The upcoming 2024 Taiwanese presidential elections scheduled on January 13, 2024 features a three-way race among Vice President William Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), New Taipei City Mayor Hou Yu-ih of the Kuomintang (KMT) and former Taipei City Mayor Ko Wen-je of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). This analysis focuses on Hou Yu-ih’s foreign policy and his stances on critical issues concerning cross-strait relations, defense and international partnerships.
Hou Yu-ih, the KMT’s presidential nominee and current Mayor of New Taipei City, initially lacked substantial foreign policy experience, having primarily served in law enforcement roles before his mayoral positions. However, his campaign for the presidency has pivoted toward positioning the election as a choice between war and peace, framing the KMT as the party prioritizing peace and cross-strait stability, contrary to the DPP’s rhetoric of democracy versus autocracy.
Central to Hou and the KMT’s strategy is the promotion of cross-strait dialogue as a key pillar for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. They perceive the absence of dialogue as heightening the risk of conflict, advocating that increased cooperation between Taiwan and China diminishes the likelihood of war. However, the KMT’s reliance on the “1992 Consensus,” where both sides recognize one China but with differing interpretations of the governing entity, creates ambiguity, especially with China interpreting it differently, seeing Taiwan as a part of China.
Initially hesitant to fully embrace the 1992 Consensus due to its lack of resonance among voters, Hou’s stance evolved over time, aligning with powerful KMT figures, and eventually endorsing it in his foreign policy narrative. He emphasizes the importance of Taiwan’s democratic system while opposing moves towards formal independence or absorption into China’s “One Country, Two Systems” framework, aligning with public sentiment against such an arrangement.
On the economic front, Hou intends to resurrect the Cross-Strait Services Trade Agreement (CSSTA), aiming to open Taiwan’s service sectors to Chinese investment. This proposal, which was a flashpoint sparking the Sunflower Movement in 2014, raises concerns regarding increased economic dependence on China. Hou also aims to allow Chinese students in Taiwan to work during their studies, suggesting an opening toward more economic integration.
Regarding defense, Hou highlights the necessity of bolstering Taiwan’s military capabilities as a foundational component in dealing with China. Diverging from the prior KMT administration’s approach of stagnant defense budgets, Hou advocates for a robust defense strategy, emphasizing the importance of deterrence and preparedness in the face of potential threats from mainland China.
Hou also emphasizes the strengthening of Taiwan’s relations with the United States and Japan. He expresses support for initiatives like the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st Century Trade and desires enhanced security cooperation with the US, intending to conduct joint military exercises, actions that China opposes. Moreover, Hou seeks to improve ties with Japan, understanding its crucial role in the larger regional dynamics.
As the election approaches, Hou’s embrace of more traditional KMT policies, including the 1992 Consensus, aims to secure support within his party. His challenge lies in balancing cross-strait dialogue with defense priorities and managing potential demands from China that could restrict Taiwan’s autonomy or security arrangements.
If Hou secures victory, China may initially reduce tensions in the Taiwan Strait, seeking closer ties with Taiwan. However, differing stances on unification might eventually lead to challenges, potentially straining cross-strait relations again. How China under Xi Jinping handles this divergence in goals, whether tolerating the status quo or pushing for resolution—remains uncertain.
Hou Yu-ih’s evolving foreign policy framework presents a delicate balancing act between maintaining peace, asserting Taiwan’s autonomy, and managing relations with China and global allies, a landscape laden with complexities and potential pitfalls as Taiwan navigates its future trajectory.
Irregular Warfare: Hamas operating from underground tunnels in the Gaza Strip: source Internet
“That General is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.” ~ Sun Tzu
In political science, social contract theorists, in an attempt to explain the existence of the state and society, explore the possibility of a sovereign or the state to whom the subjects shall surrender certain rights in order to get protection of life. Theoretically, one of the rights on which the sovereign or the state had distinct control was a right to violence. For centuries, the state has peculiarly maintained its monopoly on violence, what German sociologist, historian, jurist and political economist Max Weber called “the monopoly of legitimate coercion”, through various instruments like police, military, and paramilitary forces. From the battle of Mantinea during the Peloponnesian War to the disastrous World War II, we have seen states or state actors entangled in various fights for certain geopolitical, security, and strategic reasons.
In the last few decades, however, that monopoly on violence has been found to be withering away with the emergence of non-state actors in the domain of war and warfare by means of direct or indirect confrontation with either state actors or against other non-state actors. Likewise, non-state actors, either in the form of resistance, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 and the Chinese Resistance Against Japanese Occupation during World War II, or in the form of terror, such as the terror attacks of 9/11 and 26/11, have entwined themselves in the act of inflicting large-scale violence.
What is Irregular Warfare?
The inclusion of non-state actors in warfare resulted in the genesis of a new kind of warfare known as “Irregular Warfare (IW).” In the words of the United States Department of Defense, Irregular Warfare Joint Operating Concept (JOC), “IW is a complex, “messy,” and ambiguous social phenomenon that does not lend itself to a clean, neat, concise, or precise definition.” However, in simpler terms, it can be defined as “a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations.”
For the most part, the employment of Irregular Warfare includes tactics such as guerrilla attacks, hit-and-run raids, and other unconventional methods, among others. In ancient times, irregular warfare, although not classified as one at that time, was common when states went to battles, especially where there existed asymmetry in relative kinetic power between adversaries.
One such example is the Battle of Cannae, fought during the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE) between Romans and Carthaginians in 216 BCE. Despite being outnumbered by Roman legions, Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca, with his small army, defeated the mighty Roman forces in a highly asymmetric engagement employing various irregular warfare tactics.
The Battle of Agincourt, fought in 1415 during the Hundred Years’ War between England and France, is another such example. King Henry V of England, in an attempt to reclaim English territories captured by France, engaged in a battle with the French army led by Constable Charles d’Albret and other French commanders. Despite having the upper hand in terms of numbers, French forces faced defeat in the battle that resulted in the victory of England, which had employed various irregular warfare tactics.
