contemporary times, these tactics are used excessively but most of the techniques which are claimed to be different in new wars are proven to be used in old wars as well.

Will the Build Back Better World plan compete the Belt and Road Initiative?

The 21st century Thucydides trap easily explains the way the emerging global power poses a threat to the interests of an already existed great power in the world order thereby galvanizing the great power rivalry. The gradual increase in Chinese soft power as a result of the different revolutions spreading over different phases has caused the emergence of China as a key player in the international politico-economic arena thereby posing a threat to the position, global leadership, and interests of the rival major power especially those of the US. Thus, the United States of America has been adopting every possible measure over the past few years to limit the increasing Chinese influence to maintain its global leadership position.

While following the policy to contain China, the United States of America initially adopted a Containment policy as known as Pivot Asia policy with a purpose to encircle China via coming into contracts, alliances, military bases, and economic support to the hostile neighbours of China. Washington formed the joined Pacific Asia Partnership and along with the ten ASEAN countries and Japan to boost up cooperation in a plethora of areas. The sole purpose of the partnership was to contain China while encircling it. Similarly the United States of America  began shaking hands with the other three major  regional rivals of China: Japan, India, and Australia, under the banner of QUAD with a purpose of impeding China’s development.  Washington has been attempting to collaborate militarily, economically, and diplomatically with New Delhi for the past one and a half decades in an attempt to settle its Chinese issue.

Washington has also adopted military tactics as it has its existence in the Asia Pacific region with a number of military lands, aerial and naval bases incentivised by a purpose to have a vigilant look over the regional geopolitics especially the communist oriented. Moreover, it has also been using the stick of human rights protection to hit China via unveiling and rebuking Beijing for its gross human rights violations in Hong Kong and Uighurs.

The United States of America adopted history’s costly trade war with China via putting high tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the US which retaliated the same action by Beijing. The tariffs war shook the global economy too.  Washington, on the other hand, consistently failed catastrophically in this vicinity for a long period of time. Recently, the ground of war has shifted to tech world where Beijing seems to be leading once again.

While maintaining the same agenda of limiting Beijing’s increasing influence, the Biden administration has begun to revert to the pro-Trump era’s tactics of banding together with allies against China. Biden took off to England to attend the meeting of G7 which was going to be held there at the South- Western England. Though the meeting discussed a plethora of multilateral issues, its main focus remained over the ways to contain the growing influence of China, especially under its Belt and Road Initiative. The participants were agreed upon the launching of a joint infrastructure program worth $40tr to compete with the BRI.

The Chinese Belt Road and Road Initiative are also known as the One Belt One Road Initiative, is an infrastructure development project passing through a number of countries across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and part of Europe. It connects more than 60 countries at the cost of $200bn. The project encompasses railways tracks, roads, optic fibres, and marine connectivity. The project is much pregnant with benefits for the cross-continental connectivity, trade, infrastructure development, energy and employment opportunities, and the   overall economic growth in addition to the improvement in diplomatic relations.

 Similarly, the BRI is pulling money from Beijing and laying the groundwork for Beijing’s involvement in the nations it traverses. China provides loans to the countries which are signatories of the said project. The loaned sum is to be invested in the uplifting of the infrastructure, energy, health, and education among others.  The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank led by China is being used for bailing out the struggling economy which is reported to be competing with the West-led World Bank.

Similarly, China enjoys remarkable diplomatic ties with a number of countries across the world.  A handful of countries in which Beijing is investing in one way or the other especially in Asia and North Africa needs the political-cum-diplomatic-economic support of China. For instance, Islamabad and Beijing are jointly hosting the BRI flagship project CPEC, which is extremely vital for the life and growth of the deteriorated physical, agricultural and energy infrastructures in addition to the security of employment and agricultural, and industrial growth in Pakistan and a cheap trade route to China.

Apart from this, Beijing supports Islamabad diplomatically over its Kashmir issue and FATF. Beijing has persistently bailed out Islamabad’s struggling economy in times of need. The same is the case with a plethora of countries wherein China is investing especially through BRI. This is the reason why the BRI mostly overwhelms the criticism it is brought under, that it’s a debt-trap plan of China.

Economically and trade-wise, China enjoys a good friendship with a handful of countries across the world. In Europe, it enjoys bilateral economic ties with a plethora of countries. There is a bundle of companies in Europe Latin America and Asia  that are dependent on the raw material supplied by China. For instance, Germany is exporting a large number of its automobiles to China. In the same way, it imports raw materials from China to manufacture and oil its automobile company. The same is the case with other European countries which are largely dependent upon the raw material of China. Beijing also enjoys its influence over a number of important strategic ports like the Hambantota port in Sri-Lanka.

