Tag: Asia

Is Gen Z Pakistan Becoming a Security Issue?

As societies evolve, they are composed of diverse generations, each shaped by the distinct social, economic, and technological environments they grew up in. These generational differences often create varying worldviews, values, and behaviors, which require effective management to maintain social cohesion. Without a well-structured social control system that addresses the needs and expectations of each generation, societies risk unrest, tension, and fragmentation.

Generation Z (Gen Z), the cohort born between 1997 and 2012, is navigating an increasingly complex world. In Pakistan, their challenges are exacerbated by the country’s political instability, economic hardships, and social inequalities. The digital age has further shaped this generation, which is the first to have been raised entirely in an environment of social media, instant access to information, and global connectivity. These circumstances have amplified their awareness of issues such as climate change, political corruption, and economic injustice. However, there is a growing concern that Pakistan’s Gen Z is becoming increasingly frustrated, leading to disillusionment and potential civil unrest.

Gen Z is entering adulthood in a time of profound economic uncertainty in Pakistan. With an unemployment rate hovering among the highest in South Asia, Pakistan’s youth face significant challenges in finding stable employment. According to recent data, 63% of Pakistan’s population is under 30. This youth bulge, if not properly managed, could become a source of frustration. The table (1) highlights Pakistan’s large youth population, and on the other hand the Gini coefficient of 33.5, illustrates the stark economic inequalities within the country. These inequalities have left many young people feeling hopeless, as they struggle to access education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. Political disillusionment is a widespread issue among Pakistan’s Gen Z. Growing up in an era marked by political corruption, instability, and unfulfilled promises, many young people have become cynical about the political process. Pakistan’s political systems must adapt to the specific concerns of Gen Z, particularly in terms of political transparency, accountability, and digital governance.

Table (1) showing population of less than 30 years and above 30 years for selected countries.

The Gini Index is added to show distribution of wealth in respective countries

 

Rank Country Total Population Less than 30 Years (%) Above 30 to Less than 50 Years (%) Gini Index
1 China 1,412 million 36.00% 30.20% 46.5
2 India 1,408 million 50.00% 29.50% 35.7
3 United States 336 million 39.50% 27.60% 41.5
4 Indonesia 281 million 48.20% 28.80% 38.2
5 Pakistan 247 million 63.00% 21.10% 33.5
6 Nigeria 231 million 66.50% 20.50% 35.1
7 Brazil 218 million 42.80% 29.60% 53.4
8 Bangladesh 172 million 52.00% 28.00% 32.4
9 Russia 144 million 32.40% 29.60% 37.5
10 Mexico 129 million 47.50% 29.10% 45.4

To understand the motivations of Gen Z in Pakistan, it is helpful to examine generation theory, a sociological framework that explains how generational cohorts are shaped by the unique historical, social, and technological events that occur during their formative years. Sociologist Karl Mannheim first introduced the concept of “generations” as social constructs in his 1923 essay “The Problem of Generations.” Mannheim, argues that each generation develops a distinct worldview shaped by the social, political, and technological context of their upbringing. The theory has been expanded over the years by scholars like William Strauss and Neil Howe, who introduced the idea of cyclical generational archetypes in their book Generations: The History of America’s Future.

Table (2) summarizing the recent human generations, their time periods

and defining characteristics

 

Generation Name Time Period Age in 2024 Defining Characteristics / Driving Force
Silent Generation 1928 – 1945 96 Post-WWII era, traditional values, focus on stability, hard work, and economic recovery.
Baby Boomers 1946 – 1964 79 Post-war optimism, economic prosperity, rise of consumerism, civil rights movements, and Cold War tension.
Generation X 1965 – 1980 59 End of Cold War, rise of technology, increased globalization, skepticism of institutions, independence.
Millennials/ Gen Y 1981 – 1996 43 Internet and technology revolution, social media, economic recessions, focus on work-life balance.
Zoomers / Gen Z 1997 – 2012 27 Digital natives, social justice movements, climate change awareness, instant access to information.
Generation Alpha 2013 – Present 11 Immersed in technology from birth, AI integration, personalized digital experiences, environmental focus.

The Gen Z can be understood as a “Civic” generation—one that comes of age during a period of institutional decline and economic hardship. Civic generations are known for their pragmatism, activism, and desire for systemic change, which is evident in the way Gen Z in Pakistan engages with political and social issues. However, when their concerns are not addressed, Civic generations can become disillusioned and alienated.

Role of Governments in Misunderstanding Generational Motivations

Historically, governments have often failed to understand and address the specific needs and motivations of each generation, leading to political and social stress. In Pakistan, successive governments have struggled to adapt to the changing concerns of younger generations, from the Baby Boomers to Gen Z. This failure to adapt has contributed to a growing sense of disillusionment among the youth.

The Silent Generation (1928 – 1945) grew up during the formative years of the country’s independence. Shaped by the trauma of Partition and the desire for national stability, this generation valued traditional structures such as family, religion, and community. Pakistan’s political leadership, particularly during the regimes of the 1960s and 1970s, often failed to preserve the social and economic stability that this generation sought, but as this generation was focused on economic recovery, the social stress did not crossed the unrest lines. As the Silent Generation aged, their concerns shifted toward economic security and healthcare. However, the lack of a comprehensive social safety net in Pakistan has left many elderly citizens vulnerable, leading to frustration and dissatisfaction among older generations.