In the post-World War II period, the Vietnam War between America and the Vietnamese communists, along with the Soviet-Afghan conflict, both of which lasted for years and played a crucial role in shaping Cold War politics, are examples where non-state actors using various guerrilla and irregular warfare tactics defeated established superpowers of that time. While American withdrawal from Vietnam led to political instability at home and diminished American authority in the world, the Soviet defeat against the Mujahedeen eventually led to the collapse of the mighty USSR.
Irregular Warfare Tactics
Although there are no well-defined structured tactics when it comes to irregular warfare, there are a few characteristics and tactical approaches that can be attributed to it. Mostly, these tactics are characterised by their adaptability, flexibility, and primarily their focus on asymmetrical elements of the battle.
A prime example of such tactics is guerrilla warfare, where small groups covertly attack large conventional forces, giving them an advantage. In such scenarios, the element of surprise plays a crucial role. Further, in the conventional realm, tactics such as ambushes, hit-and-run operations, and, for that matter, terrorism and insurgency can be classified as tactics of irregular warfare. By and large, it is up to the state to decide how to tackle such threats and employ IW tactics.
Battle of Mosul
The Battle of Mosul, fought in 2016-17 and which has played an instrumental role in defeating the Islamic State (ISIS) in the Middle East, deserves a special mention here for the persisting asymmetry in that battle. In this battle, the non-state actor, the Islamic State, was fought by a coalition of states, including Iraq and the US, among other allies.
At the time of the attack, Mosul (Iraq) was one of the largest occupation zones under the Islamic State, and during the battle, the Islamic State had 5,000 to 12,000 terrorists fighting for them in the region against the Iraqi government’s 108,000 combatants. One can notice the stark asymmetry in the strength of the fighters; despite having such a huge advantage in terms of numbers, it took almost nine months for the joint forces to defeat ISIS.
American scholar Amos Fox, in his 2021 paper titled “On Sieges,” highlights how Iraqi victory came at such a high cost. The war drove out 44% of the city’s 1.8 million inhabitants, destroyed 70% of the city, and generated a $2 billion reconstruction bill. It becomes important for countries like India, which engages with non-state actors on a regular basis in Kashmir and in the North Eastern region, to develop a comprehensive strategy not only to deter the threats but also to minimise their damages.
Hamas’ Attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023
Being described as the most murderous assault on Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 is the most recent example of how non-state actors have penetrated into the country, which is believed to have one of the most sophisticated espionage and surveillance networks.
A targeted paragliding raid and subsequent missile strikes by Hamas terrorists in Israel left almost 1200 people dead and 240 people as hostages in Gaza. The attack has certainly compelled strategists around the world to relook and recalibrate their approach to dealing with non-state actors. While the IDF is determinant on eliminating Hamas through an on-ground invasion of Gaza, another non-state actor, the Houthi rebels of Yemen, have threatened to destroy every ship that either comes from or goes to Israel. We have also noticed a missile attack by Houthi rebels in the Arabian Sea targeting a civilian ship near the coast of Gujarat.
In response to rescuing shipping vessels from hijacking, the USA and its allies have launched “Operation Prosperity Guardian,” under which the combined naval force will guard the area surrounding Yemen and the Red Sea. The Indian Navy also enhanced surveillance in the Arabian Sea, making operational readiness paramount in case of any mischief in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
What makes these attacks strange is the large-scale involvement of the non-state actors and their ability to use novel technology not only in the conventional arena but also in a non-conventional manner. These actors have created cultivated online networks that engage in various kinds of information, psychological and cognitive warfare. The adaptability of newer technology makes it more difficult for state actors to totally eliminate these adversaries.
Conclusion
As we move beyond conventional warfare, the role of non-state actors becomes pivotal both in terms of defensive and offensive use. Countries like Pakistan and China have been using proxies and non-state actors to destabilise India for years. The USA has for almost a decade used Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to counter the Soviet Union, until the instantaneous shift in policies post-9/11.
In what we call fourth-generation warfare, we have to develop a comprehensive strategy in order to deter threats originating from such non-state actors. Time has also arrived for us to learn from recent incidents in the Red Sea and adapt to the pivotal scenarios where now non-state actors, in a systematic manner, can involve themselves in maritime battles. The Department of Defense JOC, mentioned earlier, also talks about creating alternative Command and Control (C2) mechanisms for conducting and supporting IW, which can be further analysed and applied by countries like India. It is high time that we utilise and employ all the means necessary for creating IW and counter-IW capabilities.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine set off a chain reaction, leading Armenia to re-evaluate its alliance with its longtime strategic partner, Russia. Initially dismissed as a rumour, it became clear over time that Armenia is now acquiring significant weaponry from India and the West, particularly France. Through this article, we’ll explore how India is emerging as or will become the primary supplier of weapons to Armenia, surprising Azerbaijan with the scale of these acquisitions. Having faced the harsh realities of past conflicts, Armenia understands the critical importance of robust defence capabilities, and the need for a strong defence has become paramount in this context. The acquisition of weapons is not just a strategic move but a vital necessity to ensure the security and sovereignty of the nation.
Russia’s Declining Influence in the South Caucasus
The recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict marked a turning point for Armenia and strained its historical alliance with Russia despite being formally allied within the CSTO. Armenia, disillusioned by Moscow’s inaction during the conflict, is reconsidering its security ties. The failure of Russia’s peacekeeping mission in Nagorno-Karabakh has raised doubts about the sustainability of its military presence in Armenia. Armenia’s dissatisfaction is evident in its ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which means Armenia has accepted the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, and if Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Armenia, he will be arrested. Moscow’s response, labelling this move as extremely hostile, highlights the tensions in their once-aligned relationship.
