Category: Research Paper

Research Papers submitted by Researchers.

JCPOA 2022 EDITION & IRAN: UNDERLYING INTENTIONS, OLD TRICKS, & MURPHY’S LAW

In a news cycle of world affairs filled with numerous crises and matters, the current Ukraine-Russia conflict has taken center stage and rightly so. It is a cause for international concern and a call for analysis, but should not be so at the cost of other important developments. The recent JCPOA negotiations and its prospective restoration faces one obstacle after another. A landmark achievement for the arms control and the non-proliferation regime which took shape in in 2015, the core essence of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was to halt Iran’s nuclear program as it had become gravely concerning for the international community, primarily the P5+1. The entire agreement was jeopardized when the USA unilaterally pulled out in 2018 under President Trump, making it toothless as it removed compliance incentives for Iran.

Recently, there have been renewed efforts for restoring the agreement and a series of negotiations have taken place with a fair amount of progress. Iran’s foundational nuclear motivations are important for understanding why it has come back to the table, despite a more conservative leadership at its center, and why it agreed to the JCPOA in the first place. Whether or not the JCPOA is restored to a 2022 edition also depends on the motivations of all parties involved, including Iran, and the benefits they receive from an Iranian nuclear program that is kept in check.

Iran’s Underlying Nuclear Motivations

What makes a state go nuclear? A short question with a complex answer. As far as the peaceful part of a nuclear program goes, there are numerous benefits of nuclear technology that a state would benefit from. It provides diversification of energy production programs, aids the agriculture sector through high yield and resilient crops, and offers cancer related medical treatment.

Pursuing a nuclear weapons program, however, may not have impetus as simple as that. There are many models that explain underlying motivations. The proliferation puzzle model suggests that presence of a major military threat, that cannot be countered conventionally, leads to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. For Iran, even though it does face substantial military threats, this may not be the right explanation.

Iran is the descendant of the great Persian Empire. It is not just a nation state but a civilizational state. This leads to the prestige factor; in an environment filled with competitors posing security threats (Israel and Saudi Arabia), this gives cause for initiating a nuclear weapons program as explained by Scot Sagan’s security model. However, the political and influence factors associated with nuclear weapons may provide the primary reason for Iranian motivations.

Struck with sanctions soon after the Iranian revolution and facing isolation, a nuclear weapons program was Iran’s ticket to the world table; it was a means to an end rather than the end itself, the end being economic prosperity and political influence, both of which are interlinked. This explains why Iran decided to agree to the JCPOA in the first place, to achieve a path to economic prosperity through easing of sanctions. Pursuing nuclear weapons as a path to achieving economic prosperity and political influence is also corroborated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa against nuclear weapons. Put together, these reasons suggest that Iran went forward with its program not to actually acquire nuclear weapons but to use that pursuit for political leverage leading to economic leverage and prosperity.

Recurring Objections to the Nuclear Program

For a long time, Iran has justified its nuclear program by giving reasons of peaceful application, civilian use and industrial benefits, among other things, for its pursuit. In 2003, it issued the Tehran declaration where it agreed to voluntarily implement an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This meant added inspections and safety compliance. Its aim was to acquire modern technology as a result. However, such agreements and deals eventually faltered as the West began raising objections in relation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which includes Iran as a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) member. Iran’s reasoning was that the other side of the table would not live up to their bargain, leaving it no option but to continue with the objectionable aspects of its program.

All objections to Iran violating the NPT are arguably hypothetical since there is no mechanism to verify any violations and even the UN Security Council has not categorically declared Iran to be in violation of the treaty. However, objections exist based on claims that Iran violated its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. This creates the argument that it violated Article III of the NPT, which asks its NNWSs to accept and follow those safeguards. Other objections have been raised about Iran supposedly violating Article II of the treaty that deals with the manufacturing or acquisition of nuclear weapons, and any help given or received related to that effect. This objection and claim is also made without substantive evidence; it was stated that there were “possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme,” which could mean the violation of Article II. Without conclusive proof, actions against Iran for its nuclear program indicate that the objections leveled against it are political and not based on concern for the non-proliferation regime which is used as the reason by its flag bearers.

Whether or not the JCPOA will be restored in a 2022 edition is yet to be seen. Before negotiations had started, Iran had begun to exceed the limits it had agreed to, after the initial fallout, and started Uranium enrichment to higher concentrations. This was in response to the other parties not holding up their side of the bargain. Regardless of its reasons and justifications, it was still enriching more than what is deemed as suitable for civilian use. This does not match with the expectations of a NNWS part of the NPT. After the death/targeted killing of its top general by the USA and then its top nuclear scientist by Israel, it removed limits on its nuclear enrichment and ended its agreement with the IAEA for monitoring. However, for a year after the USA had pulled out of the agreement, Iran was verifiably in compliance till 2019. This again backs up its primary reason for the nuclear program, pursuing political and economic benefits. Until major sanctions were invoked, it stayed in compliance and when leverage was required then it went on to strengthen the nuclear program.

JCPOA 2022 and Implications from the Murphy’s Law Effect

Negotiations had been going smoothly and the chances of the JCPOA’s restoration were extremely high. Then came the Russia factor. Western sanctions had piled up immensely and comprehensively after Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Russia demanded in the negotiations that its military and trade cooperation with Iran be removed from those sanctions as part of the JCPOA 2022. This had halted the negotiations, but the release of British-Iranians that had been detained in Iran points to a thaw and better chances of restoration. However, what if Murphy’s Law gets applied, and everything that can go wrong does go wrong?

If the JCPOA does not get restored, for one reason or another, Iran might go on the same course it did last time. If the road to political influence and economic prosperity through mainstream channels and peaceful nuclear technology is blocked then the detour through a nuclear weapons program becomes the next best option. This would add to the existing critique of the NPT that it not only lacks teeth but also dentures for a substitute. Its credibility as a pillar of the non-proliferation regime would further crumble, more so if Iran decides to follow North Korea’s route and decides to leave NPT altogether. On the other hand, if it stays and continues on its trajectory in the event the JCPOA is not restored, then it will add to the conception of the non-proliferation regime being a hollow facade.

In either case, the regime would be further weakened if, seeing Iran’s actions, other regional powers such as Saudi Arabia try to follow suit and proliferate, to some added degree, citing security threats from Iran as part of Scot Sagan’s security model of proliferation. Most recently, the regime was also arguably weakened due to the possibility of the AUKUS deal violating Article III of the NPT. While much about the specifics of nuclear-powered submarines remains in the dark, the sheer notion that the idea of their transfer to a NNWS of the NPT can be floated suggests a weakening of the regime by the parties that essentially crafted it. If the JCPOA negotiations fail, it could be seen as the first domino falling for the NPT based non-proliferation regime.