Contrary to the BRI project, the US and its allies especially its G7 partners have announced an alternate infrastructure project named Build Back Better World, at the hopping cost of $40tr with a purpose to compete for the BRI thereby reducing the growing influence of China. As previously said, the BRI’s deep-seated influence over its signatories poses a danger to the US and its allies’ geopolitical and economic interests, which is why opposing it is critical for Washington and its allies. It’s exactly what the B3W is intended to deliver.

However, a million-dollar question surfaces here whether the proposed plan would counter the BRI. China has built up a terminated soft image especially in the area of economic growth via adopting its Third Revolution strategy. It has a deep stake in dozens of countries across Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. It seems to be a herculean task for B3W to draw down that very influence that China has via its diplomacy and projects like BRI. The B3W would have to allocate a sufficient amount of loans and investment in the countries in which it intends to invest. It will have to pay the countries to enable them to pay back for Chinese loans.  The founders of B3W will be required to provide diplomatic and political assistance to the nations in which B3W will operate. However, the project is deemed to be lagging behind in striking the core requirements for its booming.

 Similarly, the continuing pandemic has shook the global economy to its core, including the US and Western countries. Thus, it would be a daunting assignment for them to allocate much to the project. The project may find it difficult to minimize the BRI’s influence in areas of investment in a plethora of fields and the loans the signatories have been credited with. The projects launched under the Belt and Road Initiative are usually deemed to be the lifeline projects as the CPEC is often quoted for Pakistan’s energy regime among others.

Finally, the analysis unequivocally explains the difficulty the B3W would face in  countering the  deep-sited BRI by dint of a plethora of reasons: the growing Chinese influence in areas like economy, tech, and politico—diplomatic across the world propagated either by BRI or other sources.  China’s growing economic influence has spread over the years which cannot easily be countered.  The US-led bloc must ponder over the repercussions of any unilateral move to contain Beijing for the international politico-economic system,  e.g., the huge economic cost of the trade war between Washington and Beijing for the global economy as was seen in the previous episode.

 The US-led Western bloc must analyse the ground realities to ensure a project for competition in lieu of containing something as the competition will create a healthy competition and more than this will pay the way for another cold war which might be more destructive this time than that of the previous one which would make it difficult for those which want to be neutral to sit on the fence. The propagators of Build Back Better World must realise the importance of economic growth-led incentives instead of criticising them to provide the global economy with cooperation and growth.

Book Review: Why Nations Go to War

Why Nations Go to War, 11thedition by the author John G. Stoessinger, published by Cengage Learning in the year 2010. It is a unique book for the students of IR. The reflection of author John G. Stoessinger is built around ten case studies that provide a deep analysis of the root causes of modern war, from World War-I to the modern day. The author’s main emphasis is on the pivotal role of the personalities of political and military leaders who take their nations across the threshold into war. Students are sure to remember Stoessinger’s thoughts on war long after they complete his book.

Stoessinger emphasized that people either go to war by choice or participate in the war. To critically explain the war, the author has discussed the personalities of leadership. Because it is the personality of a leader which leads the societies into war or vulnerable sections of society. He mainly talked about two basic leadership personalities which affect the leadership most i.e. pragmatic and crusader. He included the case studies of those wars which were never explained by anyone in detail before. In this book, it started from WW-II to wars in the 21stcentury. He further discussed the events that could be the cause of war in the 21st century like Iran and North Korea. The author has also explained very well the reason, situation, and decision of the leadership in a time of war. Responses to the events of 9/11 receive an intensive update, ending with the strategies of the new US President, Barack Obama. In some sense, details about Korea, India, and Pakistan, the Middle East, the Balkans, and Africa are being updated to coincide with the rapid development of the 21st century. His focus on leadership and war creates a small picture of the prominent political and military people, who decided to go to war either it was offensive or defensive.

The author has also discussed the people who were against the government or their leadership and those who stood against them, who were not sincere to their people or waged wars over them because of their own set of ideas and wrong strategies. The author has explained very well that when a leader goes to war it doesn’t always mean that he loves to fight a war, or he is belligerent. It is the lack of a pragmatic approach in their leadership and failure to maintain the peace that becomes noticeable even sometimes in a ‘just war’.

Starting from WW-I, one cannot assume the leaders of axis powers as like-minded as they later were supposed to be. The first chapter has been successful in determining the role of leaders and establishing a concept as well that the military might have mostly been successful in convincing the political leaders to pursue the likelihood of war to fulfill their satisfaction. Unlike many people who believed that war would be precise, the German General Helmut Von Moltke predicted it to be “a long and wearisome struggle;” but he was also of the view that Germany was ready for war and the sooner the better.

Many scholars believed that it was out of the control of mortal men, whereas the author has denied such a view by saying that statesmen made his decisions based on fears and misperceptions and not on facts. For most scholars, the alliances’ system was the main factor behind World War-I. Since all causes of great wars have been discussed exhaustively such as alliances system, nationalism, militarism, and a little work was done on part of the personality and the psychological aspects. In his strident criticism of the political administration of the time (Germany, Russia, Serbia, and Austria specifically), Stoessinger portrays such political leaders as either egotistical, idiotic, thoughtless, or powerless and engrossed with their consciences eventually evading their duties not to have their people dragged into a disaster like World War, which resulted in a crushed generation of young people in Europe just because of weak leadership or wrong strategies by their leaders.