The shifting dynamics led Armenia to explore alternative arms sources like India and the West, as Russia faces constraints in supplying weapons due to its commitments in the Ukraine conflict. France, which is home to an influential Armenian community, has become, in recent years, Armenia’s leading Western backer in the international arena. India also supports the country in the conflict with Azerbaijan.
The diplomatic relations between India and Armenia dates back to 1992 but gained momentum after Armenia’s short but intense conflict with Azerbaijan in 2020. In 2020, India sold the SWATHI weapon locating radar system to Armenia. However, the systems didn’t participate in the conflict because it was a new system for them, and they needed training to operate before being deployed in a conflict. Following this, a bilateral deal was established for New Delhi to supply an indigenous Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launcher. It may export Man Portable Anti-tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) to Armenia. In November 2022, Kalyani Strategic Systems won a US$ 155 million contract to supply artillery guns to Armenia.
The acquisition is facilitated through an Iranian Corridor, which is crucial for landlocked Armenia, providing a passage for importing military equipment. Armenia’s military commander, Major General Edward Asryan, visited India in March 2023 and emphasized closer ties. Armenians expressed gratitude for India’s condemnation of Azerbaijan’s aggression and welcomed an increased Indian role in the region.
One Arrow, Four Targets
Concerns arose for New Delhi due to the growing closeness between Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Turkey. Turkey and Azerbaijan supporting Pakistan on Kashmir raised apprehensions, potentially leading to enhanced cooperation on National Security.
Armenia’s interest now extends to various other Indian weapons, including the Akash surface-to-air missile system, and recently, in a groundbreaking feat, India’s Akash SAM systems successfully engaged four aerial targets simultaneously at a 25 km range using a single firing unit with command guidance. Being able to engage multiple targets with a single firing unit implies a high level of efficiency and integration in the AOS Sam system. This capability could contribute to a more effective and responsive air defence system, making it the first nation to achieve such capability.
Additionally, Armenia is eyeing the medium-range, surface-to-air missile MRSAM system from India, which has a range of up to 75 km. The MRSAM is a significant addition to Armenia’s defence capabilities. Also, Armenia is purchasing an anti-drone system from India, the Zen anti-drone system, a countermeasure against unmanned aircraft. It consists of an RF-based drone detector that uses radio frequency sensors that passively listen and monitor 70 MHz to 6 GHz frequencies for transmissions of the communication link between the Drone and the pilot. Reports also suggest Armenia might be the first to operate India’s armed UAVs. A Turkish Defence website reported Armenia’s interest in buying armed UAVs from India, specifically the Rustom 2 drones, representing a potential milestone in their defence collaboration.
Therefore, it’s a clear win-win situation for India. Weapon deals does not just suggest booming defence industry, it also sends a loud and a clear message to the adversaries. India is stepping into the spotlight, from cutting-edge drones to precision rockets and robust air defence systems. Previously occupied by Russia, as Armenia diversifies its Arsenal and navigates the twists of global geopolitics, we could be witnessing the dawn of a new era with India taking the Reigns in shaping the defence landscape. Will India become the new defence powerhouse for nations in need? Only time will tell. Stay tuned because the world of international relations is a theatre where alliances shift, and narratives evolve.
The contact between India and New Zealand (NZ) is referred to as India-New Zealand relations. Both of these countries were previously a part of the British Empire. India and New Zealand have a long and friendly relationship. In an overview of India-New Zealand relations, India and New Zealand are founded in the Commonwealth, parliamentary democracy, and the English language. Both countries have been committed to disarmament, global peace, North-South dialogue, human rights, environmental preservation, and battling international terrorism. Tourism and sporting relations, particularly in cricket, hockey, and mountaineering, have played an important role in strengthening ties between the two countries. With about 15,000 Indian students pursuing higher education in fields such as information technology, hospitality, science, engineering, and architecture annually, India is the second-largest source of international students in New Zealand. Education and tourism are important components in the New Zealand’s economy.
India-New Zealand Bilateral Relations
Both countries attained independence in the same year, and India’s diplomatic relationship with New Zealand began in 1950 with the establishment of a Trade Commission, which eventually ascended to the position of High Commission. India has an Honorary Consulate in Auckland and a High Commission in Wellington, while New Zealand has a High Commission in New Delhi, a Consulate in Mumbai, trade offices in both cities, and an Honorary Consulate in Chennai.
.
Historical Relations
India and New Zealand (NZ) have a longstanding, friendly and growing relationship. Their ties go back to the 1800s, with Indians settling in Christchurch as early as the 1850s. Larger numbers of immigrants from Punjab and Gujarat came to NZ in the 1890s. Indian troops fought alongside the Anzacs in Gallipoli in 1915.The bond between India and NZ is rooted in their shared history as former colonies of the British Empire. India becoming a priority for New Zealand is seen in its Open Doors to India policy. Pranab Mukherjee was the first Indian President to visit New Zealand in August 2016.
Political Relations
Both gaining independence the same year and starting diplomatic representation since 1950 with the establishment of a Trade Commission, the diplomatic ties between these two nations were officially established in 1952. Since then, New Zealand and India have maintained diplomatic ties. Both nations are members of a number of international organizations, and their relations extend to trade, culture, and education.
During Covid-19 pandemic, both countries cooperated extensively in fighting against the pandemic by ensuring the continuity of supply chains of essential commodities, medicines, and vaccines.
Trade Relations:
With total two-way commerce valued at US$1.80 billion in 2020, New Zealand is the 11th largest two-way trading partner. Education and tourism are two of New Zealand’s fastest growing industries in India. Before the epidemic, about 15000 Indian students were the second largest source of overseas students in New Zealand.
• The number of Indian tourists to New Zealand in 2018 was the ninth highest, at 67,953.
• India largely imports logs and forestry goods from New Zealand, as well as wood pulp, wool, and edible fruit and nuts.
• Pharmaceuticals/medications, precious metals and stones, textiles and motor vehicles, and non-knitted clothes and accessories are the most common Indian exports to New Zealand. India and New Zealand have Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
The India-New Zealand Business Council (INZBC) and the India-New Zealand Trade Alliance (INZTA) are two important organizations that strive to improve India-New Zealand trade and investment cooperation.