The World’s Lurch Right in the New Millennium

The mid-2010s saw a swift rise in the fortunes of right-wing populism around the world. With democracies falling to it like dominoes, free expression came under assault in country after country. It went to the point that democracies all across the globe that once (although perhaps not wholeheartedly)  stood for international cooperation, diplomacy, and globalization now stood in sharp contrast to these international norms and values. In hindsight, it is fair to say the silver lining of the rise and rise of right-wing populism in country after country is that the authoritarian nature of this political ideology has become plain to see.

Large group of people standing in the form of a world map

Right-wing politics is subscribed to by leaders who want to maintain their traditional and cultural values, class system within the society and protect the interests of the state, its sovereignty, and territorial integrity. They are those who advocate for notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction, and nationalism. To quote Norwegian political scientist Prof Bernt Hagtvet: “Right-wing groups tend to perceive nations as unequal. They rank nations by worth, placing theirs on top. They insist on the excellence of their own nation, they emphasize its history as particularly glorious, they include allusions to its past in their political discourse.”

On the other hand, the Left ideology is subscribed to by those who want to establish liberal values, freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, internationalism, and ethical decisions within a state. They advocate ending the class system, racism, and the dominion of one over another.  

In the 21st century, the rise of right-wing activism and politics has played a pivotal role in the world. Electoral results across the globe demonstrated how right-wing populist parties were rising nationally and internationally, especially in Europe. The rise of such parties has had negative effects on the economy, politics, and social behavior of the world. If we review the rise of right-wing populist parties through the mid and late 2010s elections held all over the world, we can clearly see how their activism, politics and ideological struggles are shaping our world.

The victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton with 77 electoral college votes, Narendra Modi’s rabidly nationalist party BJP party’s victory against the Indian Congress, populist Imran Khan’s victory against his opposition, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s success against a coup attempt to overthrow his government in 2016 and his subsequent securing of the President’s seat by gaining 51 percent public votes, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom, and Angela Merkel’s election as the chancellor of Germany are evidence of how it is not only rising in Europe but all across the world.

However, its rise in European states, and generally in the West, can be seen as a critical juncture for international politics because the international power centers reside in the West and this lurch to the right is in stark contradiction to the West’s much-supported liberal values abroad. The hypocrisy is striking!

The aim of these parties and their victories is to protect the tradition, culture, religion, sovereignty, and linguistic identity of a nation, but it has had some significant impacts on the economy, immigration, and politics of a state or among the states.

Economic Crisis

The most devastating effect of the rise of right-wing politics was the global economic crisis. Neoliberal globalization or capitalism led to the financial straits of 2008 and the Eurozone crisis which had reverse effects on the global economy.

Right-wing politics emerged in contention with globalization. The rise of populist parties, far and wide, therefore, harms the global economy. This reflects the contagious nature of the global economic crisis and extends Marx’s critiques on capitalist politics. For example, due to the destabilizing effect of the oil industry in many states like Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Sudan, and Syria, these developing nations had depended, by and large, on stable oil prices during the financial crisis since the Great Depression of 1929.

Moreover, the US government pushed its housing and mortgages market and in return created financial crashes and instability. Looking at them, many other states implemented similar policies with the same results as the United States. The then US President George W. Bush signed the USD 700 billion relief for banks, corporation, and authorities to overcome the global financial crisis.

However, although the economy was stabilized, it reflected the inability of neoliberal capitalism to provide a reliable system for the world. While the big corporations were funded heavily by the US, public living standards declined.

After Trump’s election and the rise of right-wing politics in Europe, privatization, authoritarianism, and neoliberal trade further aggravated the human rights situation as witnessed in the Black Lives matter (BLM) Movement in the US; living standards have plummeted, good wages have become ever harder to come by as Bernie Sanders continuously reiterated, and uncertainty has engulfed the present and future. Right-wing populist parties woo the masses with false promises to overcome all the challenges. They cash in on a state of crisis to cement their authority.

On the other hand, European populism of is different from that of Latin America. Europe has exclusive policies that have a socio-cultural dimension, while Latin America has inclusive policies that are designed to help the poor.

The Populism practiced by Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and the United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson’s are also exclusive in nature.

In Pakistan’s political history, right-wing politics was first supported by President Zia ul Haq, against the left-wing government of the Pakistan People Party (PPP). He established Islamism as the ideology of Pakistan and institutionalized the conservative economic and foreign policies. The current Prime Minister Imran Khan has also changed his politics from the liberal left to the conservative right, has marginalized dissent and critical voices, and encouraged nationalism, Islamic ideology, and indigenous culture.

Moreover, ascendant right-wing nationalist parties in Europe and Asia are largely supported by the working and anti-elite classes due to their perceived immigration problems and their fear of cultural changes, economic instability, low wages etc., because of a refugee influx. These parties tend to be anti-refugee and pay lip service to poverty alleviation.

Democratic Public Discourse and Authoritarianism

Public discourse is essential to the development and long-term progress of a state in which people have the right to have their opinions and to voice their concerns. But some current developments are problematic for democracy.

Right-wing forces restrict freedom of expression to safeguard their own parochial interests. Whatever falls outside of this narrow ambit is considered treason- as witnessed in South Asia where critical voices against the state oppression are met with sedition charges. The suppression of dissent under these parties lays bare their authoritarian nature, which leads us to conclude that democratic public discourse and freedom of expression cannot go hand in hand with right-wing politics.

Even in the US, the Black Lives Matters movement was met with hostility by the Trump administration. In fact, Trump went out of his way to call the protestors ‘thugs.’

In the world’s most populous democracy, India, resistance broke out in Delhi when the BJP government legalized the marginalization of the Muslim community in India. In response, the government used brutal tactics against students to suppress critical voices. In Pakistan, students and academics are facing sedition charges by the state for demanding their constitutional rights.

This pattern all over the world leaves us to another conclusion: This is a systemic problem and it does not vary from state to state.

If we are to progress as a free society, we need to get rid of the right-wing politics that is pushing us back to the medieval times when any criticism of the Emperor would result in persecution – times when, in Foucault’s words, “it was forbidden to say that the emperor had no clothes.”

Today, there is an urgent need to understand that the economic crisis is due to the capitalist system. Equally, there is an urgent need to deconstruct political propaganda churned out by right-wing populists, who prey on the working and anti-elite classes by pretending to respect or care for them.