In chapter 2, the writer took a case study of Operation Barbarossa (1941) in which Hitler launched an attack on Russia. Hitler’s desire which led to his defeat was to finish Russia, not to conquer it. To understand, Hitler’s growing hatred of Russia, one must appreciate the fact that he smoothened his road to power with communist blood. Hitler’s hatred of Russia blinded him completely to the strategic realities. According to Hitler, “If Russia is smashed, Britain’s last hope will be shattered. Because of these considerations, Russia must be discharged, spring 1941. The sooner Russia is smashed, the better.” He ordered to wipe out Russia’s very power to exist. Hitler’s unlimited hatred for the Slavic people was responsible for one of the greatest blunders of his career.

In a sense, Germany’s defeat stemmed from Hitler’s madness that conquered his being and led to the suffering of the German nation. It might be said, Germany’s annihilation originated from Hitler’s frenzy that resulted in the suffering of the German people. Due to lack of a pragmatic approach in the leadership of Germany and Russia, both nations suffered dreadfully. The author says that Germany’s suffering was stopped after the death of Hitler but due to Stalin’s extended period of leadership Russia suffered for a longer duration.

As stated in the book, Soviet leaders felt that an alliance with Hitler in 1939 might be highly advantageous. Stalin calculated that such a pact would safeguard the Nazi dictator’s eastern side and thus give him the green light to launch an offensive against the West. Stalin’s failure to prepare for the disaster because of his blind trust in Hitler, the Soviet Union lost 600,000 soldiers. The Russian and German invasions of Poland at the outbreak of World War-II have not yet been forgotten, with the shades of Stalin and Hitler waiting on in the brains of the individuals who were stomped on upon.

Chapter 3 of this book discusses the Korean War (1950). In this chapter, Stoessinger has clarified the role of political and military leadership in the Korean War but the reasons to initiate the war remain hypothetical. General MacArthur is accused of urging the Chinese into the war whereas the leadership of the USA used the UN as a tool to stretch the war and Korean leadership goes to war by choice. The aggressive behavior of Korea was the reaction of the UN as a tool of aggression towards Korea, Which led all of them to the unbeatable war. The UN had become a party to the war, thereby compromising its role as a neutral mediator. The author has concluded the chapter with the recent stakes of North Korea by using its nuclear weapon for the privilege of international restrictions. And the last section touches on the US and UN taking diplomatic measures rather than the use of the military. Aggressive leadership’s response could be resulted in pushing the people into a new kind of war as was in 1950.

Chapter 4 of the book focuses on the Vietnam War spread over 3 decades and 5 presidents. The main theme the author focuses on in this chapter is that America entered this war through error and stayed embroiled in it through necessity. The necessity to save the US’s reputation. Stoessinger has explained the events in Vietnam War why it continued for thirty years. Truman missed Asian factors in the Vietnamese theater as Korea, Europe, and the eminent Cold War blocks established his remarks. Eisenhower ignored the lesson of Europe as well as the relations between Ho Chi Minh and the Chinese. President John F. Kennedy in 1961 recognized the instability of the Diem regime, as a result he increased the supply of weapons rather than seeking a political or diplomatic solution.  Johnson called it a catastrophe in the Vietnam War. He swiftly increased the US troops in Vietnam to win the war and turned it into an American major war. This was his top priority but all of his hopes were dissolved for ending the Vietnam War. His military commanders advocated more bombing to destroy the Vietminh forces as they were now a regular army.

When Nixon took office he faced a lot of pressure from the American public to stop the war and for this, he found a strategy named Vietnamization to disengage his army from Vietnam without appearing to abandon South Vietnam to the communists and with an effort to train and equip South Vietnam to take over military responsibility for its defense. During Vietnamization US also stopped its military activities in Southeast Asia. In January 1973, the Nixon administration complied with a peace agreement with North Vietnamese leaders. According to this agreement, the US had to withdraw its remaining troops within 60 days in exchange for a prompt cease-fire. The author calls the Vietnam War the most useless war in American history. America’s involvement in Indo – China began almost gradually and ended in the Vietnam War. Each president based his policies on extravagant fears and hopes and as a result, each president left the problem in the worst condition. The experience, misperceptions, and temperament of each president played a role in the escalating Vietnam War to the worst war.