Cultural Relations
All Indian holidays, such as Diwali, Holi, Rakshabandhan, Baisakhi, Guruparv, Onam, and Pongal, are widely celebrated in New Zealand. In 2021, New Zealand Post released a set of four new stamps representing the narrative of Diwali. NZ has roughly 2,50,000 people of Indian descent and NRIs, the great majority of whom have made the country their permanent home.
Strategic relations
‘India-New Zealand 2025: Investing in the Relationship’ establishes a framework on which New Zealand Government agencies and partners can build over the next five years to improve the relationship with India. New Zealand has pledged to working closely with Mori, Indian communities, businesses, colleges, and research groups to help achieve the strategy’s goals. New Zealand is opposed to India’s membership in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG). It has refused to change its position on admitting only Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) members to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a club of 48 countries that functions by agreement. New Zealand is a member of the New Agenda for Coalition, an organization that promotes the NPT and works for worldwide nuclear disarmament. Students from India are eligible to apply for Commonwealth Scholarships to pursue postgraduate studies in New Zealand. The two countries established the India-New Zealand Education Council in June 2011.
New Zealand’s importance for India
New Zealand has world-class technologies in the dairy industry. India is collaborating with NZ in this field. A significant number of Indians go to New Zealand for studies and jobs, hence is important for India’s diaspora presence around the world. Moreover, India seeks its support for NSG and UNSC.
To strengthen bilateral ties, India and New Zealand inked three agreements in 2016 in the fields of double taxation avoidance (DTA), sports, and food security. Both countries have agreed to expand their collaboration in cyber security, counter-terrorism, customs, education, and food safety.
India’s bid for NSG membership
During the New Zealand Prime Minister’s visit, India was unable to obtain New Zealand’s unequivocal backing for its bid for Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) membership. India had made it clear to New Zealand that its admission to the NSG was dependent on renewable energy and climate change obligations. As a result, it suggests that New Zealand has yet to abandon its policy of admitting only Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatories to the NSG, a club of 48 countries that operates on consensus.
New Zealand does not support India’s bid to NSG because it is a member of the New Agenda for Coalition, which advocates the NPT and works for global nuclear disarmament. The official state visit by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key comes ahead of an important NSG Consultative Group meeting in Vienna in November 2016.
This meeting was held to determine whether nations who have not signed the NPT can be considered for membership. Earlier in June 2016, India’s NSG membership application had failed to gain traction in Seoul (South Korea) due to opposition from China and other countries. New Zealand was also one of the countries, led by China that advocated the establishment of criteria for non-signatories to the NPT to join the NSG.
Recent Developments
In 2022, S. Jaishankar, the External Affairs Minister (EAM) of India, for first time visited New Zealand. During the visit, EAM and Ms. Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, honored members of the Indian community in the country for their outstanding contributions and accomplishments. Both leaders released India@75 postal stamps in recognition of the celebration of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav in New Zealand. EAM published the book ‘Modi@20: Dreams Meet Delivery’. There was also a book published called “Heartfelt – The Legacy of Faith,” which emphasized the unique bond that Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has with the Sikh community.
He met New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Ms. Nanaia Mahuta, to examine the condition of the overall partnership. He also met with a number of ministers, including Ms. Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Minister for Community and Voluntary Sector, Diversity, Inclusion, and Ethnic Communities, and Youth, the first person of Indian origin to be appointed to a cabinet position in New Zealand, as well as parliamentarians, business leaders, and members of the Indian diaspora, including Indian students during the visit.
In February 2023, Ms. Nanaia Mahuta, Foreign Minister of New Zealand, undertook her maiden official visit to India at the invitation of External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. During her maiden visit to India as Foreign Minister, both Ministers talked on a variety of bilateral issues, including economic cooperation, educational exchanges, defence engagements, and people-to-people contacts. They discussed mutual interests in regional and international challenges, as well as India and New Zealand’s shared goal for a rules-based, peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific. Foreign Minister Mahuta handed over signed copies of the International Solar Alliance (ISA) Framework Agreement to the External Affairs Minister, clearing the way for New Zealand’s participation in this project.
New Zealand asserted that it sees India as a core and influential partner in the Indo-Pacific and has welcomed India’s participation in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework believing that engagement with India as a part of their broader regional agenda.
Conclusion
In conclusion, India-New Zealand relations are deeply rooted in history and have evolved into a comprehensive partnership spanning political, economic, cultural, and strategic sectors. From their common colonial history to their joint efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic, the countries have developed significant connections. While bilateral trade, cultural festivities, and educational exchanges expand, obstacles remain, particularly with regard to India’s NSG membership. Recent high-level visits demonstrate a commitment to improving ties and recognizing common Indo-Pacific values and goals. The relationship covers a wide range of topics, from dairy technology to counter-terrorism measures. Despite their difficulties, both countries actively endeavor to improve cooperation, as seen by recent developments that indicate a favorable trajectory in India and New Zealand’s dynamic relationship.
Thousands of Balochis taking part in The Long March in Taunsa Sharif: source Internet
Of the four provinces of Pakistan, namely Punjab, Balochistan, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the province having the largest area but the least population amongst these four provinces is Balochistan.
Balochistan is located in the southwestern region of Pakistan and has internal boundaries with all the three other provinces of Pakistan and also shares an international border with Iran and Afghanistan. It has the Arabian Sea on its south and the port city of Gwadar, which is an important point in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is the flagship project of China’s Belt Road Initiative (BRI).
Balochistan is rich in natural resources. Despite it having 44% of the land area of Pakistan, only 5% of it is arable. Still agriculture and livestock contribute to 47% of Balochistan’s economy.