For, unless that propaganda is deconstructed and defeated, authoritarianism in the guise of right-wing populism will continue to dominate the world.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and are not reflective of Strafasia’s position.

CHINA’S STANCE IN THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CRISIS & IMPLICATIONS FOR PAKISTAN

Conflicts and wars make history, which can change the entire course of mankind. Political eras are defined by a transformation in the world order, which are rarely free of conflict. The post-9/11 era saw an international ‘war on terror’ with America dominating international relations. But in the aftermath of the 2020 pandemic and with the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, we are witnessing the rise of a competitive great power, China, and change is in the political air.

Experts believe that the Russian attack on Ukraine is a definite reassurance of transformation in the post-World War-II world order. Classical realism came back into play when Russia cited domestic security concerns as a viable reason for an offensive attack on Ukraine. With the newly blossomed China-Russia alliance against the US-led Western one, there are questions on the position of China; consequently South Asian countries are being placed in the ‘increasingly uncomfortable’ position of having to choose a side or be sandwiched in the middle like in the Cold War days.

It is important to understand some of the reasons of the current war and Chinese interests, in order to make sense of what China wants and what it is doing. The crisis escalated when, in response to the Russian demand of Ukraine not becoming a NATO member, Ukraine refused to accept any such imposition on their sovereignty. After the recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas region, Russia stated it intended to undertake the denazification of Ukraine, meaning to topple the current government in Kyiv and reshuffle the political landscape.

China on the Russia-Ukraine war:

China, despite its newly adopted wolf warrior diplomatic posture took a step back and asked President Putin to resolve the conflict through talks. This is because China is navigating a complex position, attempting to maintain a balance between ties with Russia and with its “practiced foreign policy of staunchly defending state sovereignty”.

Although both China and Russia have complementary authoritarian regimes, both are distinct nation states with separate identities. The question is, does China believes that the Russian security concerns are a legitimate reason for an all out attack or does China only want to set a precedence for its own domestic issues over Taiwan? Did abstaining from the United Nations General Assembly emergency session on the crisis mean only an opposition to the Western dominance and economic interests in Moscow?

Putin’s decision to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent means that Putin is asserting a state’s right to declare that portions of another state are independent. This can set a dangerous precedent for China on the issue of Taiwan which is viewed as a renegade province by the mainland but stands akin to the United States recognizing Taiwan as an independent country.

The situation on hand is now two fold. Of concern for China is the aspect of a foreign country’s blatant support for separatist movements in a sovereign country – particularly through military intervention. Because of China’s own separatist challenges at home, in Xinjiang and Tibet (and to a lesser extent Hong Kong), as well as its staunch opposition to any move toward Taiwan’s independence, Russia’s move in support of the separatist movements in Ukraine could set a negative precedent. The second aspect could be in favor of China, if the West shifts its attention from China to Europe. It is viewed that maybe the best-case scenario for China is the West and Russia at daggers drawn, which allows Beijing the space and time necessary to cultivate its power and influence.

Because if the latter happens, China’s domestic challenges are ignored for the moment and China has gotten the chance to once again do what it does the best; help out the financially sanctioned states. The decay of Russia’s relations with the West and imposition of Western sanctions will further push Moscow into Beijing’s orbit and allow the latter greater leverage and influence in the relationship. It has been the pattern of the US and Western allies up till now that their aggressive postures have left many unexplored opportunities which can be capitalized through economic diplomacy by great powers like China, such as in the case of Afghanistan and Iran.

 On the other side of the coin is Taiwan where the great power competition is in a very fluid state; although Taiwan maintains a stark difference in choosing sides as compared to China, by implementing strict export controls on Russia.

If China finds out that Putin’s gambit has increased Taiwan’s prominence in Washington it could make the Chinese intervention almost a certainty. Therefore, any preventive attack by China on Taiwan could trigger and challenge American power. In this hypothetical scenario, the US could either stand aside in the face of this aggression and possibly lose its credibility among the Western allies, or respond offensively on both fronts, i.e. Ukraine as well as Taiwan. The latter option would allow the US to reassure Taiwan of its support and, at the same time, deter China.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, by raising Taiwan’s profile, highlighting its contributions as a reliable U.S. partner, and increasing the probability of a US intervention on Taiwan’s behalf, sets back China’s ambitions for Taiwan. Historically, China would be again risking its aim to bring Taiwan under its control by allying with Russian in this bloody war. This either or situation could lead to an inevitable probability of war on a larger scale.

Where does Pakistan stand in the war in Europe?

In the recent visit of Pakistan’s Prime Minister to Moscow, there was talk of building of an 1,100 km gas pipeline. Although analysts are of the view that the trip was a merely ‘coincided’ with the Russian attack on Ukraine, Pakistan has to keep an eye at her own interests.

In a recent Twitter space hosted by the Islamabad based think tank IPRI, renowned Pakistani analyst Dr. Huma Burqi said that although Pakistan will be affected by the sanctions imposed on Russia, we would have to navigate our way around it. This compromise and readiness to bear the consequences of taking the Russian side does not preclude us from being a part of great power politics. Ukraine has asked India for political support and India, having strong economic ties with Russia, has ultimately maintained a neutral stance on the matter. Therefore, it should be noted that we are fooling ourselves if we keep on saying that we are not in the Chinese-Russian camp while our actions on ground are to the contrary. Furthermore, this would have an effect on our relations with the US as well as our matters in the international financial institutions. We are waiting and watching India to make a move and then we follow the lead to build up narratives.

Wars are not confined to two states; they carry ripples with them, destroying every middle or great power becoming a part of it, whether intentionally or by force. It was rightfully said by Dr. Burqi that though this is an era of multilateralism, the middle powers are much more significant players now than ever. The attack of February 25 has definitely ushered in a change in the current world order, with “national security being prioritized over sovereign rights and non-interference”. The ripple effects of the invasion will be felt far beyond the borders of Europe, with significant economic and geopolitical implications for Asia that will only become increasingly complex in nature.

NATO EXPANSION IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF UKRAINE CRISIS

NATO expansion is the root cause which triggered Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The Eastern European countries which had formerly been party to the Warsaw Pact and had remained poor under USSR influence were tempted with lucrative incentives offered by NATO. In fact, NATO was encircling Russia and squeezing it from all possible directions, having deployed their defense forces and weapons around Russian territory and creating a genuine concern for the latter.