Chapter 5 of the book provides an insight view of the war in Yugoslavia that guides the reader to observe the circumstances through the lens of international law. Yugoslavia as a state emerged from the ashes of WW-II which later was ruled by Joseph Broz also known as Tito. Tito was a man of sharp diplomatic and leadership skills as there was complete peace in his time. He occasionally uses the force where it is needed. The peace prevailed until he died in 1980. As Yugoslavia was the state of multi-ethnicity but Croats, Serbs and Muslims were the prominent ethnicities that governed well under the rule of Tito. New leadership emphasized the contrasts in the public eye along ethnic and religious lines with Serbs under the Milosevic. At the point when bloodless pressure didn’t work, parties used savagery. The situation worsened with the passive separation of Slovene and the violent environment in Croatia. Serbs like Milosevic, Karadzic, and Mladic drove the Serbian war exertion against “the rest.” Outside military and multinational political activities gradually switched things around of brutality. The universal activities utilized military force close by a recharged international position against humanitarian offenses to stop the war and carry singular leaders and warriors to equity. The leadership of Serbs had confronted the international court of law for some of the sensitivities of peace and justice to the Balkans. The author has concluded the war by saying that the antagonist loses the war and is once again exposed to the world under international law.

In the next chapter, the author has explained the wars that have happened between India and Pakistan since 1947. The author discusses the colonial, partition, and war, the Kashmir war of 1965, the bloody dawn of Bangladesh, nuclear Viagra, and India’s 9/11 Mumbai November 2008. As indicated by the author the most savage war which depends on religion was neither the Christian campaigns against Islam nor the thirty years war that set Catholics in opposition to Protestants. It was the war of Hindu against Muslims in the twentieth century. Territorial disputes, religious differences, and cultural differences merged as the fundamental reason for disputes in the region, in which most of the conflicts are continuing due to the clashes between the leadership from both sides. India and Pakistan are facing some of the complex nature and destructive issues that they need to resolve for the security and stability of the region, in a sense of regional, political, ethical, and cultural aspects. Being a neighboring state of India and Pakistan Bangladesh is also facing problems like India and Pakistan.

The author has also discussed the threat of nuclear war between both states. Because both states consecutively deter each other to use nuclear weapons and increase the risk of war. The author takes nuclear as an option between India and Pakistan but also the element of deterrence. Stoessinger also covered the event of the Mumbai attacks by calling Indian 9/11 from Pakistan. The Indian restraint to not raise the armed solutions is perhaps enlightened by its democratic culture and per author Pakistani leadership still needed to be dominant.

Moving towards the Middle East, the author believes that US Administration choices were initially a zero-sum game situation of right conflicting with wrong. Arab and Israeli authority regardless assumed their job to consistently accept countries to war as they held a profound zero-sum game that made war alluring. Saddam Hussein enjoyed a few wars against his border-sharing states and his kindred residents just to find that he increased little from war battling about a time of right around three decades. Saddam was executed and his war trials terminated with him. Muslims fought against Muslims in the war of Iraq and Iran, and Iraq and Kuwait, and Muslims fought against the unbeliever in Saddam against the UN-and US-drove alliances (1991 and 2003) – neither of the wars brought any achievement. In the case of Iraq and Kuwait, Saddam goes to the war by choice. According to the author, there was an opportunity to prevent the war but the leadership denied that.

The section on “New wars for a new century” merely focuses on American history towards the Islamic world. It also focuses on American political leadership, policies adopted by them especially regarding Islamic countries, and the challenge of terrorism. The author has examined the policies of George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden through the lens of pragmatic and crusader with own religious beliefs.

Referring to early incidents of terrorism and their impact on the nations the author discusses the history of Muslims, to highlight his own understanding of the genesis of terrorism. He has also identified American presidents with two basic personality characteristics, i.e., pure crusaders as saint or fanatics and pure pragmatic as an efficient machine. According to the author’s research Woodrow Wilson was the purest crusader (locked in his battle with the Senate over the ratification of the league of the nation) whereas the purest pragmatist was John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crises (evidence alone governed his conduct). There are times when a crusader can alter his particular course and become pragmatic. Ronald Reagan is one of the examples, who referred Soviets as an “evil empire” but changed his mind about the adversary when the British leader told him that Gorbachev is with whom one can do business.

The author’s main focus is George Bush who began his term as a pragmatist then gradually, over several months moved ever closer to crusading (crusader for the axis of evil) end of the spectrum until the pursuit of terrorists and Saddam Hussein. The slow shift in Bush’s makeup from pragmatist to crusader cannot explain in terms of any one factor, there was a spectrum of events. Crusaders and pragmatist approaches were the options of suitability on time.

In the Iraq war, Bush did not use war as a last resort; it was a war of choice not of necessity and the Stoessinger stated that Bush dealt Saddam pragmatically to a war-lover leader. Saddam expected a decision of death by hanging but the Americans could have saved him from death and might even reinstalled him as President of Iraq to end the revolt and to prevent Iraq from falling into the hands of Iran.

Americans withdrawal from Iraq and moving to Afghanistan is seen as a mistake by the author. Their interest was to keep the troops in the region to keep an eye on upcoming economic power. By putting troops in the region and enhancing strategic ties with regional countries was the reason for the western presence in Afghanistan.