On August 14, 1947 when the Britishers carved out Pakistan as a new nation out of India, Balochistan remained an independent nation but finally against the wishes of its people it acceded Pakistan on March 27, 1948. This resulted in resistiveness among the Balochis and till date the Balochis do not consider themselves as part of Pakistan and this led to insurgencies by the Balochis against the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan Army since 1948, with the period since 2003 seeing intense fighting between the Baloch nationalists and the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan Army.
It is in this background of Balochistan’s struggle for independence from Pakistan, that Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has launched severe and serious attacks on Pakistan Army. Since 2000, 1929 Balochis have been killed and 2052 Pakistani security forces have been killed. Thus, this dry and arid province of Pakistan is the witness to the biggest bloodbath taking place in Pakistan.
And in this backdrop of the mayhem being unleashed by Pakistan in Balochistan, thousands of innocent Balochis have mysteriously started disappearing. This has further increased the resentment amongst the Balochis who are quite upset with their near and dear family and friends disappearing.
On December 06, 2023 the Balochis initiated “The Long March” from the city of Turbat to oppose “Baloch Genocide”. The marchers received a thundering response in the city of Taunsa Sharif and later on in Quetta, which is the capital of Balochistan. The marchers intended to end their Long March in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan where it would merge with the ongoing sit-in in the Press Club.
Fearful over the growing popularity and success of “The Long March”, the Pakistan Government has launched a brutal crackdown on the marchers in an attempt to break the will of the marchers, so that The Long March collapses and doesn’t reach Islamabad.
Many of the marchers have been arrested or have been physically assaulted by the Pakistani security agencies.
It is time that the international forums like the United Nations, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League come to the aid of the Balochis and exert pressure on Pakistan to end their attacks on Balochis.
COP-28 which means Conference of the Parties more commonly known as COP-28 was the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference held from 30 November to 12 December, 2023 at Expo City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Sultan al-Jaber, the chief executive of COP-28 said that nearly eight years after the Paris Understanding and partially through the 2030 Plan, COP-28 is a convenient chance to leave upon another way towards powerful environment activity. As few UN reports show, the world isn’t on target to meeting the Paris Arrangement’s objectives, yet the expectation is that states at COP-28 will spread out a guide to speed up environment activity.
In 2020, individual nations thought of public environment activity plans pointed towards diminishing public outflows and adjusting to environmental change influences. With the following round of these plans booked for 2025, the result of the worldwide stocktake cycle could urge nations to raise desire and set new targets, surpassing existing arrangements and responsibilities. With such a huge amount in question, the Dubai meeting was a definitive second to transform environment plans into aggressive activity and reverse the situation against the environment emergency.
It was a gathering of all 195 countries where representatives came together to discuss and negotiate global climate policy and actions. COP-28 was very much important because there is this ongoing climate change and it is our responsibility to take some measures before it’s too late. COP-28 addressed the challenges of climate change, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and mobilising financial resources for climate action.
As a result of COP-28 climate meeting there were some important outcomes namely, acknowledgement of the need to move away from fossil fuels to reduce methane emissions, capitalisation of the loss and damage fund.
The Expectations
The main motive of COP-28 was to carry out a Global Stocktake (GST), a comprehensive assessment of where the world was in its fight against climate change and what more needed to be done to meet the climate objectives. The GST was mandated by the Paris Agreement to be a periodic exercise, the first one in 2023 and every five years thereafter. It also thought to discuss and ensure that the world had some hope of keeping within the 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold.
COP-28 was held while an Earth wide temperature boost was breaking new records. The year 2023 is now affirmed to arise as the warmest year of all time. This year set new temperature standards. Over 80 days this year turned out to be somewhere around 1.5 degree Celsius hotter than pre-modern times. Simultaneously, every evaluation showed that the world was not doing what’s needed, and that the 1.5 degree target was quickly getting insane. COP-28 accordingly was supposed to utilise the GST to invigorate more aggressive environment activities, especially among now and 2030.
Notwithstanding, COP-28 frustrated on that front. There was minimal in the last consent to speed up environment activity temporarily.
Outcomes
Fossil Fuel Phase-Out: This was one of the most important topic at COP28 and it had not been discussed before. The role of fossil fuel in causing global warming had never been even acknowledged in any earlier COP before. After much discussions, the final agreement called upon countries to contribute towards “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, so as to achieve net zero by 2050. Many countries got very much disappointed that the term “fossil fuel phase-out” had not been used. Though the production and consumption of fossil fuels are unlikely to be curbed but it is not possible within the 2050-time frame.
Tripling of Renewable Energy: This was an expected outcome, and the only one that contributes to additional emission reductions between now and 2030. The COP-28 agreement called upon countries to contribute to tripling of global installed capacity of renewable energy, and doubling of annual improvements in energy efficiency. Together, these two measures have the potential to avoid emissions of about 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between now and 2030, more than all the net result of all the other climate actions being currently taken. Tripling is a global target, and it is not incumbent on every country to individually triple its current installed capacity. It is thus not clear how this tripling would be ensured.
Phase down of coal: Notwithstanding being a non-renewable energy source, very much like oil or petroleum gas, coal has gotten a different notice in the understanding. This is on the grounds that coal was at that point singled out for work down in the Glasgow gathering in 2021. There was a transition to specify that no new coal terminated power plants could be opened without an in-fabricated carbon catch and storeroom, however this was unequivocally opposed by India, China, South Africa and other nations. It was dropped. Lastly, the Glasgow language was repeated. There isn’t anything about how this stage down is to be estimated, or from what pattern.
Methane emission cuts: The game plan talks about “accelerating and essentially lessening non-carbon-dioxide outpourings around the world, recalling for explicit methane spreads by 2030”. Methane is the most expansive ozone hurting substance isolated from CO2, addressing practically 25% of all releases. It is similarly on various occasions major areas of strength for more CO2 in causing a perilous air deviation. Methane outpouring diminishes can therefore bring huge benefits. Nonetheless, a couple of countries, including India, are unimaginably against any request to cut methane spreads, basically considering the way that one of the huge sources is cultivation and tamed creatures.