The second generation of Pakistanis forming Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) came of age during a period of nation-building and political instability. Having witnessed the wars with India, the creation of Bangladesh, and multiple military regimes, this generation is deeply concerned with economic security and healthcare. Yet, successive governments in Pakistan have failed to provide adequate social services for the aging Baby Boomers, particularly in terms of pensions and healthcare. The Baby Boomers feel left behind by the rapid pace of technological change and urbanization. The lack of digital literacy programs for older generations has further alienated them from the modern economy, creating generational tensions with younger, more tech-savvy generation. Generation X (1965 – 1980) in Pakistan came of age during a period of political turbulence, with frequent military coups and shifting economic fortunes. This generation is characterized by skepticism of authority and a desire for political stability and economic security. However, Pakistan’s political systems have failed to provide the transparency and accountability that Generation X demands. The recent rise of political movement resonate with many Generation X individuals, reflects their frustration with corruption and political mismanagement. However, the lack of meaningful reform has led to disillusionment among this generation, many of whom have grown weary of the political process and take refuge in immigrating from the country.

Millennials (1981 – 1996) in Pakistan have grown up in an era defined by the internet, social media, and economic fluctuations. This generation is particularly concerned with employment opportunities and rising inequality, as well as social justice issues. The failure of Pakistan’s political system to address these concerns has left many Millennials feeling disillusioned and disconnected from the political process. Initiatives like the Prime Minister’s Youth Program and Naya Pakistan Housing Scheme have attempted to address Millennials’ economic concerns, but these efforts have been insufficient. High levels of unemployment and limited access to affordable housing have created frustration among Millennials, who are increasingly turning to digital activism to voice their concerns.

What Must Be Done?

Addressing the growing frustrations of Pakistan’s Gen Z and Millennials would require a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach that tackles economic, political, and environmental challenges. The following recommendations are crucial to preventing unrest and ensuring that this generation remains a force for positive change:

Pakistan’s education system must be reformed to prepare young people for a rapidly evolving job market. This includes expanding access to STEM education, vocational training, and entrepreneurship programs. The Kamyab Jawan Program is a good start, but it must be scaled up to meet the demands of the large youth population. Germany’s vocational education system offers a model for how to integrate practical skills training into the national curriculum, ensuring that young people are equipped to enter the workforce. Secondly there is a need for developing e-commerce market platforms for Pakistani youth, creating talent to industry linkages.

Importantly, the trust in the political system has eroded over the years; the government must prioritize greater transparency and accountability. This includes cracking down on corruption, ensuring fair and free elections, and creating spaces for meaningful political engagement. Pakistan must also expand digital governance initiatives to make the political process more accessible to young people. Mental health is an often-overlooked aspect of Gen Z’s struggles. The pressures of navigating an uncertain future, coupled with the demands of social media, have led to rising levels of anxiety and depression among young people. Pakistan must invest in mental health services, expanding access to care and raising awareness about the importance of mental well-being. Schools and universities should incorporate mental health education into their curricula, helping students develop the tools to cope with stress and seek help when needed.

Since gaining independence, successive governments in Pakistan have actively promoted the American model of democracy, particularly during the Cold War era. While this democratic concept has been widely embraced by the population, these same governments have paradoxically leaned toward applying elements of the Chinese governance model, characterized by exclusion of public desires and use of excessive force to implement government policies. This approach overlooks the fundamental incompatibility between the two systems. As a result, the country now faces social friction, a natural outcome of this mismatch. If Pakistan’s political and social systems fail to address the concerns of younger generations, the risk of unrest will only intensify. Whether Gen Z and future generations ‘turn rough’ depends largely on the nation’s ability to adapt and meet their evolving needs and aspirations.

India in a Whirlpool of Identity Crisis

India is considered as the world’s so-called largest democracy, but is it truly operating on democratic terms or is it vying for a change towards a more extremist Hindu state? Ever since, Narendra Modi came into power in 2014, his policy of religious degradation of other minorities has tented the secular image of India. The events that unfolded in the recent past suggest that India is in a continuous flux of political and social uncertainty for last few years which is tearing at the social fabric of the state.

Last month, the Indian government published copies of the Indian constitution, and distributed them to Indian parliamentarians. Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, who is also an opposition leader at the Lok Sabha, made the shocking revelation in a press conference that words such as ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ had been omitted
from the newly published copies.

Historical readings show that the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ were not part of the first draft of the constitution of India that was formulated by the Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1949. However, these terms were included after the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 during Indra Gandhi’s regime.

The biggest challenge to the secular identity of India is the Hindutva ideology. Proposed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, an Indian politician, social activist and writer in 1922, it was brought forth in the wake of Khilafat Movement initiated by the Muslims of subcontinent. According to this ideology only Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs belong to this land (India), while Muslims, Christians and Jews should leave India as their religious roots traced back to Middle East.

The Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) organization was formed in 1925 in order to provide ultra conservative right-wing Hindus a platform to keep their struggle of Hindutva alive, and it became notorious in the years afterwards for the Muslims of India. RSS had established different wings to propagate their agendas and the current ruling party of India Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) was formed as the political wing of RSS. Which is why the BJP is not only following but practically implementing the RSS ideology.

In addition to legal and political aspects, another concerning trend observed in India in recent years is the indiscriminate oppression of minorities.The most vulnerable among them is the Muslim community of India. The policies of the BJP led current Indian regime are not only threatening for minorities but are alarming for the very fabric of the Indian state structure.

Last month, at the G-20 summit in India, the name tags for the head of states were placed on the table like in any official gathering; but they attracted the attention of the press because that of the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, stated she was the ‘President of Bharat’.

This might not get such an attention, if it happened during any domestic event, but the G-20 summit is an international event where leaders of the twenty states get together and discusses global policy issues. Minister of External Affairs of India Mr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar defended it by stating that there is no harm in using the term ‘Bharat’ because both it and ‘India’ are written there in the constitution of India.