Russia had been trying to convince the US, UK, and EU to refrain from deploying NATO forces in its neighborhood. It tried to resolve situation peacefully and through diplomatic channels for eight years, but the West did not bother with it. The Second Minsk Agreement was a document aimed at resolving the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. It was agreed to on February 11-12, 2015 at a summit in Minsk by the leaders of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia in the Normandy Four format, and was signed by the Contact Group for the Peaceful Settlement of the Situation in Eastern Ukraine, consisting of representatives of Ukraine, Russia, the OSCE and the unrecognized Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Later, the Minsk agreements were approved by a special resolution of the UN Security Council. However, since the signing of the Minsk agreements, not one of their points has been implemented by the Ukrainian side.

Western countries pushed the Ukrainians to avoid implementing these agreements as they needed another hot spot close to Russia. And they were continuing to train Nazis, indoctrinating an anti-Russian policy and killing civilians, including children, women and the elderly.  

The Western media has launched a massive campaign against Russia, distorting facts, spreading fake news, and malign narratives and fueling the situation. The current irresponsible actions and statements from the EU, the UK, and the US have forced President Putin to put his nukes on high alert. The ill-motivated policy of arming civilians for a guerrilla war has also forced Russia to target the civil population in Ukraine. Initially, Russia was avoiding collateral damage and was focused only on command and control of security forces, but, with the distribution of arms to civilians, the targets of Russian forces grew to include the civilian population too.

War is never appreciated in any part of world. The loss of human lives is regretted; whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine etc., all human beings are same and deserve equal respect. In fact, human beings are the most precious thing in this universe and must be respected, protected and taken good care of, irrespective of race, nationality, religion and ethnicity. All humankind is equal and all mothers bear the same pains.

Events during the past few months constituted the last chance to avoid a hot war in Eastern Europe. Putin demanded that NATO provide guarantees on several security issues. Specifically, the Kremlin wanted binding assurances that the alliance would reduce the scope of its growing military presence in Eastern Europe and would never offer membership to Ukraine. He backed up those demands with a massive military buildup on Ukraine’s borders. The Biden administration’s response to Russia’s quest for meaningful Western concessions and security guarantees was tepid and evasive. Putin then clearly decided to escalate matters. Washington’s attempt to make Ukraine a NATO political and military pawn (even absent the country’s formal membership in the alliance) may end up costing the Ukrainian people dearly.

History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that NATO expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps violent, breach of relations with Moscow. Perceptive analysts warned of the likely consequences, but those warnings went unheeded. The world is now paying the price for the U.S. foreign policy establishment’s myopia and arrogance.

FUTURE OF S-400 DEAL AFTER INDIAN ABSTENTIONS ON THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT

Nothing in the world of international affairs happens in isolation, nor should it be analyzed as such. Turkey had found itself in a situation similar to the one India finds itself in currently. For the former, it was being caught between the US F-35 and the Russian S-400 Surface to Air Missile (SAM) system. Turkey, having decided to exercise its right to choose as a sovereign state, moved forward with its S-400 purchase; its status as a NATO member gave rise to legitimate concern that a Russian weapons system integrating with the F-35 would be undesirable. India finds itself on the precipice of the same cliff; the ‘net security provider’ for the ‘Indo-pacific’ and a major pillar of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, it had positioned itself as the USA’s biggest ally but it also sought to buy the same Russian S-400 that had resulted in sanctions on Turkey.

The US sanctioned Turkey its decision to purchase the S-400 and that decision spoke volumes on how, if a state’s action did not coincide with the interests of the US, there would be repercussions. It also brings brought into consideration the fact that favorable treatment being meted out was only till it served their strategic needs. At one point, it was believed that a waiver could be given to Turkey as it was a NATO member, but that never materialized. Similarly, there is a widely held belief that India will get a waiver for the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) as there seems to be bipartisanship consensus on the matter; a handful of lawmakers had written to the President as well in this regard, as the decision rests solely with him. No final decision has been taken so far, as said by Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia.

This was the understanding before February 2022. Then, Russia attacked Ukraine and the chances of a waiver might be diminishing, if it were to materialise at all. Before the Russian attack on Ukraine, one S-400 battery had been delivered to India and was being prepared for proper deployment in its Punjab province, bordering Pakistan. That battery has not been made operational yet, even though it was expected to become active in early 2022; and the future of the remaining four could be bleaker if India chooses to fulfill its Indo Pacific Strategy duties. Whether that will happen or not is debatable.

India abstained from multiple votes in the international rules based order (UNSC, UNGA and UNHRC) resolutions that condemned the ‘Russian invasion’ and urged the cessation of all such activities, despite calls by US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, to convince the Indian leadership otherwise. An abstention means choosing not to vote, but in the realm of great power politics and an anarchic realist world it means more than that. An abstention is in many ways a tacit step towards the other side. It is analogous to someone calling you in the heat of battle for assistance, and you respond with ‘No, I am a bit busy, maybe tomorrow.’ The US would be much more vigilant on India now, monitoring all its military purchases even more carefully and observing with a finer eye if it really can do what the US wants it to do against China. The reason being that even with China, India has a longstanding history of bilateral trade; the figure stood at more than $125 billion USD in 2021 and this translates into a major Indian interest that could deter it from taking major decisions which would do away with the economic benefit it is reaping.

For a long time, India has still tried to manage this balancing act between eagle and bear. It indefinitely postponed, for the time being, the DefExpo2022 citing logistical issues. However, a look at the exhibitors, invited companies, and planned events clearly lays bare power politics rearing its head. Foreign exhibitors were expected from the US, Russia, France, and Israel. Also, a bilateral military industry conference with Russia was planned to take place during the event, which would have been attended by top defense ministry officials. The optics and the message that it would have given, as well as the chances of Western exhibitors expressing discomfort in attending alongside Russian ones, seem like more probable causes for postponement than the stated logistical concerns. The chances of this are high, as Russian participation in many Western platforms has since been banned; even Russian cats have not been spared and may no longer participate in international competition.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, with his call to India before the UN vote, showed that India will be facing similar pressures in future situations, including continuing with its S-400 purchase. This demand to India of taking the US side and pushing itself away from Russia was echoed by Donald Lu, when he said that “India is a really important security partner of ours now…we value moving forward that partnership and I hope that part of what happens with the extreme criticism that Russia has faced is that India will find it’s now time to further distances.” This creates an image where the security partnership is contingent on India distancing itself from Russia, meaning that India’s balancing act has a time limit.

When the balancing ceases, and regardless of the side India finds itself on, it will present some very important changes in the strategic environment surrounding Pakistan, such that must be explored in comprehensive depth. In a broad sense, there would be opportunities to enhance ties with Russia further and increase collaboration in different sectors where space is left by India, or move freely without having India propped up as the security provider of the region receiving waivers and preferential treatment.