In the end, Stoessinger raises the matter of the Rwandan and Darfurian slaughters or destructions and their main impetuses of race and voracity where they annihilated in the absence of war. Such outrages force Stoessinger to call upon administration and social orders to face detestable with the end goal for good to triumph – instead of for governments to proclaim war immediately and to convey their militaries. Stoessinger has contemplated the war-individuals nexus over an all-encompassing timeframe and presents a longitudinal perspective on this specific relationship. In this book, Stoessinger has exposed the leaders with facts and reality-based logic, who love the war, and their wrong strategies to prevent the war. The author has described in a good manner by explaining wars in detail that the leader’s decisions could be wrong on some occasions. Finally, the rising action of considering such leaders responsible in international official tribunals depicts a truly necessary arbitration in a time when questionable characters strutting as leaders appear to routinely step into the domain of legislative issues.

India’s Systemic Subjugation of Kashmir

This 5th of August will mark two years of Modi government’s decision to revoke Article 370 and Article 35 (A) of the Indian Constitution, a decision that has had deep and direct negative consequences for the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Revoking the special status of IIOJK means that the Indian government has effectively removed the autonomy of the disputed territory and has determined it as one of its own union territories.

However, this was not an impulsive decision. In fact, this decision was a calculated one that reflects India’s intention to forcefully annex the territory of Kashmir. Even before this decision, India was legalizing the use of arbitrary force against the people of Kashmir through legal instruments. The Indian governments of present and yesteryear passed numerous laws that have enabled the military forces to further increase their stranglehold on the people of IIOJK. Take for example the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act of 1978, which allows the Indian security forces to detain a person without a trial for two years. This is in direct conflict with the universal principle of recognized norms which ask for the accused to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

It would appear the Indian government is using the guise of the threat of terrorism to further subject the Kashmiris to persecution. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) of 1990 is used to give authorization for arbitrary use of force by the Indian armed forces against the Kashmiris. The subjective nature of TADA allows for minimum accountability of the Indian Armed Forces in their use of force and violence against the Kashmiri population. Even though the Act lapsed in 1995, the Indian security forces still arrest people and link them to incidents prior to 1995 in order to enact TADA against the arrests.

Another act passed in 1990 was The Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, which further strengthened the arbitrary powers of the armed forces and increased their area of jurisdictions in terms of search and seizure, arrests and even using force. This Act allowed for the military to aid the civilian government in Kashmir in ensuring peace but it has been misused and turned into a black law.

The subjugation of the Kashmiri population has been further advanced by the passing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) 2002.  POTA allowed for the detainment and arrest of the population without any charges for three months which could be extended to another three months if allowed by a special judge. Even though the Act has been withdrawn, there have been reported excesses even by government officials.

In addition to this, the Indian Penal Code section 124A is designed to be used as a Sedition Law not only against the Kashmiri population but also any citizen of India that challenges the Modi government’s rule over India, curtailing the freedom of expression.

Considering the above, it is plain to see that there has been a structural subjugation of the Kashmiri population, which has unsurprisingly led to disastrous human right violations. As per the Kashmir Media Service report, there have been 100,000 Kashmiris killed, 107,000 children orphaned, and 22,764 women widowed since 1990. The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons has reported that nearly 120,000 civilians have been arrested and over 7,000 people have been killed in police custody. The number of rape incidents in IIOJK have also risen to over 10,000 since 1989. These human rights violations are not just documented by Kashmiri outlets but also by international organizations. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has regularly highlighted the atrocities being committed in IIOJK and the US State Department too have acknowledged the plethora of ongoing human rights violations.

With over 900,000 troops stationed in IIOJK, the Indian military forces have turned IIOJK into one of the most militarized zone in the world.  This is against a population of one million, which effectively means that there is one soldier for every three civilians. One third of the Indian troops are stationed in Srinagar alone. The excess of Indian troops are needed to subjugate and control the population. Since the revocation of Article 370 and 35 (A) there are fears that these violations may have increased astronomically but, there is no way to convey these violations because of the carpet ban on media and internet in IIOJK and the enforcement of an intense lockdown.

It would seem that the Modi government has taken inspiration from the Israeli playbook on subjugation and forceful annexation. The Indian government have become so emboldened to take such a drastic step. The silence of the international community on both the Palestinian and Kashmiri issue further emboldens nationalistic governments to unilaterally decide the fate of disputed territories.

What is left is for the international community to now ask themselves, when is it enough? If they dig a little deeper, they will see that the Indian government’s decision to revoke Article 370 and 35 (A) was not an overnight decision, and was rather, decades long worth of subjugation and subversion of the Kashmiri populace. In the end, one can hope and pray that this will lead an end to the subjugation of the people of Kashmir.