‘Bharat’ is the Sanskrit term which dates back to 2000 years, but critics are of the view that the name ‘India’ is the true modern day branding of the state in the international arena and changing it out of the blue will complicate things. Indian congress lawmaker Shashi Tharoor shared a similar view when he tweeted, “While there is no constitutional objection to calling India ‘Bharat’, which is one of the country’s two official names, I hope the government will not be so foolish as to completely dispense with ‘India’, which has incalculable brand value built up over centuries”.

India has never been as much divided domestically as it is today. The societal and political divisions are quite visible. Analyzing the last nine-year rule of BJP under Modi’s leadership, India is in the process of shifting from being a liberal democracy to a Hindu autocracy. Muslims, Christians and low caste Dalits are subject to immense repression and violence by the RSS goons. Such acts of violence and harassments have become a new normal in modern day India. Additionally, anti-Muslim sentiments are actively propagated and promoted, even from the floor of the parliament, by Hindu politicians of the ruling BJP who are now bluntly threatening the Muslims with extermination.

Involving the international community would be pointless at this juncture, unless and until such emerging threats are  internally intercepted and countered. Eventually the huge responsibility lies on the Indian civil society, academicians and liberal political elites who must play an effective and influential role in order to protect the endangered secular democratic identity of India. Otherwise, it is evident that in the near future India will declare itself as the first Hindu state, which is not only threatening for the existing Indian secular democratic norms, but it will create regional uncertainty among its neighbours.

Decoding Pakistan’s Security Imperatives: A Conversation with Ambassador Zamir Akram (R)

🎙️ ABOUT THIS EPISODE 🎙️

Today, we are honoured to have a conversation with Ambassador Zamir Akram (R). We discuss his recent book “The Security Imperative: Pakistan’s Nuclear Deterrence and Diplomacy,” as he shares valuable insights into Pakistan’s strategic security framework, diplomatic challenges, and the role of nuclear deterrence in South Asia.

 

👇 CONNECT WITH US 👇

🔵 Facebook Group 

🔵 Facebook Page 

🔵 Twitter

🔵 Pinterest

🔵 Donate

🔵 Youtube

 

Thank you for watching! Don’t forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more thought-provoking discussions.

The Next Decade of Nuclear Learning!

May 28, 2023, is the 25 th anniversary of Pakistan’s nuclear weapon tests. As a relatively
young nuclear weapon state and despite facing several odds Pakistan has been able to
develop and manage a credible nuclear deterrence capability that continues to play an
important role in safeguarding the national security interests.

With the changing geo-strategic environment and the emergence of new technologies that
could lead to the entanglement of conventional and nuclear capabilities, the deterrence
dynamics over the next decade are likely to be different from the nuclear learning of the
past 25 years. Therefore, it is crucial to foster open discussions amongst the academic
community and think tanks to gain a deeper understanding of future challenges. Such
discourse will enable the identification of cost-effective solutions that could uphold the
credibility of Pakistan’s overall deterrence posture in the face of emerging threats.

Pakistan’s decision to develop nuclear weapons was primarily driven by the need to restore
the strategic balance in the region, which was disrupted by India’s first nuclear test in 1974.
It was not intended for any other purpose but to deter a major war with India.

Since the nuclearization of South Asia, both India and Pakistan have experienced several
serious military crises. However, the existence of nuclear weapons deterred both sides from
engaging in a full-scale war. This stability at the strategic level may have influenced India to
consider a limited war fighting doctrine known as ‘Cold Start’, along with concepts like
‘surgical strikes.’ These developments can be attributed to the ‘stability-instability’; paradox,
where stability at the strategic level encourages adversaries to engage in lower spectrum of
conflict while voiding crossing each other’s nuclear thresholds.

To address the challenges posed by India’s limited war fighting doctrines, Pakistan
introduced its Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) posture. FSD encompasses the development
of capabilities at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels to deter the entire spectrum
of threats emanating from India. The core principle behind FSD was that ‘there is no space
for a major war between the nuclear-armed adversaries.’

FSD represented qualitative improvement in Pakistan’s military options, aligned with the
overarching philosophy of ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ (CMD). However, recent explanations by senior decision-makers, such as former DG SPD Lt Gen (Retd) Khalid Ahmed
Kidwai seems to have expanded the scope of FSD.

In Feb 2020, while speaking at a workshop in London, Gen Kidwai who is also Advisor to the
National Command Authority (NCA), described FSD as comprising of “a large variety of
strategic, operational and tactical nuclear weapons, on land, air and sea, which are designed
to comprehensively deter large-scale aggression against mainland Pakistan.” The main
objective identified was the ‘prevention of a major war or large-scale aggression’ from the
adversary.

In his recent explanation, Gen Kidwai seems to have further expanded the scope of FSD by
stating that it “comprises horizontally of a robust tri-services inventory of a variety of
nuclear weapons”, which can also be considered as “a triad”, and “vertically the spectrum
encapsulates adequate range coverage from 0 meters to 2750 km….” This capability,
according to Gen Kidwai provides Pakistan the option of launching “counter-massive
retaliation.”

Developing a ‘counter-massive retaliation’ would require expanding the scope of the FSD
from the earlier version that was only intended to deter ‘large-scale aggression’. His further
assertion that “the illogical logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will remain as
relevant in South Asia as it does in Europe and across the Atlantic”, further enforces the
impression that the FSD is likely to be broader in terms of ‘quality’ and ‘quantity’ than its
earlier interpretation.

The newer explanation of FSD which includes developing a capability of ‘zero-meter range’
of weapons, is likely to bring negative focus with more questions being raised on the future
trajectory of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. Since Pakistan had traditionally
maintained ambiguity on its nuclear use policy, the statements by the Advisor NCA are
generally viewed as the reflection of the official thinking. However, these statements need
to be contextualized through public debates and academic writings, to bring more clarity
and convey the intent clearly to the intended audience (India), which is important for
maintaining the credibility of nuclear deterrence.