Keeping the S-400 deal and the India-Russia longstanding ties in context, the Russian Envoy-designate to India Denis Alipov said that the new sanctions on Russia will not affect the S-400 deal and that it should stay on track. For this to be true, India would have to utilize alternate modes or channels of payments if it seeks to continue with this defense acquisition, since major international payment systems have been restricted and financial transactions with Russia are now more difficult. The chances of continuing with the S-400 system are more than India living up to what the US dreamed for it to be. Vice Chief Air Marshal Sandeep Singh of the Indian Air Force said. “We know the geopolitical situation is difficult (currently). Our relations with Russia will continue.”

When the world is viewed and operated as a zero-sum game where power balancing is done regularly, a refusal to say ‘yes’ means an implied ‘no’. Pakistan was most familiarized with this notion through the famous ‘You are with us or against us’ phone call. The way events have shaped up suggests that India might be finding itself in that situation, having to make a clear choice. The phone calls India received from the US before those votes substantiates this idea. Push might come to shove at a certain point. The possibility of India falling on the Russian side seems higher if the IAF Vice Chief’s statement is kept in mind and the fact that the cancellation of defense exhibition might carry less weight than multiple abstentions, first at the UNSC, then the UNGA, and then at the UNHRC. This tips the scale towards the sanctioning end rather than the waiver end for the US envoking CAATSA against India. India faced a test, to rise up to the challenge and stand by the US, and it chose to remain home. This can very easily initiate a rethink of what the US envisions for India and it has probably already begun. One thing is most likely certain: the balancing act would predictably be coming to an end. Thus, policy experts, lawmakers, and concerned military officials should make themselves aware of the probable outcomes touched upon above and prepare themselves accordingly in order to extract the most benefit from the regional strategic environment that could be changing soon as a consequence of the Russian attack on Ukraine.

CRITICAL TERRORISM STUDIES: A WAY FORWARD?

Post 9/11 developments were a significant temporal juncture for the emergence of critical terrorism scholarship/studies (CTS) in the world. Traditional terrorism studies (TTS) had proven unable to predict the attacks of 11th September 2001, and could not possibly deal with the modern forms of conflict/terrorism involving warring parties using a disproportionate amount of force. This gap in the knowledge warranted innovation in existing theoretical frameworks, to make sense of the causes leading to the conflict.

Since the 1990s the terrorism studies arena has been dominated by the conventional terrorism studies strand that has inherent methodological, political and epistemological problems. As an insight effectively narrates, “the terrorism scholarship was innocent of methodology”. Traditional security studies have been saturated by militaristic, security centered approaches which perpetuated state narratives of the event and the subsequent agenda based policy prescriptions.

The early TTS scholarship was politically biased, lacked methodological rigor and was of short term imminent efficacy, rather than offering a deeper insight into the context of the conflict. It was accused of creating dichotomies of ‘good’ versus ‘evil’, and peddling historicized and depoliticized accounts of the events in question. In the case of 9/11, this involved a portrayal of American innocence, ignoring its history of perpetuating overt wars, covert operations primarily intended to destabilize regimes, funding anti-state elements in states, and creating a new class of war benefiters to prolonging conflicts for profit. All this kept the Military Industrial Complex a well-oiled machine, churning death and chaos.

This American self-exclusion from the disasters of their own making led to bypassing an opportunity to find the root causes of the conflict, and jumping on the problem solving band wagon with policy action. Academic legitimacy was also a cause of contention for its traditional approaches to terrorism studies, owing to the research-based fact that the majority of literature produced in this strand was by ‘one off-ers’ hailing from eclectic backgrounds and a myriad of research disciplines. These intellectuals who had their go at feeding the discipline in infancy did not have substantial expertise to broach these subjects, thereby bringing the legitimacy of their authorship in question. In the absence of alternative knowledge, the same old normative ideas were perpetuated, which led to a saturation induced replication in the knowledge base. The substance of orthodox terrorism studies was also mired in the problem of relying on secondary data sources, rather than primary interviews conducted at the site of conflict and of people who were actually affected. The spatial proximity between the researcher and the researched was created through the analysis of texts, books and every option besides actual field work, compromising the purpose of the enquiry itself.

Critical strands thus emerged as a rebel crew of academic scholarship that focused on intellectual caveats produced through the nature of traditional terrorism scholarship. The traditional approach was a top down enforcement of status quo ideas, while the critical terrorism stand took the bottom up approach and used an individualistic turn to explain the phenomena. The scholarship questioned the social and power dimensions of the discourses in terrorism studies and the categories and labels that perpetuate power. They inquired into the frames of reference that generated the militaristic, security-centered approaches, and the context of the events which led to the point of conflict came to light. Critical terrorism studies integrated theoretical insights from psychology, sociology, anthropology, gender studies, peace and conflict studies, medical science, etc. The reflective capacity of the critical terrorism strand made it popular and relevant in the game. CTS redefined the term “terrorism” itself and explored the marginalization, the lack of freedom, and depravity-induced grievances. It investigated the construct of “terrorism” itself and explored the question of what went into making a terrorist. This critical scholarship adds nuance to the lithified understanding of the concept as well and helps in seeing beyond stereotypes.

The Princeton Press published a case study called “The Engineers of Jihad” which focused on the symbolic sociological variables during the life histories of people who chose to become terrorists. The historicizing and politicization of the actor and the act itself diagnoses the problem from its roots and informs a nuanced explanation of both sides of the coin, i.e. the victim and the oppressor. The scholars hence negate the problem-solving efficacy of traditional terrorism studies by presenting alternative accounts of events; they also raise the possibility of counterinsurgency programs being ineffective without an iota of information about the background of the event, and mention that maybe political reformation will do the necessary. The use of suspected communities in place of the wholesale categorical labeling of terrorists was suggested by scholars, instead of demonizing the whole populate. Scholars questioned the possibility of state oppression qualifying as terrorism. The labels of “Islamic terrorism” and “terrorists” have been deconstructed by the critical terrorism scholars and it negates the “few labels” problem of traditional terrorism studies.

By being qualitatively more eclectic and intricate in nature, the critical scholarship faces a setback by being less policy relevant. The traditional terrorism scholarship, with all its problems, could act on imminent basis with policy outcomes (valid or invalid), instead of questioning its stance. It would have diffused the purpose of this scholarship.  The other foundational problem in critical studies also critiques its emancipatory stance, which has strong colonial undertones and is an issue in itself. However, the reflexivity of critical terrorism scholarship, coupled with practicality offered by terrorism scholarship, can lead terrorism scholarship on right path by contextualizing the conflict and creating objectives for solving the problem. Hence, critical terrorism studies in a supportive stance can move from the narrative capacity into the action research, and an integrated frame work can be more effective.