Covid-19 and the Global Climate Change Financing

Two years down the lane, Covid-19 pandemic has entirely changed the dynamics of today’s world. From states to global institutions and organizations, every actor is devising transformative policies to adapt to these seismic changes. Encompassing all other systemic shocks, global climate financing has also seen a major setback attributable to Covid-19 as the global economic growth stunts and the developed economies shift towards inward development trajectories away from their climate commitments. It is worth mentioning here that the pandemic strikes the world at a time when there is a decade left to get the global economy to the course of restraining global warming to 1.5°C above pre industrial level. In the period preceding the crisis, experts had already been raising concerns about the insufficiency of climate funding to meet the Paris commitments. The pandemic has now further widened these concerns. However, experts do suggest that if caution decisions are taken, the setback can be transformed into an immense opportunity.  

Covid-19 and the Global Climate Finance Landscape.            Covid-19 has struck a major blow to the world economy. The enormity of this impact can be gauged by the 1.3% to 5.8% losses in Global GDP in 2020. Consequently, this adverse economic outlook has drastically changed the context in which the efforts aimed at combating climate change were taking place particularly by affecting the availability, accessibility and execution of global climate finance. The $100 billion per year commitment in climate finance by 2020 and its extension for another five years (2025) by the developed world has been a vital part of the Paris accord since 2009 and played an integral role in upholding the climate pledge while acting as a source of encouragement for the Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs). 

Whilst the general course of global climate finance had been in an ascending direction by recording a 51% increase between 2013 and 2018 and reaching about $78.9 billion in 2018, the preliminary predictions suggest that the goal of $100 billion climate finance is likely to not have been met in 2020 although the final data on the total flows in 2020 is expected by 2022. This reflects the announcements by the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) suggesting that the scaling up of the financial support to the developing world to help them tackle the crisis has consequently challenged the sustenance and expansion of the support for climate-oriented investment. Similarly, a recent briefing by the Overseas Development Institute identifies that the International climate finance which falls under the Official Development Assistance (ODA) stands to be reduced in absolute terms attributable to the recent falls in donors’ Gross National Income (GNI). As a case in point, the UK government was set to become a significant contributor to the International climate finance but the recent evidence suggests that the aid programs for climate resilience are now being required to reduce budgets by up to 30%. 

Additionally, the pandemic has hit the developing and the climate vulnerable countries the hardest with the recent UNDP’s projection estimating the developing economies to lose at least $220 billion in income. The World Bank has also expected around 150 million people to plunge back into extreme poverty. Moreover, with the IMF terming the crisis as a debt pandemic, 54% of less developed countries are expected to fall into a vicious circle of debt crises. This adverse economic outlook would reduce the fiscal capacity of LDCs to invest in climate resilience with the protection of livelihoods and the stabilization of the economies acquiring priority. 

Given such an outlook, it is discernible that Covid-19, and the resultant capacity constraints and shift in priorities has had adverse ramifications on the delivery and demand of global climate finance. 

Climate-Aligned Pandemic Response: Pathway towards a Sustainable Recovery.       Experts while acknowledging the repercussions of Covid-19 on the global climate financing nevertheless suggest that the crisis also provides an opportunity in disguise that can not only offset the setback to global climate financing but also enhance the latter and subsequently accelerate the transition towards a net zero carbon world if the globalCovid-19 recovery finance is aligned with the climate objectives. This opportunity can be analyzed by the fact that 2020 marked a record year for foreign aid which amounted to an all-time high of $161 billion while aid providers have indicated that they would continue to help the developing countries address the social and economic repercussions of the pandemic in the medium term. The latter funding can conveniently be made more climate compatible. In addition, experts indicate that the costs of meeting the Paris targets will be lowered given that many developing countries had guaranteed a decrease in emissions below a Business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for a particular growth outlook which has been reduced amid the pandemic from the underlying BAU estimate. 

Fortunately, the policy debates have already begun to direct attention towards capitalizing this opportunity. Contextually, as the recent Aid-for-Trade (AfT) stocktaking event of the WTO called on the donors to mobilize Aid-for-Trade finance aiming at enhancing LDCs production capacity and trade-related infrastructure, the speakers also underscored the need to embrace a climate friendly development pathway. It now needs to be ensured that this commitment is fully operationalized through adapting AfT in a way that promotes investment in cleaner and efficient technologies, and builds LDC’s capacity to negotiate agreements on the exchange of green goods and services or the climate mitigation and adaptation. Similarly, all other financial stimulus to the EMDEs during- and post-pandemic needs to meaningfully support a climate-aligned recovery through enabling long-term low GHG emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) and a just transition away from fossil fuels. For the donors and lenders, this means phasing out all high-carbon investments and lending, while providing financial, policy and regulatory support in a way that enables and encourages the recipient states to embark on a climate-oriented development pathway. For the EMDEs themselves, this means designing green policies and projects to meaningfully employ the bilateral and multilateral finances. Evidence suggests that every dollar invested for the purpose of achieving climate resilience leads to between $2 and $10 in net economic benefits while green projects can generate additional employment.