Due to declining debate on the nuclear issues within the country, there is a likelihood that
the recent explanation of Pakistan’s FSD could be misinterpreted by the domestic as well as the external audience. Misrepresentations of such statements on social media that Pakistan
now “possesses nuclear RPGs and artillery. Pakistan has man-portable nukes which can be
carried in a backpack/ briefcase”, are disingenuous and dangerous. They reflect a lack of
understanding amongst the general public regarding nuclear issues, which if left
unaddressed, could harm Pakistan’s credibility as a responsible nuclear weapon state.

The Strategic Plans Division (SPD) which had been an important source of credible
information in the past through its proactive public outreach efforts seems now reluctant to
engage in the nuclear discourse. This was evident from several events organized by
government-sponsored think tanks to celebrate the 25 th anniversary of nuclear tests where
most of the discussions remained focussed on peaceful applications of nuclear technology
and had no relevance to the occasion.

The government-sponsored think tanks that are working on nuclear issues have not fostered
a culture of healthy public debates and paper publication due to capacity limitations and
centralized bureaucratic structures. Universities that should provide an environment
conducive to open debates, are being discouraged from engaging in nuclear discourse or
establishing connections with foreign entities. This negative trend in nuclear learning could
lead to a dangerous void in academia, with fewer future scholars willing to participate in
nuclear debates.

For a country facing enormous political, military, and economic challenges, maintaining a
credible nuclear deterrence remains critical for Pakistan’s integrity and national security.
The nuclear program is one of the few issues that is owned and supported by all the
stakeholders in Pakistan, particularly the public. It is therefore imperative that this
ownership is further strengthened by engaging the public and academia in the evolving
nuclear discourse. A better understanding of these issues would help future scholars to
engage with confidence and publish their ideas that could help find solutions to the complex
problems that are likely to be faced by all nuclear weapon states over the next decade.

 

About the author: Dr Adil Sultan is the Dean Faculty of Aerospace and Strategic Studies
(FASS), Air University Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected]. The
views expressed by the author are his personal opinion.

Civil Unrest: Economic Spiral and Climate Change

Economic strife and environmental scarcities are two factors that, when experienced in conjunction by a country, can lead to civil unrest and even conflict. In essence environmental scarcities means the decline in the availability and useability of crucial natural resources. This is particularly true in the Global South, and especially in South Asia. The reason for this is that natural resources are often abundant but poorly managed; and these regions are climate vulnerable, meaning a lowered ability or capacity to deal with the onset of threats from climate change. Pakistan, especially, is ranked as having one of the highest risk factors to climate change. Unfortunately, that leads to a multitude of threats ranging from impacts om the economy and development to civil conflict, which, if exacerbated by existing and worsening economic strife, holds the potential to turn into armed civil conflict.

The state of political instability and a downward economic spiral is a publicly known reality in Pakistan in current times and does not require elaboration. However, it is important to know what economic strife is and how it can seep into societal issues which increase conflict probability. Economic strife refers to a situation where a country is experiencing dire economic difficulties, such as record high inflation, high unemployment rates, low wages, and a weak currency, all of which is happening at an increasing rate in Pakistan. These may impact the population’s willingness to adopt complacency and given the resultant lack of basic living ability, there is little left to stay quiet for and everything to gain by taking action for survival. To say it more plainly, swathes of people have gone from barely making it to being unable to survive. This leaves them with very little option to cope and a dark side of human nature with many options to take action for survival.

The combination of economic strife and environmental scarcities they can lead to social and political unrest, particularly in developing countries that rely heavily on natural resources for their economies. This is because when natural resources become scarce, competition for these resources increases and is exacerbated by a deteriorating ability to afford or access those resources to begin with, leading to conflict between different groups in society. This works on a psychological level as well leading to dissatisfaction with the government and calls for change, especially if there are pre-existing reasons for that call.

Climate change is a global phenomenon that has the potential to exacerbate environmental scarcities and increase civil conflict. According to research conducted by the United Nations, climate change is already leading to more frequent and severe natural disasters, such as floods, droughts, and wildfires. These disasters can have significant economic and social impacts.

As temperatures rise, glaciers and snowpacks melt, leading to reduced water availability in regions that depend on these resources; or unprecedented rains due to climate change factors cause drastic floods, which Pakistan witnessed in 2022. This can lead to competition and conflict over water resources, as well as the resources linked to them.

In addition, climate change can exacerbate food insecurity by reducing agricultural productivity. Changes in precipitation patterns and temperatures can lead to reduced crop yields as well, which is made worse in Pakistan due to vulnerability towards food insecurity. This can lead to increased competition for food resources too, and these conditions then intersect with economic strife as well as worsen it. Plainly, the result is a population that either must fight for its survival, which holds a high likelihood of being in the form of civil conflict, or perish in miser complacency. This is especially true due to the conjunction of political, social, and economic instability.

The impact of climate change on natural resources can also lead to conflict between different groups in society. In many developing countries, natural resources are a key source of income and employment, particularly for marginalized groups such as indigenous communities. As natural resources become scarcer, competition between different groups for access to these resources can increase, leading to social and political unrest.

Pakistan has abundant natural resources. However, their poor management has led to a situation where these resources are not being utilized to their full potential and the mismanagement of climate change and its related threats is further deteriorating those resources. Pakistan faces a severe environmental crisis, with declining water resources and the population is expected to grow to 300 million by 2050, putting even more pressure on the already scarce resources.

The country has experienced armed conflict along its western border with Afghanistan, where extremist groups have been operating for years. While there are politically motivated dimensions, the conflict in these areas is largely fueled by economic difficulties and environmental scarcities, including declining agricultural productivity and water resources. Such conditions leave the local populations with little avenues for a livelihood and any source of employment and promises in relation toa cause aid recruitment.