Loss and Damage Fund: This was one of the most important outcomes for the poor and vulnerable countries. Though a decision was set up last year in Sharam el-Shaikh for the lost and damage fund but it had not been created and no money had been promised. Now COP-28 operationalised this fund on the opening day of the conference and several countries including host UAE, made funding commitments worth about US$ 800 million. The fund is meant for the countries for financial help trying to recover from climate-induced disasters.
Global Goal on Adaptation: This was another significant step emerging nations had been hanging tight for. All things considered, adaptation hasn’t got sufficient consideration, or assets, as contrasted and relief exercises, basically in light of the fact that variation is generally a local endeavour. Its advantages likewise are mostly local.
In any case, emerging nations had been contending that a worldwide system for adaptation was important to carry more consideration regarding it. As needs be, the Glasgow gathering had chosen to set up a two-year work program to characterize the forms of this system. The work program brought about the identification of some common objectives, significant for the whole world. These included decrease for environment actuated water shortage, reduction in climate induced water scarcity, attaining the climate resilience in food and farming creation, supplies and dissemination, and resilience against environment prompted wellbeing influences.
COP-28 embraced the structure, yet significantly more should be finished on this front, especially in distinguishing the markers to gauge progress on every one of the worldwide objectives. The transformation understanding presently needs monetary arrangements, and nations would have to keep chipping away at it to reinforce it before very long
Way Forward
What ought to be the Way Advance?
Focus on Environment Money Targets.
All respective benefactors should satisfy their environment finance responsibilities and set more aggressive targets.
The requirement for incorporating environment finance into public improvement plans and arrangements is much more prominent than previously.
Clear Guides and Timetables
Foster clear and nitty gritty guides with explicit timetables for accomplishing key achievements and targets.
Lay out interval objectives that add to the generally speaking long haul targets, encouraging a feeling of responsibility.
Upgraded Public Activity Plans (NDCs)
Nations ought to re-examine and reinforce their Broadly Resolved Commitments (NDCs) to reflect more aggressive and substantial environment activity targets.
NDCs ought to cover a great many areas, including energy, transportation, farming, and industry.
Regulation and Strategy Backing
Institute and reinforce home-grown regulation and approaches that help the execution of environment targets.
Coordinate environment contemplations into existing regulations and guidelines across different areas.
Put resources into limit working at nearby, public, and worldwide levels to upgrade the capacity to carry out environment activities really.
Give preparing and assets to help mechanical, monetary, and institutional limit.
Global Participation.
Work with the exchange of environment well-disposed advances, particularly from created to emerging nations.
Share encounters, examples learned, and best practices among nations to speed up the reception of harmless to the ecosystem arrangements across ventures.
Conclusion
COPs are pivotal in the fight against environmental change however the street ahead is both testing and promising. Its prosperity requires aggregate assurance, enduring responsibility. It requires determination, commitment and support from all the countries so that all can come together and work for the greater cause. Thus, the leading members of the countries must take initiatives in battle against climate change.
Hamas, derived from the acronym of its official title, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Harakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islamiyah), stands as a significant Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization. It currently holds governance in the Gaza Strip, an area situated within the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Headquartered in Gaza City, Hamas also maintains a presence in the West Bank, the larger of the two Palestinian territories, where its secular rival, Fatah, holds control.
Established in 1987 by Palestinian imam and activist Ahmed Yassin during the First Intifada against Israeli occupation, Hamas originated from Yassin’s Mujama al-Islamiyah Islamic charity, which had affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood dating back to 1973.The history of Hamas has been marked by significant conflicts with Israel, including multiple wars in 2008–09, 2012, 2014, and most recently in 2021. The ongoing 2023 conflict erupted when Hamas launched an attack on Israel, targeting Israeli military bases and civilian communities, resulting in casualties among civilians and soldiers. This assault has been characterized as the most substantial military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War. In response, Israel initiated an ongoing ground invasion of Gaza.
Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by dozens of countries due to its history of armed resistance against Israel, including attacks targeting civilians. The group is known for its Islamist militant ideology and governs the Gaza Strip, where it maintains control over a significant population. While some nations differentiate between its political and military wings, the organization’s actions, including the recent massive surprise attack on Israel resulting in numerous casualties, have led to widespread condemnation and designation as a terrorist entity. The group’s hostility towards Israel, coupled with its backing from countries like Iran and harbouring of leaders in Turkey, continues to create instability in the region and hinders prospects for peace and stability in Gaza.
The United Nations has not labelled Hamas as a terrorist organisation due to various geopolitical reasons and differing perspectives among member states. Some member nations within the UN do not consider Hamas solely as a terrorist organisation but rather as a political entity representing certain Palestinian interests. Additionally, the UN operates under a complex framework where designating a group as a terrorist organisation involves a consensus among its member states, which can be influenced by diplomatic considerations, regional dynamics, and differing interpretations of terrorism. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organisation by several countries, including the United States, Israel, the European Union, Canada, and others. However, the lack of a unified global consensus within the UN prevents the organisation from receiving a universal terrorist designation by the entire body.
Factors contributing to this lack of designation include:
1. Political Considerations: Some member states view Hamas as a legitimate political entity representing certain Palestinian interests. This viewpoint creates divisions within the Security Council, hindering unanimous agreement on labelling Hamas as a terrorist group.
2. Geopolitical Dynamics: The Security Council comprises diverse nations with varying geopolitical interests. Veto powers held by countries like Russia often impede actions against entities linked to Iran, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, due to their alignment with Iranian interests.
3. Lack of Consensus: Efforts to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization have faced opposition within the Security Council. Attempts, like the 2018 resolution introduced by former U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, received minimal support, highlighting the lack of consensus among member states.
4. Complexity of Definition: There may be differing interpretations of terrorism and its applicability to certain groups. Some nations might not categorize Hamas solely as a terrorist organization, viewing its actions within a broader political or resistance context.