Conclusively, a more risk informed decision making while embracing a climate resilience lens and vulnerability of future pandemic is needed. Governments and concerned stakeholders should identify financing gaps as per the new realities to ensure nationally determined commitments (NDC) and donors and lenders having financial capacity need to cover the expected deficits in climate finance by embracing climate-informed lending, donating and investment practices. Since, the IMF director has already said, “this is the high time to lose or revive the Paris agreement”- a well-informed policy-action should be adopted that would outweigh the loss of dual (covid-climate) calamities.

Space Incorporation

July 2021 is marked with two significant events in the history of space exploration. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos became the second billionaire to travel to space in his own space ship ‘New Shepard’ on 20th July, 2021, from Texas USA. Earlier, on July 11th Richard Branson went to space aboard his ‘VSS Unity’ space plane, which is operated by Virgin Galactic. Both, Bezoz’s Blue Origin and Branson’s Virgin Galactic are the chief rivals in the suborbital space tourism business. Elon Musk of ‘Tesla Motors’ fame has already made history with his ‘Space X’ and is pioneering breakthrough technologies in aerospace and aeronautics. Last year Elon Musk’s Space X launched astronauts into space to ISS (International Space Station) from American soil in almost a decade. What makes it significant is the fact that Space X is a Pvt Ltd Co that was awarded the contract by NASA to send its astronauts to the space station. Since retiring the famous Space Shuttle, NASA has been working with private firms to carry forward the space missions such as commuting astronauts to ISS. Other than Space X, other upstarts into private space industry have also been engaged.

The space program is less than a century old, and already private ventures have been launched successfully, all in USA, given the fact that rocket science is both complicated and expensive. So what has made these space startups go into space and led them to success? Strong economy with enough venture capitalism is a big reason for this. But a strong technological base is the main reason that these feats in space have been achieved in private domain. The rewards of private ventures are already visible in the form of breakthrough technologies such as reverse landing of the rocket boosters; something public domain never worked upon and private did for the obvious financial implications of reusing the rocket booster multiple times.

In the last one-hundred-year man has made more progress in technology than all its previous history combined. In less than a century man has learned to fly, sent rockets to space, landed on moon and operated unmanned vehicles on Mars. Built upon solid science, the related technologies have emerged in all fields, particularly electronics, ICTs, aerospace, metallurgy and software technologies. However, with each passing day the technologies become increasingly complex and out of the reach of developing nations. Take the phone for instance; while the traditional landline telephone was manufactured everywhere, the present day smart phone is made by a handful of countries. Similarly, advancement in technologies have put machines like railway engines, cars, telecomm eqpt and rockets/airplanes out of the reach of developing nations, that simply do not have the wherewithal to manufacture these hi-tech systems.

Some three hundred supporting industries are required to build an aircraft because of the sheer diversity and complexity of technologies involved. The complexity of systems dictates that no one firm, let alone an individual, can produce a complete solution all by itself. As microprocessors get embedded into conventional machines and software controls all hardware, the modern technology escapes from the developing countries farther and farther. Resultantly the low end produce of the nation is not enough to import the high tech equipment required. In consequence, the economic disparity generates reliance on others and an import-export dis-balance that degrades economy. And it is an established fact that a nation’s security is linked to its economy.

The Industrial revolution that started some 300 years ago in England, has now come to China after propelling USA, Germany, Japan, and Korea to technological heights – amongst others. Thus the fourth industrial revolution is now taking effect with advancements that are increasing the gap between developed and developing nations, exponentially. This implies serious economic, social and security concerns for the nations that are left behind in technological advancements. If a whole year’s yield of a crop can buy you one fighter aircraft, then you can never claim to be self-reliant. One may leap frog some technologies by reverse engineering, but mostly it requires an indigenous knowledge and manpower base of core technologies.

Pakistan’s reliance on low tech industries, mainly textile and construction has not helped in gaining any technological advancement in any field. Both are main driving industries of Pakistan and consume much of the resources of the country, yet the yield in terms of highly skilled force or technology base, is almost non-existent. As a result, other industries haven’t had the required government support, and resultantly haven’t made any progress. For example, limited technological advancement has been seen in Sialkot and Gujranwala based industries. A spin-off into other industries such as automotive and biomedical would have been a welcome evolution, but even that has not happened. In fact, any technological advancement seen in the country is due to the infant defence industry. On the other hand, China has culled many industries in the world including Pakistan; even the low end shoe and plastic industry.

Developing nations must venture into some high-tech industry or be forever dependent on advanced countries. Even if Space travel is not an immediate requirement, planes, trains and automobiles are. Core technologies like semiconductor devices, polymer synthesis, metallurgy and ceramics etc. have to be grasped to build an indigenous base. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are not only about software, but also about computer hardware and communication systems that are the backbone of the fourth industrial revolution. The future is going to only see these systems get more advanced and more complicated and more difficult to design and develop. The balance of power will, therefore, always remain tilted towards the technologically advanced nations.