A Common Market, the Muslim World and the Way Forward

Regional groupings such as common markets are a salient feature of the contemporary international economic system. This essay argues the need for greater economic co-operation between Muslim states which, over time, would result in a common market for the Muslim world.

The emergence of contemporary regional groupings in the international economic system is largely a product of the post-World War II period. The disarray of the world economic system caused by the major destruction of production facilities and the disruption of established trade patterns during the war, in addition to the desire to eliminate traditional national rivalries and antagonisms, gave a strong impetus to form integrative regimes on a regional level as a deterrent against military aggression and an instrument of economic growth and development.

Moreover, since the demise of Communism, the advancement of the political agenda and foreign policy of states has become increasingly subservient to economic and trade interests. It would, therefore, be accurate to note that the interests of different states are ever more dependent on economic factors, the latter having likewise contributed to the emergence of regional economic groupings that have become a key feature of the international economic system over time.

A common market is an example of a regional economic grouping. By definition, a common market is a high-level economic arrangement wherein participant member states agree to abolish all tariffs on exports from other member states, follow a common tariff policy towards their imports from the rest of the world and allow the free flow of commodities in addition to productive factors: capital, labour, entrepreneurs and technology within the common market, as they would freely move around within a single state. Hence, various obstructions of national borders and trade barriers are removed which states would otherwise be subject to.

The benefits of a common market are not limited to the state level but are of considerable benefit to businesses and citizens too. A common market allows free movement for citizens between states so that they can move, live, study, work and retire in the territory of any participating member state of the common market. Businesses also have access to more consumers in a wider market and, consequently, consumers enjoyed products and goods from all participating states.

Importantly, the notion of a common market comprised of Muslim states is by no means a recent innovation. The idea was advocated at the Second Islamic Summit Conference in 1974 which was attended by ten heads of Muslim states and a high-level delegation from another fourteen Muslim states. At the summit, the participating states mutually agreed that the establishment of a common market could at best serve as a long-term objective for which the participating states could aim to achieve over time. The calls for establishing a common market of Muslim states have been repeated various times since. In 1997, the Eighth Islamic Summit held in Tehran reaffirmed the necessity of a common market of Muslim states which would effectively be a profound step towards strengthening Muslim solidarity. Also, the Joint Declaration adopted at the Extraordinary Meeting of OIC heads of states in Makkah (2005) identified the economic challenge as the cornerstone to be able to address the political issues that are facing the Muslim world at large.

Practically, however, a common market requires the merging and amalgamation of the varying economic systems of participating member states to achieve the aim of a common market. This could prove to be a difficult step at present, given the current political climate and ideological differences between potential participating member states; hence, the unification of diverse economic systems would prove to be substantially more difficult in practice than in theory.

The prospect of achieving a common market in the long-term could be boosted if economic, agricultural and industrial co-operation is established and strengthened on a regional basis. This would start as a basis of deepening economic co-operation between participating states which would evolve to form a common market between individual regional groupings. A major hurdle here lies in the requirement of political will to engage in further regional economic co-operation, albeit on a lesser scale than the formation of a common market without going through a process of deepening economic co-operation over a longer time-frame. 

The current international trade system permits WTO members to form regional FTAs (Free Trade Areas) under Article XXIV of the GATT, so long as certain conditions are met. An FTA is formed when a collective group of states agrees not to impose tariffs or quotas on trade in goods between them, with the potential of the arrangement to extend to some liberalisation of trade in services. However, most FTAs do not provide for the free movement of individuals between participating states.  Essentially, the establishment and consequential strengthening of regional economic co-operation would enhance the possibility of a merging of various FTA’s over time into an eventual common market between participating member states.

Although the task of forming a common market of Muslim states is formidable and may seem a step too far at this stage due to the demands of substantial economic integration, the potential of regional FTAs nevertheless mitigates the problems that could arise from the integration of diverse economic systems in less time by allowing for a steady amalgamation of economic systems at a reduced yet sustained pace. Consequently, the establishment and strengthening of regional RTAs transform the dream of a common market of Muslim states into a reality that is to be witnessed in the coming years.

The World in Disarray

Once Alexander the Great captured a pirate and told him, “How you dare molest the sea”. The pirate replied,“How do you dare molest the whole world?”. He added, “Because I do it with only a little ship, I am called a thief; while you do it with a huge navy and are called an Emperor.” The shrewd pirate dared to speak against the most powerful person of the time. Today, his perspective holds value. Is it really a matter of reason or rationale, or is it about the pirate’s intention who dared to question the Emperor’s authority?

In the contemporary world as well, the so-called ruled-based order established after the disintegration of the Soviet Union has been under discussion after the invisibility of rule of law across the globe. The idea of the End of History put forward by Francis Fukuyama was supposed to champion the real ideals of the rules-based order. However, we see the world is going in the opposite direction. Indeed, democracy and institutionalism coupled with globalization, dependency, and connectivity prevailed throughout this time; yet these things only become a tool of the powerful to exploit weaker countries. So, we can extract from the aforementioned example that weak countries are not always wrong when they are being sidelined in every decision-making process, especially in contemporary geopolitics.

The recent decision by the US to put Pakistan, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and other smaller countries on the human rights watchlist, while neglecting Indian violations against Muslim minorities across the country (including in IOJ&K) and Israel’s human rights violations in the Palestinian territory, exactly replicate the story of the pirate and Alexander the Great. Indeed, these are the possible demarcations for new geopolitical alliances because Washington sees these countries with the lens of their interests rather than on a factual basis. In the previous Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, democracy was a vibrant tool against opponents. Thus, the securitization of human rights issues seems to be a new tool of the inevitable Cold War 2.0 between the US and China.

Furthermore, The United Nations (UN), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Court of justice (ICJ), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organizations (WTO), Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and countless other similar organizations are increasingly becoming irrelevant. The UN’s irrelevancy can be seen in the actions against Global Warming, where it is unable for the last 3 decades to unite the world against this non-traditional threat. It is just a major thing where the interests of all countries could converge, yet it miserably failed on this front. Just put aside its inability in addressing traditional security matters for which it was created. A similar situation is happening with the ICC, ICJ, and IMF, and FATF as well where the politicization of these institutions is a huge blow to this liberal world order.