To prevent such conflicts, it is important for governments to manage natural resources properly, address economic difficulties, and invest in sustainable development. By doing so, we can reduce the risk of civil conflict that can turn into armed conflict and would only add another threat to an already burgeoning list.

All things considered in conjunction; climate change has the potential to exacerbate environmental scarcities which, along with a worsening economic strife, increases the likelihood of civil conflict. More importantly, there is a threshold after which it ceases to be a likelihood and becomes a reality. To prevent such conflicts, it is important for governments to take action to mitigate the impacts of climate change through adaption-based policies as well as constrain the economic strife.

China’s Growing Diplomatic Influence at the Global Stage

Chinese national flag in front of the building

“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity”
― Sun-Tzu

 

Ever since its independence in 1949, China has been successfully following the policy of non-interventionism; but things started to shift right after the current Chinese President Xi Jingping took control of the regins in 2013. Xi wants China to be a constructive player in the international arena. A clear shift was been observed in Beijing’s historic policy of maintaining a lower profile when China introduced its multibillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013. The post BRI outlook of China`s foreign policy has completely altered from an introvert state to an extrovert one at the global arena, and the country is engaging more proactively in and around the world by exerting its soft power influence.

The BRI project is a combination of both land and sea corridors aimed at connecting three continents – Asia, Africa and Europe – through economic integration. However, the biggest hurdle in achieving the full potential of this economic agenda is the ongoing conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and the Eurasian region. In such a situation, China is left with limited options either to weigh in its support for one conflicting party or act as a responsible state and diplomatically intervene to resolve the whole conflict.

China opted for the latter strategy of conflict resolution through diplomacy. Prior to 2013, Chinese diplomatic efforts were observed only in Africa, but since the BRI’s commencement, more proactive diplomatic efforts have been recorded in regions such as South Asia, the Middle East and East Africa. In 2012, China was mediating in just three conflicts, but a significant increase was observed in 2017 when it was involved in nine of such efforts. The patterns of these mediating efforts revealed that they were more specifically in and around the BRI states.

China’s name as a potential mediator came into the forefront of the global media outlets late February when it published the twelve point peace proposal for the peaceful resolution of Ukraine conflict. The language of the peace proposal is nondiscriminatory and flexible for both the belligerents. The document also urges all other parties to the conflict to sit together and convince both Russia and Ukraine to resolve their conflict through a direct dialogue. China, having devised the proposal, also offered its constructive role in the process.

However, western scholars and officials are skeptical of China’s mediatory efforts. Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center said that economics and politics are two primary goals in Russia-China relations which cannot be ignored. Both have a common international goal of countering the US and want to align their position. Similarly, the United States also put forward its concerns on China’s mediatory role in the Ukraine crisis. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken termed the Chinese peace proposal as stalling tactics to help Russian ground troops and stated it would not be acceptable to freeze the war on Russian terms. Moreover, the White House National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby accused China of not being an impartial mediator.

The credibility of Chinese diplomatic efforts for resolving long standing bilateral issues among the states is enhanced with its successful mediation towards restoration of Saudi-Iran ties last month, where China played a very vital role in bringing both rival states on the negotiating table after a long eight years of their strained diplomatic relations. China, being the chief mediator, has cemented its position of deliberate peacemaker in the Middle East. It is also seen as an honest peace broker as it does not carry the same burden of religious, political and historical colonial baggage as the US and European states.

The US has been on the path to counter Iran with its strong regional ally Israel, but the current opening of Iran to the Arab world not only damages US-Israel joint efforts, it also taints US influence in the region. Also, Russian economic investment in Iran for transit corridor is seen as beneficial for China too. Relations between Riyadh and Washington are at a historic low and the Biden administration has been very slow in their approach to mend ties with Saudi Arabia. However, the major flaw in Washington’s policy circle is that it fails to realize that Saudi Arabia is not a security guarantor of the US in the region; instead, it sees itself capable of playing an independent role in the world and in regional politics. For achieving these aims, the Saudis do not want any sort of war or confrontation with any state at the expense of US interests. China, being an emerging economic power, sees diminishing US influence as an opportunity to cement its influence in the Middle East by exploiting the unfolding ground realities.

Technical flaws have, however, been identified in Chinese mediating efforts. First, it is being analyzed that China keeps only the high-level stakeholders in the loop for the talks and ignores the other stakeholders beyond government officials. Therefore, China is being criticized for its narrowed scope. Second, there are economic interests that sometimes raise questions on the credibility of Chinese efforts. For instance, in the case of Saudi-Iran mediation, China sees both states as pivots in the region that can become indispensable economic and strategic partners for Beijing and therefore, granted both Tehran and Riyadh the status of Comprehensive Strategic partners. Finally, China’s approach is also being criticized for not attempting to resolve the conflict, rather only helping to manage it.

The risk is always there for China with the outcome of these mediation endeavors; if it fails, this could signal to the rest of the world that China has limited leverage over its partners. The BRI’s success is also associated with peace in the conflict prone regions of the Middle East and Africa, but if China fails to pacify the conflicting parties, the BRI’s success would likely be uncertain.

Consequently, mediation diplomacy is now the central pillar of the country’s foreign policy under Xi Jinping’s leadership. Mediation policy also suits China’s historic notion of non-interventionism; moreover, these global peaceful activities enhance both its domestic and international images. Shaping resolution of international conflicts is central to President Xi’s vision of an assertive China under which China will be taking more proactive international responsibilities and project itself as a responsible great power.