Pakistan’s Response to Climate Change

The transformation of climate change from an environmental issue to that of a grave security threat has occurred over the past few years. From being a global challenge for generations to come and its impacts being far reaching, Pakistan has increased its attention towards the matter in question.

The issue of Climate Change is of immense concern for Pakistan as the exposition of its effects to our countries weaknesses makes us more prone to various other hazards. The fact that our country is an agricultural economy and agrarian base, makes it dependent on the stability of climate and environment. From agriculture to water availability, everything lands in the ambit of affectees of climate change.  Food security in Pakistan lays in the hands of temperature and rainfall, any variations in both can have dire effects on safety of food.

The South Asian region witnessed an increase in temperature in the last century. According to the German watch Global Climate Risk Index, 2020, Pakistan stands 5th in the countries that was most obstructed by Climate change.  Recent years have been testament to the axiomatic changes in the environment marked by floods, precipitation patterns, heatwaves, and droughts.

Based on the current trends the extrapolation of future effects is inclusive of various other unfavorable climate changes. Pakistan is expected to experience an increase in temperature that too, higher than the global average. The southern regions of Pakistan are to expect increase in temperatures greater than that of the northern regions. The consequences on our crop yields are to be decreased as per predictions.

Pakistan’s Response.  Pakistan has numerous policies and frameworks regarding climate change, but the problem always ended up in the implementation process. Nevertheless, Pakistan will hopefully be provided some funds from international organizations in a bid to tackle climate change. Some of these organizations include the Green Climate Fund, and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It has been trying to implement the National Policy on Climate Change along with preparing an official climate change strategy. Back in 2003, the UNFCCC was provided with Pakistan’s National communication that later on lead to the creation of a committee that would overlook climate change. Furthermore, after 5 years a task force was created to form a policy on climate change that subsequently put forth a report after two years. numerous other strategies and policies fall in line to counter climate change.

Globally, Pakistan has been acceptive of declarations regarding Environmental Transformations and stakes from United Nations. Pakistan has also completed an SDG13 by UNDP regarding climate change. Much attention has been allotted to climate change under Imran Khan’s government and testament to the fact is the successful plantation of billion trees in KPK Province in 2018. The motivation to counter this menace has been quite ambitious during his administration.

Policies and Frameworks Pakistan Plans on Adopting.        There are a variety of programs in Pakistan that are being intermediately adopted as compared to other nations in the region. A consideration with regards to the funding of ventures with respects to water and agrarian concerns are being reflected upon by the Special Climate Change Fund.

Further involvement by Pakistan in projects has been prognosticated over a few years that shall aim at securing loans for agriculture that shall show resilience to climate change, water management and improved governance. An introduction of a scheme or architecture that shall assist the farming community to tackle with environmental changes.  Many other projects that are expected to be adopted are inclusive of architectures and infrastructures that shall show resilience to climate.

Imran Khan’s 10 billion Tress Tsunami Is currently underway that shall prove vital in the revitalization of forests all over the country. Not only shall it help in tackling climate change it shall prove beneficial in the origination of green jobs. Another initiative taken by his government includes the preservation of biodiverse areas named as “Protected Areas Initiative” that has led to an increase in National coverage.

Whilst considering the energy sector there is significant attention allocated to the conversion of usage of energy derived from water, solar and other such sources to more clean energy after 20 more years. All these programs and initiatives are also being followed by the governments effort to secure global funding for the better achievement of these initiatives.

The inexpugnability of the effects of climate change and what needs to be done remains pertinent in the discussion on how to thwart it.

Immediate responses need to be developed and thought out due to the emergency of the situation. The first step that is already underway is the use of media for awareness campaigns and projects that would aim at specific target audiences who are expected to be uneducated on the topic.

There needs to be a creation of frameworks, guidelines, and parameters to monitor, examine and observe the progress on policies and plans already being implemented. The need for capacity building remains high, that too, at grassroot levels.

Infrastructural development is the key in catalyzing the thwarting of the impacts of climate change to promote regulated flow along with the harvest of rainwater.

Conclusion.    Climate change indubitably remains one the grave threats to Pakistan thus calling for a studious, well thought out strategy and policy. Being an agricultural country, climate change remains the most direct hazard to our economy and stability. There is an obvious and inevitable risk to the region that is being posed by this devastating phenomenon.

Pakistan’s response to the situation has observably increased in Imran Khan’s government and is expected to do so in the future as well during his tenure. A variety of goals have been achieved while numerous are on their path to completion. Pakistan must put in more effort to an already satisfying response to climate change. This government is axiomatically passionate about tackling climate change thus making it all the more easier to set new goals and create awareness.