5. Diplomatic and Legal Considerations: The UN operates under specific legal and diplomatic frameworks. Designating an entity as a terrorist organization involves legal intricacies, and disagreements among member states can hinder the legal criteria for such a designation.
These factors, among others, contribute to the absence of a UN Security Council designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite declarations by individual nations and ongoing criticism from certain quarters for not taking a decisive stance against the group.
How Hamas is funded?
Hamas receives funding from various sources despite being designated as a terrorist entity by the United States and the European Union, restricting official assistance from these entities. Historically, Palestinian expatriates and private donors in the Persian Gulf have been significant contributors to Hamas’s finances. Some Islamic charities in the West have channelled funds to Hamas-backed social service groups, resulting in asset freezes by the U.S. Treasury.
Presently, Iran plays a significant role in supporting Hamas, providing funds, weapons, and training. Despite a brief rift due to conflicting positions in Syria’s civil war, Iran contributes approximately $100 million annually to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other designated Palestinian groups. Iran promptly praised Hamas’s 2023 assault on Israel and pledged continued support.
Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been a consistent supporter of Hamas. While Ankara claims to provide only political support, accusations have arisen regarding funding for Hamas’s activities, including potential diversion of aid from the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency.
Division among member states within the United Nations
The response to labelling Hamas as a terrorist organization has been contentious and divided among nations, especially within the United Nations Security Council. The attempts made by the United States, notably under the leadership of former Ambassador Nikki Haley in 2018, to designate Hamas as a terrorist group faced significant resistance. Despite efforts, the resolutions brought forth by the U.S. received minimal support, highlighting a lack of consensus among Security Council members on this issue.
Russia, as one of the permanent members of the Security Council possessing veto power, has been a notable obstacle in taking decisive action against entities like Hamas. Its stance has often acted as a roadblock in pursuing measures against Iran and Iran-backed entities, further complicating efforts to condemn groups like Hamas at the international level.
In recent instances, the U.S. urged the Security Council to condemn terrorist attacks attributed to Hamas, but immediate action was not taken due to the lack of unanimity among council members. This underscores the challenges in achieving consensus on matters related to Hamas within the Security Council, with divergent opinions among member nations impeding unified action. The responses from different countries and officials also reveal broader tensions and accusations of bias within the United Nations. Israeli and U.S. officials have criticized the U.N., particularly the Security Council, for what they perceive as an anti-Israel bias.
Countries Designating Hamas as a Terrorist Organization:
Countries supporting and opposing the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization display a significant divergence in their stances.
1. United States: Designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in 1995.
2. Canada: Followed suit in November 2002.
3. United Kingdom: Designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in November 2021.
4. European Union: Designated Hamas’s military wing in 2001 and, under pressure from the US, designated Hamas in 2003.
5. Japan and New Zealand: Designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization.
6. Jordan: Banned the organization.
Countries Not Regarding Hamas as a Terrorist Organization:
1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Russia, Norway, Turkey, China, Egypt, Syria, and Brazil: Do not classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.
2. Arab and Muslim World: Hamas has lost its pariah status in some regions, with its representatives being welcomed in capitals of Islamic countries.
3. Varied Opinions: Some governments and academics view Hamas as a multifaceted organization, with terrorism being just one facet.
Conclusion
The designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization remains a subject of contention and divergence among nations. While certain countries, notably Western nations, and some Asian states, have labelled Hamas as a terrorist group, others, especially in the Middle East and parts of Asia, do not share this viewpoint. This discrepancy in classification highlights the complexity and varying perspectives on the nature and actions of Hamas in different geopolitical contexts.
Overall, the response to labelling Hamas as a terrorist organization reflects a complex geopolitical landscape within the United Nations, marked by differing perspectives, accusations of bias, and challenges in achieving consensus among member nations, particularly within the Security Council.
Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa in a recent interview to Rajdeep Sardesai said, “It is sad to see how Indians have changed.”
India is an important stakeholder in any major and minor world event. The world views India’s response through the gaze of Israel-Palestine (Hamas), but the government of India/ Bharat sees this as an event in the Middle East with repercussions for a possible spillover to India. A biased western media has gone to the extent of interpreting New Delhi’s response as pro or anti-Hindutva, since the ruling party is the BJP, infamously identified as anti-minority (Islam) party. But the prism of India’s interpretation of this conflict is deeply embedded in the realities of internal affairs and external realism embedded in real-time geopolitics. Indian External Affairs Minister, Dr. S Jaishankar has ensured to mention in numerous other geopolitical fraught that, “Do not think it is necessary for India to join any axis. India is entitled to make its own choices which will be a balance of its values and interests.”
India views Israel as the lever of Middle East evidenced from the mini-lateral I2U2, followed by India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. India cannot afford to get herself embroiled in the difficult annals of not siding with Israel. India has made its stance very clear regarding the vagaries of conflict of interest when it comes to the infighting between the human rights with that of territorial rights (Palestine), and retaliation to terrorism (Israel). India stood its stand by not opposing the U.N ceasefire resolution and abstaining from the UNGA resolution seeking a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza. India has lessons to learn from this conflict for it to be future ready, considering the fact India is one of the worst placed geopolitically when it comes to its external and foreign borders.
We must understand and reinvigorate and reiterate the fact that along with a muscular foreign policy, there also must be the preparedness about the highest levels of military intelligence. The art of statecraft is an effective amalgamation and saturation of two things; Surprise and Deception. We have a lot of parallels that can be drawn from our unfortunate past episodes of ravaging our internal sovereignty in the case of Kargil War and the 26/11 Mumbai attack.
Military intelligence is all about hunch and the effective joining of the dots that play out in the domain of tactics, strategy, and intelligence. This brings us to the point that the Five Eyes alliance and the CIA got all the nodes correct in the case of Russia-Ukraine war, but in this case, all the points got whitewashed right in front of their eyes. The IDF and the Mossad got whitewashed and trapped onto an ‘Information Deception.’ The Hamas used every tactic and strategy by tearing out the pages of learning from that of the IDF and the Mossad. The way Israel was in for a battle shock, we do not want that for India, if God forbid, we see any escalation in any of our volatile and porous borders.