The Dwindling Situation of Foreign Direct Investment in Pakistan: Need for Prioritizing the Pre-Requisites of FDI

Pakistan, being a low-income country, is confronted with an ongoing crisis and needs Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to bring stability to the economy which leads to sustainable economic growth and development. Historically, it has offered different incentives and liberalized its policies to attract FDI but failed to achieve the target due to several factors primarily terrorism, political instability, and inconsistent tax policies. A sharp decline in FDI inflows since 2007 has been observed, which indicates a lack of confidence and hesitation by foreign investors to invest in Pakistan.he country has the lowest investment-to-GDP ratio in the region and has a wide gap in the saving-investment ratio, which reflects the weak outlook of its policies. In this context, promoting and attracting FDI will aid the country in technological advancements with an expansion of national output and increased employment opportunities that will help the country to fill this existing gap and promote sustainable growth.

The World Bank defines FDI as the net inflow of investment to acquire 10% or more of the stocks in an enterprise of a country other than the investors’ nationality, with the motive of lasting management interest. It plays a vital role in the economy by providing several economic benefits and opportunities which include, foreign exchange, innovation, managerial skills, augmentation of exports, exchange of ideas and technology, and capital. It is believed by some economists that it can lead to increased domestic investment since FDI promotes competition. IMF and World Bank also prefer FDI over Foreign Aid as a vital source for initiating and fostering the development process in developing economies. In addition, to attract FDI several developed and developing countries are offering attractive incentives that play a catalytic role in boosting FDI in the long run.

Even though Pakistan has potential areas that can attract reasonable FDI for its growth, terrorism has impeded the country in sustaining the level of FDI. In this regard, the Global Terrorism Index has ranked Pakistan as the 10th most affected and vulnerable country to terrorism. Different activities and incidents of terrorism have affected Pakistan severely in terms of closing industries, having no access to American and European markets, human losses, and weakening of the social fabric. In the previous three decades, the maximum FDI received was $3.67 billion in 2007.

After this, a drastic decline in the FDI as a percentage of GDP has been observed in Pakistan; in these years Pakistan was ranked as the 2nd most affected country due to terrorism. These effects have led to a decrease in foreign investors’ confidence thus resulting in a decline in foreign direct investment. During 2008 when Pakistan lost its popularity for investment due to increased terrorism, India gained $45 billion. From the graph below, we can see that Pakistan was doing better than Bangladesh till 2010 after which the net inflow as a percentage of GDP declined and resulted in making Pakistan last on the ladder among its neighbors except for Afghanistan.

In the year 2021, 186 terrorist attacks occurred in different areas of Pakistan resulting in creating uncertainty and chaos which intensified the confidence deficit of investors in the country. As a result, FDI dropped around 30 percent to $952.6 million. Thus, terrorism served as a major culprit that deteriorated the country’s overall performance in attracting FDI net inflow, as well as the country, lagged its neighbors in the same domain.

Political stability is also a prerequisite for attracting and sustaining increased FDI. Among all other factors, political instability is the critical one that has severely impacted FDI in Pakistan. Historically, the country has faced similar situations of political instability which resulted in making its outlook less attractive place for investors despite having potential sectors. The month of March 2022 was marked as the worst month for FDI, as a matter of fact, the country received no investment amid the political instability of the country. Owing to this, the most concerning fact is that the inflow from China – a major contributor, has halved. It remained at $333.5 million against the inflow of $642 million during the same period in the previous year.

Due to existing political chaos, the country’s FDI has been slashed by 44% during the July- January period of Fiscal Year 2023. The State Bank of Pakistan reported that in its current state, the FDI stands at $683 million against $1.2 billion in the previous year. Also, the persistent political havoc has resulted in a lack of confidence among foreign investors and has led to a sharp decline in the inflow. Thus, political instability can be a deal-breaker for investors attempting to establish a presence in a new country. Therefore, it is necessary for Pakistan to be determined in making the political climate more attractive to investors so that the true potential of the country can be explored.

Political instability also leads to discrepancies in the policies of a country’s taxation policies which plays a detrimental role in attracting FDI. Inconsistent tax policies in Pakistan have resulted in the deterioration of the inflow of investments. In this context, every government has its own priorities based on which sector to be focused. The new government, after coming into power, abrogated the previous policies and formulated new ones which created inconsistency. Such unpredictable practices result in making the investors hesitant which cripples the growth of the investment. Pakistan requires advance tax payments and asks the countries to pay 34 different kinds of taxes while its neighboring countries require an average of 24.8, which makes Pakistan comparatively less attractive for investment among other countries in South Asia.

As Pakistan is confronted with serious economic crises, attracting more FDI can help the country in coping up with its economic woes. Currently, the country is trying to solve the effects of the factors that have led to the dwindling situation of FDI, which is not an effective strategy. In this context, it should work on the root causes – terrorism, political instability, and inconsistency of taxation policies. Therefore, strict border measures should be taken to improve the security situation in the country which will promote the positive picture of Pakistan around the globe.

Furthermore, the stakeholders have to take the collective good of the state into account, rather than adopting policies that benefits a small chunk of the country. On the other hand, incentivizing foreign investors in taxation policies will result in attracting more FDI. Working on such factors will allow the country to attract more inflow which plays a catalytic role in boosting the pace of growth and development. Thus, replacing complex policies with simple ones and making them consistent is the first step in making Pakistan an attractive spot for foreign investment.

Analysing India’s Military Doctrinal Evolution

Soon after achieving independence from British rule, India decided to join the non-aligned movement to cultivate cordial ties with both blocks, the USA, and USSR. The then Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru emphasised the need for economic betterment of India by utilising the elements of national power, as opposed to a focus on military modernisation. But the unfortunate wars of the 1960s, first with China and second with Pakistan, exposed internal deficiencies of the Indian defence system. These factors and the changing strategic atmosphere of the region, compelled India to bring some necessary transformations in military-strategic settings.