Apart from these, the incident of 9/11, the global recession of 2008, and now the global pandemic of Covid-19 has unveiled the peculiarities of this fragile global system. Global politics is completely restricted to national boundaries where little to no cooperation is seen at the international level, especially in the last two decades. What if the globe had leadership as it had in the past? According to Yuval Noah Harari, it was the responsibility of global leadership to take timely actions against the pandemic, but they didn’t do so. It means that it is a lack of non-cooperation due to which the tiny virus spread across the globe.

We should ask ourselves, and also those who advocated for the rule-based order: is this the order for which the world fought for forty-six years in the name of the Cold War? In other words, the world fought for four and a half decades so that the best global system could emerge. And indeed, the liberal world order emerged, but it is polarized and dismembered. If this system didn’t work, then what system do we want for ourselves? A new global system? Who would make sure that the new global system will work out? Would that be free of cyber threats?

Amid this global disarray, the global leadership is still divided. Rather than working on rationality, reasons, and areas of convergence (i.e., global warming, terrorism, poverty, unemployment, and so on), today’s leaders are on a destiny of dividing the world further. Lets suppose, Cold War 2.0 begins between the US and China, how would global issues be resolved? Wouldn’t all these things make the situation further deteriorate, especially for future generations? As today we say that post-WWII leadership has given us the UN so that we can work collaboratively and do not repeat mistakes of the past. What would the future generations say when we give them a world where increasing climate change, declining rationality, and threatening private security are in danger all along?

Instead of getting back to the borders under the umbrella of nationalism, the same global order should be reformed. Instead of waiting for another major outbreak in the form of World War III, the world should proactively decide to make the world more prosperous. It could be done by reforming the Wilsonian idea of International Organizations where it should lead the world rather than the powerful should direct its course as it’s happening in today’s time. Instead of getting entangled in another Cold War for the next couple of decades, the world leaders should decide to go along so that global issues could be unanimously resolved.

The world is like a large ship where around 200 small boats are operating. Instead of playing the blame-game like a pirate and Alexander, all should realize that no one is perfect; thus they should work for the betterment of this huge ship. Instead of blaming pirates (small countries) for molesting the sea (world), the global leadership should make themselves accountable by realizing that they cannot be right all the time and must not act like Alexander the Great. It would be in the interest of all to save this single large ship; only then will other small boats be able to operate securely, otherwise everything would be lost. It is a time for the world to become ‘us’ rather than ‘I’ or ‘you’. Therefore, cooperation is the only way forward for securing peace and prosperity in the world.

To quote J.F Kennedy;

“However close sometimes we seem to that dark and final abyss, let no man of peace and prosperity despair. For he does not stand alone. Together we shall save the planet, or together we shall perish in its flames. Save it we can – and save it we must – and then shall we earn the eternal thanks of mankind and as peacemakers, the eternal blessing of God.”

Curing Afghanistan’s Chronic Instability with the SCO

Afghanistan stands at a crucial juncture, where there is an opportunity to emerge from the abyss of corruption, instability, and sustained conflict after the US withdrawal. With the formation of a Taliban government and the lofty claims of change associated with it, there is much to be addressed in order to ensure a positive ending to the Afghan story. In that light, Afghanistan will be suffering from two vectors of instability unless remedial action is taken on the regional and global levels. A mindset of narrow self-interests and a strategic vacuum after the US withdrawal can plague any prospects of Afghanistan’s ability to move towards normalization and prosperity.

Chronic Instability.     History shows that Afghanistan has witnessed prioritization of self-interest, tribal interests, or the use of warlords and ‘big men’ as proxies for furthering external interests over the national interest. This was observed with the coup of 1973 led by Daud Shah against King Zahir Shah. Ever since, in the last six decades, faction after faction has worked to serve either its own interests or the perceived interests of external powers. That is the life that the past three generations of Afghan people have known: the repeating plot of instability, chaos, and neglect of national interest.

Stability or any form of a united front in the history of Afghanistan has been due to the banding together of ‘big men’. Warlords and influential Afghans have functioned as local lords with soldiers loyal only to them. The Afghan Army also consisted of Generals that were essentially warlords in modern military uniform. When the Taliban offensive picked up pace, the Afghan government also relied on the political and military support of big names like Dostum and Masoud to give it a fighting chance, as the Afghan Army may have lacked the essential unity and purpose that other nation-state armies possess. 

The power held by influential Afghans and their ability to unleash unrest at the snap of a finger was also observed in the time before the unity government of Afghanistan in September, 2014. The relative peace at this time and the Taliban’s ascension to power this year seemed to have been made possible after consultation with and agreements between figures such as Hekmatyar, Abdullah Abdullah and Karzai. Yet, they have not been made part of the interim government and there is a lack of disruption from their end.

The silence from these and other such key figures of Afghan politics is unlike previous instances in Afghanistan’s history, and indicates that the Taliban could have consolidated power with them through another incentive. Another possibility is that these men are waiting to see if promises are kept, or they could be biding their time for an opportune moment to take a stand. Regardless of what was agreed between them and the Taliban, allegiances and aligned interests can always change at the drop of a hat. Therefore, a regional, concerted, and collective approach would be required to avoid or atleast minimize any spoilers for stability and prosperity.

Floating in a Strategic Vacuum.         Moving forward, the hasty American pullout from Afghanistan that ended its longest war ever did not do any favours to the repeated cycle of insecurity and instability. The gruesome and saddening scenes that came out of it should and could have been avoided, but they were not surprising. A lack of care for the global south and treatment of allies as disposable entities is a common feature in US foreign engagements. With that said, there is more to the picture of US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

America’s departure from Afghanistan has left a vacuum that indicates a larger retraction from the region. In a speech defending the withdrawal, President Biden stated that “This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It is about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.”

A shift from a decades’ long foreign policy can also be observed practically with the removal of the Patriot antimissile batteries from its Middle Eastern allies as well. The US does retain bases and soldiers in those countries, but the degree and intensity of military posturing has changed. This larger power vacuum in the region creates fertile ground for a tussle for influence, with the potential of creating spill over instability for Afghanistan’s neighbors. A regional consensus and subsequent actions could avoid that possibility.

Utilization of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.       The Afghan Taliban face a famine of legitimacy and economic support. As terrible as that is, it can be an opportunity if seen through a pragmatic lens. Through various statements, the Taliban have shown themselves to be desirous of state legitimacy and economic support.