Deterrence is costly, but wars are always costlier. For deterrence to be effective and tech savvy and timely, there must be ramping up of the efforts for ensuring the Theatre Commands, and the necessary structural changes in the Intelligence. Howsoever technologically advanced we might get; Human Intelligence can never be undermined. HUMINT since the age of the genesis of nationhood and statehood, has remained an undeniable asset to any tactic solvation and strategy modulation. HUMINT is the conviction of truth, that transcends the boundaries of technology, neither undermining, nor demonizing the power of technology in effective war deterrence. Human source intelligence is and uniquely effective against the terrorist targets. And this becomes even more important for India, since we are in a limbo of vulnerability, both from an internal security (as reckless as that of a Lone Wolf attack) and an external security prism.
The year 2011 was a difficult and turning phase for many Middle East nations as it went through the Arab Spring movement which started in Tunisia and caused political upheaval, uprising and civil war in many Arab countries. Among many nations, Syria’s civil war against its President Bashar al- Assad has continued to be an issue for many nations as it re-ignites the issue of Kurds and has witnessed Russian and the US involvement in the war which has only worsened the situation. As the conflict caused economic and humanitarian (refugee) crisis in the country, situation in and for Syria has changed since 2011 and as President Assad has a firm control in the country, is back in the Arab League and conflict in the country appears to have settled into a frozen state.
Situation in Syria
To understand the situation in Syria, today, a roughly 30% of the country is controlled by the rebel or opposition forces. However, heavy fighting largely ceased to exist between the rebels and the government and there is a growing regional trend towards a normalisation ties between both the groups. Meanwhile, despite the West push to remove President Assad from the power and growing power politics between the West and Russia with Turkey playing a strategic role to address the Kurds issue, and after 13 years the power and hold of President Assad has become firm in the country.
With the Assad regime continues to operate with impunity in the areas controlled by its army and he has only continue to strengthened his power over the years. Despite accusations labelled against the crimes committed by his forces and government, the power centric politics between the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Israel and the sects politics and conflicts have made situation worse in the country and difficult for the 12 million Syrian refugee. The developments in Syria shows an impasse has been achieved in the recent years projecting the future of Syria has been frozen and prospects of a peace talk to bring normalisation and address humanitarian crisis situation in the country has become low.
With poverty and hunger widespread in the country and prospects of securing a safe place in Syria is minimal due to a stalemate in the Syrian civil war. As the West argues, regime and Russia and Iran have benefitted from the on-going situation in the country and the use of vetoes by Russia and China against West backed UN Security Council Resolution has impeded the roadmap/process to secure justice and accountability in Syria. Considering violence is low and combined with a collapsing economy and spread of diseases, natural calamity and situation like the Covid-19 pandemic has hardened the life of people in Syria. Despite such situation in Syria, conflict remains frozen, with status-quo is in fragile and armies from the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Israel are operating on different sides of the conflict have caused no progress in political negotiation, which is a worrying sign for the people.
Syria re-entry into the Arab League
Despite such situation and considering how the civil war unfolded in the first place and role played by vested countries which includes many nations in the Arab League. Since 2011, things have changed when Syria was removed from the league. As the league is often seen as disunited group and has not played a significant role in the Syrian peace negotiations. This became clear in 2018 when many members begin to repair their relationship with Syria, though, it was largely symbolically in the past such decision became beneficial for the Assad regime. As West Asian countries tilt towards Russia and China, this has cautioned the West which could impact the peace process in Syria like under the UNSC Resolution 2254 (2015) and Astana Talk proceeded in a right direction in the last few years.
Such aspects became prominent during the Russia-Ukraine war when many West Asian countries didn’t response to the West’s call to decouple from Russia and China. As many West Asian countries depend upon Russia and China for military hardware and the economic benefits respectively. Recent alignment between the Arab League and Syria is only after effect of such aligning of interest of West Asian countries and Russia and China. In May 2023, Syria was re-admitted into the Arab League shows a collective decision taken as they agree isolation of Syria hasn’t worked so far and need to address problems and challenges like refugees and the illicit drug trade which could spread to other nations. Such re-alignment highlights following aspects:
They recognise the Assad regime will remain in power in the country.
Seen as an attempt to reduce the influence of Iran in the country.
Want to push reconstruction plan in Syria which will provide them economic gains.
Such development allow them to diversify their alliance beyond the US.
The return of Syria into the league is a result of many factors and among them changing regional reality is seen as a main driver. With stalemate on the ground and realisation that the President Assad can’t be removed and the momentum for revolution failed to withstand with the time forced the opposition forces to come to a conclusion and to extent accept the reality in Syria for now. Furthermore, lack of a coherent US policy backed by force on the one hand and President Assad continue to exercise control with the backing of Russia and Iran over 70% of territory on the other hand is seen as a vital factor for normalisation process in the Arab world. Meanwhile, many analyst sees the development as Saudi Arabia push for region’s stability and economic growth in the region, facilitating the beginning of much needed reconstruction and renewed trade between Damascus and other Arab countries.
Way Forward
With this normalisation process, it does not give respite to the Assad regime who will gain new economic ties and a much-needed reconstruction. On the other hand, it also promotes Saudi Arabia role as a mediator, who already enjoyed tremendous political and economic clout in the Middle East. However, France issuing an arrest warrant for President Assad for the crimes he committed against his people, Russia, Syria and the US continue bombing in Syria and with winter approaching, the life of Syrian people will not change anytime soon. As West’s sanction against the Assad regime continues it will act as a hurdle in further normalisation between Arab nations and Syria and Arab’s leadership role. Thus, improvement of people’s situation in Syria and end to their misery is needed which has continued for long and should bring respite in Syria.