 

During the Indira Gandhi era, the Nehruvian legacy of solving bilateral issues with political and diplomatic wisdom diminished to a large extent. The Indian invasion of East Pakistan raised the morals of Indian policymakers. Indira Gandhi, the then PM adopted more offensive policies to make India a regional hegemon, as evident from her orders to the then chief of army staff, General Sam Manekshaw. To that end, India concluded a strategic defence deal with the USSR in 1971, often termed a friendship treaty, according to which an attack on India would be considered an attack on the USSR. India developed an industrial complex to make itself self-reliant in the field of defence. These offensive policies of Indira Gandhi demanded more modernised military and strategies, capable of not only defending India on two fronts (northern with China and western with Pakistan) but also enabling India to create more influence in the South Asian region.

 

The emergence of Pakistan in South Asia was not acceptable to India at any cost. During her second tenure, Indira Gandhi tasked the then Army Chief K. Sunderji to formulate a twenty-year plan for the Indian military. The main theme of this Sunderji doctrine was to build the Indian defence line on more sophisticated conventional capabilities, enabling India to carry out military actions deeper in Pakistan’s territories and to cut Pakistan into two pieces. These offensive calculations needed more modernised conventional capabilities. Due to these hawkish ambitions, the Indian military saw a huge doctrinal transformation in the 1980s.

 

During the late 1990s, the advent of nuclear weapons in South Asia changed the nature of the war between both adversaries. Nuclear weapons eliminated the chances of a total or full-scale war between India and Pakistan. But the continuous militant inflow from Kashmiri territories and terrorist attacks such as the 2001 Parliament attack, pushed India to adopt a transformation in war tactics, apparently to teach Pakistan a lesson. These developments led to introducing the concept of a limited war under the nuclear overhang, under which India prepared and launched the Cold Start doctrine with explicitly limited ambitions; these included mobilising troops in a short time and capturing a portion of Pakistan’s territory, to later be used as a bargaining chip.

 

The other important contributing factor behind the doctrinal transformation was the minimisation of operational gaps among the tri-services –Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Cold Start doctrine included the formation of Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs) in which land troops were to be supported by fighter jets to carry out swift and blitzkrieg type of actions while retaining the element of surprise for Pakistan.

 

The advent of nuclear weapons changed the nature of war in South Asia, but Indian military policy makers believe that gaps do exist between conventional and nuclear war. According to Gen. Khalid Kidwai (former DG Strategic Plans Division), India always wanted to utilise the options of manipulating Pakistan’s operational gaps while remaining under the nuclear threshold in Pakistan. These options motivated the Indian strategists to transform their conventional capabilities and shift to a limited war concept.

 

On other hand, Pakistan was not twiddling its thumbs. The timely measures of Pakistan puzzled the Indian military leadership. In response to the Indian Cold Start doctrine, Pakistan introduced tactical nuclear weapons, such as Hatf and Nasr which are capable of carrying warheads up to 70 km are capable of destroying the Indian planned division-size forces of approximately 20,000-25,000 personnel per IBG. In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks in 2008, India blamed Pakistan for nurturing terrorists and threatened to take punitive measures, but due to internal operational gaps, India failed to operationalise the Cold Start doctrine; therefore in the 2010s, India once again transformed its doctrines and shifted to a sub-conventional mode of carrying punitive strikes inside Pakistan.

In the 1980s, India illustrated its military might in the Brass-tack war games, and speculations were circulating that India would sooner or later attack Pakistan with mechanised infantry and three strike corps, deep inside Pakistan’s territory to cut it into two parts; but successful cricket diplomacy and the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons kept the Indians away from any military adventure. The timely retaliatory measures of Pakistan pushed India to explore new avenues and tactics to destabilise its enemy.

 

In 1962, India added another enemy to its list – China. The opening up of two war fronts on the northern and western borders gave Indian leaders sleepless nights. The contemporary military clashes between India and China in the Doklam and Ladakh regions served as a contributing factor in this process of transformation. The prominent Indian military strategist V.K. Singh argued that India is working to make military theatres, independent of each other. Therefore, the new land warfare doctrine of 2018 provides strategies for multi fronts.

 

The tectonic shift in global politics placed the south Asian region on top of the list of hotly debated regions. The nuclear environment added more to the plight of the already perplexing strategic milieu. The start of the 21st century is marked by swiftly changing dynamics of global politics; therefore, to cope with looming challenges, states are adopting timely measures to secure their respective national interests. These shifts in regional strategic settings are evident in the South Asian region. After the creation of India and Pakistan, both were main strategic rivals in this region. But later, the descending graph of Pakistan left it behind in this game. In the contemporary situation, India and China are the leading horses in the South Asian race. The plight has now touched a climax when major powers, like the USA, Israel, Russia, and the European Union, decided to make hay while the sun shines by deepening their strategic alliances with India to counter the ballooning Chinese rise and expanding friendly relations with Pakistan.

Countering Terrorism: The Need for a U.S.-China-Pakistan Security Dialogue

As the strategic competition between the U.S. and China intensifies, the echoes of Cold War 2.0 and camp politics get louder. While third-world countries are finding it difficult to navigate the great power politics, Pakistan, in particular, is experiencing intensified disruptive geopolitical forces. Irrespective of all the gloom and doom scenario, Pakistan can still play a constructive role by providing an avenue for cooperation between the two great powers. Notwithstanding the current spat over Pakistan’s debt crisis, counterterrorism can be an area of positive engagement between the U.S. and China.

The shared concerns regarding terrorist threats between the U.S., Pakistan, and China have resulted in Pakistan-U.S. and Pakistan-China bilateral security dialogues. To mitigate the common threats, there is a need for a tripartite security dialogue between Pakistan, the U.S., and China, with Pakistan acting as Ground Zero.