A regional approach for the stability and prosperity of Afghanistan allows for an outcome that is greater than the sum of its parts; working in conjunction with regional states will have a larger impact factor than individual state efforts. The JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal) serves as an example of how collective and concerted efforts can be fruitful. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, provides that option for the countries surrounding Afghanistan. This approach was rightfully echoed by heads of state at the SCO Summit in September 2021, in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

An Active SCO.           SCO, as the most relevant regional body, should act to propel the region towards prosperity and stability. That involves actively working with the Taliban government, monitoring progress, and ensuring follow-through for sustained progress on the determined goals and objectives of the SCO as well as those of the international community. The following measures can be taken in this regard:

  • SCO states, through a joint agreement under the auspices of the organization, could work with the Taliban for an inclusive government. The Taliban could be given joint recognition from the SCO member states, which could be conditional on the formation of a government that represents the complex ethnic composition of Afghanistan.
  • The roadmap economic humanitarian assistance can be ingrained in the same agreement.
  • SCO states can establish a mutually agreed upon joint mechanism of monitoring whether the Taliban are living up to their claim of not allowing any terrorist entities to operate from their territory. A more in-depth form of intelligence sharing can also be included to help both the SCO states and Afghanistan deal with terrorist outfits.
  • The SCO can use its platform for directing economic investment and shaping a more pragmatic approach towards Afghanistan from the global community so that a humanitarian crisis and economic collapse can be averted.

The multi-faceted approach suggested above to work pragmatically with the new reality in Afghanistan could provide the damage control needed at this critical time. It will also create a conducive environment for the new Afghan government to effectively deal with its plethora of woes. Let it be an Afghan Owned, Afghan Led, and regionally buttressed process.

Rise of Radical Islam and Implications for Pakistan

It is believed that dissection of humanity on religious or sectarian basis has resulted in the religious prejudices and misinterpretation or misconception of the idea of holy war in the world in general and Pakistan in particular. This dissection led to intolerance and extremism in the society. This violent extremism has brought Pakistan at crossroads where its socio-political peace is seriously threatened. Only peace can bring harmony in society, whereas violence, fear and destruction lead to insecurity, stress and weakening of different institutions.

The phenomenon of radicalism leading to terrorism is not new, it dates back to the known history of mankind and recent past has witnessed it more persistently and commonly; like Alexander the great, Romans, Europeans and Hitler massacred people in millions on one pretext or the other. Though many states and regions such as Iraq, Syria and Middle East and Europe are experiencing this menace, Pakistan being at the forefront of war against terrorism is facing the worst of its kinds.

Conceptions based on radical Islam and extremism leading to terrorism has become transnational as well as trans-regional phenomenon, embodying many complex dimensions and including complicated networks. Certain areas in Pakistan have acted as safe havens for the extremist ideology holders, who have created franchises like Tehrik Taliban Pakistan. The unsettled issues like Kashmir have paved way for the spread of these ideologies and instigating common people in the name of religious beliefs and holy war. The inculcation of such ideologies has been one root cause of the spreading Islamic radicalism leading to violent terrorism.

Rise of the radical Islam began during Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. The presence and involvement of Arabs especially the Egyptian runaways like Al-Zawahiri played their part in radicalizing local Islam with Salafi Ideals. This type of radicalism use viciousness, which perceive as heavenly commanded resolutions, generally aiming and targeting broad class and category of adversaries to make extensive deviations. This radicalism is becoming the major threat to Pakistan’s integrity. Extremist acts executed by different extremist religious groups have tarnished Pakistan’s image and resulted in the loss of numerous innocent lives.

It is widely believed that US unjust policies especially against Muslims are the primary reason for increase in this type of extremism and if US forces leave Afghanistan, it would result into substantial reduction in the militancy in Pakistan. Sectarian divide has also been a main cause of extremism in Pakistan. Politically influenced religious sectarian biased parties like Sipah-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Shahba have been responsible for repeated killing of leaders of their rival groups on one pretext or the other. These incidents have sparked chain killings and breakdown of law, peace and order within country’s major cities. Inimical forces hostile to the existence of Pakistan are funding and arming the rival factions to destroy the very fabric of national unity.

Ethnic violence also remained a main influencing feature in Pakistani politics. Karachi, the business hub, became the main focal point and target of racial clatters. In early 90s, with the vicious activities of Muhajir Quami Movement (MQM), using violent methods, the law enforcement and other state of affairs. Religious radicalism has its pedigrees and roots in a fanatical type and variety of Islam. Ideology is the main encouraging and motivating factor behind the present rise of fanaticism in the society. Wahhabi and Salafi ideologies/ schools of thought are more uncompromising and therefore responsible toward encouraging radicalism and militancy. Al-Qaeda, Taliban and their affiliated clusters, operating in Pakistan, get their inspiration ideologically from Wahhabi and related versions of the religion. As opposed to Sufism, Jihad is central to their ideology, so they are the source of extremism.

Religious radicalism has progressively extended its origins and amplified hallmark on the general public. The fact is of serious apprehension that it is being patronized, schemed and supported by politically affiliated religiously oriented parties. Pakistani Muslim masses are simple, and spiritually and religiously inclined. Pakistani Muslims can be manipulated effortlessly on the religion related issues by different religion-oriented parties very well. Over the period of time these religious groups have progressed and manipulated the Pakistani culture and social order.

Right after independence, the religious parties began during early days from a position of low profile, but their influence slowly and gradually expanded taking benefit of the historic and disastrous events like 9/11, Afghan religious fight (Jihad), US offensive against Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased religious extremism, sectarian disharmony, sub-nationalism/ separatist tendencies, unchecked corruption, weak governance, diminished writ of the government, power struggle between political parties at the cost of national interest, societal divides on various accounts, plummeting poverty line, constitutional inadequacies, judiciary-government confrontation and concerns for regime security will lead to the weakening of the state, economic collapse and social breakdown on internal front. Widening gulf between rural deprivations and urban opulence by giving whip to internal dissensions and fissures triggering clash between under-privileged and affluent, hence engulfing the country into wide spread anarchy and large scale civil disturbances. Successive governments have not been able to evolve any clear national purpose which have left Pakistani nation directionless.

After decades of imposed war fighting on radicalism and militancy Pakistan is turned into a frightening economic reality for public. Above bleak situation is intensified further because of worsened law and order state. Government has failed to establish its writ through most of the places of Pakistan. Downfall of prevailing socio-economic conditions and public unrest is exceedingly signified day to day living of the poor populace of the country.

For Pakistan, this state of affairs has bestowed serious challenges as well as enormous openings. Pakistan emerged out of isolation but still fighting to mend its security as well as economy. However, local militancy, radicalism and terrorism, having links with foreign groups has dawned upon us a grim security scenario. To enable us to efficiently counter extremism and militancy in Pakistan, it is necessary to tackle with it only in a properly planned and a thought-out manner, also taking the complete nation along. The response towards extremism and militancy should be comprehensive catering for all dimensions including social, military, political and economic.