Shared Terrorist Threats

All three countries share the common threat of terrorism emanating from Al-Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Islamic State “Khorasan” (ISKP), Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), and East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) along with other terrorist organizations operating within Afghanistan.

Since the Taliban takeover, the number of terrorist attacks in Pakistan has increased manifold. According to a report by the Pakistan Institute of Parliamentary Studies (PIPS), there was an 84 percent increase in terrorist attacks within the country in 2022 as compared to 2020. Another report published by the Pakistan Institute of Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) highlighted that January 2023 was the deadliest month since 2018.

For China, the first and foremost terrorist threat is the presence of safe havens of ETIM within Afghanistan. Despite the organization being delisted from the U.S. terror list, China continues to designate it as a critical threat to the security in the restive Xinjiang region. Meanwhile, ETIM presents a direct domestic terrorist threat, while TTP and BLA pose indirect threats to Chinese interests within the region, especially to infrastructure within Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

In a joint statement by the U.S. Department of State, concerns were raised regarding the activities of Al-Qaeda, ISKP, and TTP within Afghanistan. The statement called on the Afghan Taliban interim government to uphold its obligations of ensuring its soil is not being used by terrorist outfits. It also highlighted that the failure in countering these threats would result in consequences having an impact beyond Afghan borders.

CENTCOM Commander, General Michael Kurilla also raised similar concerns highlighting the ability of ISKP in attacking U.S. citizens. According to a statement by Gen. Kurilla, ISKP within the next six months will be able to target U.S. citizens with little or no warning.

The security concerns of all three countries have resulted in various U.S.-Pakistan and China-Pakistan bilateral security dialogues and engagements.

U.S.-Pakistan Heads Up for Security Cooperation

On March 6, 2023, Pakistan and the U.S. held a counterterrorism dialogue in the wake of the recent surge in terrorist attacks within Pakistan. The two-day dialogue discussed border security and countering financing terrorism. Since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan has faced an increased terrorist threat from TTP. The U.S. State Department spokesperson stated that the terrorist organization could also be a threat to the U.S. interests in the region.

On February 13, 2023, the two countries began the second round of Mid-level defense dialogue in Washington DC, hinting at renewing the bilateral cooperation. The first round of the dialogue was held in January 2021 in Pakistan. Defense and security concerns were discussed during the meeting to enhance bilateral cooperation on such matters. It was the first meaningful engagement between the two countries since the Afghanistan withdrawal, since when bilateral ties have been at their lowest ebb. However, U.S. State Department spokesperson, Ned Price on the sidelines of the defense dialogue maintained that “Pakistan is an important partner in a number of regards, an important counterterrorism partner.”

In September 2022, the Biden administration also approved a $450 million sustenance package for Pakistan’s F-16 fighter jet fleet. According to the state department spokesperson, the package will help Pakistan meet its current and future counterterrorism needs.

China-Pakistan Bilateral Engagements

On March 18, 2023, Pakistan and China held the third round of Pakistan-China Bilateral Political Consultations (BPC), which is a regular institutional mechanism at the foreign secretary/vice-ministerial level. The meeting concluded with an agreement on enhancing the entire spectrum of bilateral relations. On February 1, 2023, Chinese President Xi, while sending condolences to the victims of the Peshawar mosque attack, called for greater cooperation in the counterterrorism domain. Pakistan-China Strategic Dialogue is another bilateral security consultation agreement that happens at the ministerial level. The latest round of the strategic dialogue was held in 2021.

However, the continued attacks from BLA on the Chinese nationals and infrastructure projects under CPEC have seriously tested Pakistan-China bilateral cooperation. After a female suicide attacker killed the director of the Confucius Centre at Karachi University, along with two other Chinese nationals and their Pakistani driver, calls for Chinese personal security apparatus to protect assets in Pakistan gained momentum. Although the suggestions were declined by the Pakistani authorities, the security situation remains anathema for Pakistan to safeguard its all-weather strategic partnership with China.

The Need for Tripartite Counter-Terrorism Security Dialogue

The calls for such tripartite cooperation are not new. In a similar analysis, Furqan Khan, Assistant Research Associate at IPRI, highlighted the prospects for tripartite cooperation between the two competing great powers in Afghanistan. The shared goal of countering terrorism and its financing can help bridge the two countries while mitigating the risks of confrontation. The policy of cooperation with China on counterterrorism would also be aligned with the foreign policy of the Biden administration vis-à-vis China, which states, “Our relationship with China will be competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be, and adversarial when it must be.”

There are several areas where the two competing great powers have cooperated to mitigate threats of global scale. From climate change, Covid-19, and North Korea to trade, both countries have either co-sponsored resolutions at the UN level or published a joint communique on working in unison to mitigate the threats. Counterterrorism could also be an avenue where both countries cooperate to understand the global threat level.

Pakistan can remain the key to such cooperation while being the ground zero in terms of ministerial-level dialogues and meetings. It has already hosted a troika-plus meeting on Afghanistan, which included China, Russia, and the U.S. The U.S. has already hinted at reviving post-9/11 counterterrorism initiatives with Pakistan, and China could chip in with the opportunity to extend its hand for tripartite cooperation on the issue.

Conclusion

The recent spike in terrorism within Pakistan has not only challenged the writ of the state but also highlighted the ability of terrorist organizations to use Afghan soil for global terrorist activities. With the U.S. and China both primary targets of various terrorist organizations in terms of infrastructure and citizens, the two competing great powers can join hands against the menace. Pakistan, being the primary target of TTP, can act as a bridge between the U.S. and China on counterterrorism, resulting in a troika framework or security dialogue. The troika-plus could be used as a blueprint for the aforementioned security dialogue or framework between the three countries while focusing solely on counterterrorism initiatives.