Biden and Xi will speak on November 14 in Bali, Indonesia, about “efforts to maintain and deepen lines of communication” between the two nations amid rising tensions, the White House announced in a statement on November 10, 2022.
The White House has confirmed that US President Joe Biden will meet Chinese President Xi Jinping next week on the sidelines of the Group of 20 (G20) summit. This will be the first in-person meeting between the two leaders since Biden assumed office in early 2021.
Furthermore, the two will also talk about “responsibly managing competition” and “working together when our interests match, notably on transnational concerns that affect the international community,” among other topics.

Zhao Lijian

The US suggestion for a meeting between the two leaders was taken “seriously” by China, according to Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and teams from both countries were in discussion about it. The US’s strategy toward China is clear and consistent. We are committed to working with the US in a way that benefits both of our countries. We will vigorously protect our interests in security, development, and sovereignty at the same time, Zhao stated.
Moreover, the conversation in Bali will be the first time Biden and Xi have spoken in person since Biden became president, despite the fact that they have had a few virtual meetings.
According to reports, Biden planned to speak with Xi about the rising hostilities between Washington and Beijing. In our conversation, Biden remarked, “What I want to do is set out what each of our red lines is and understand what he feels to be in the key national interests of China, and what I know to be in the critical interests of the US.”
However, relations between Beijing and Washington have deteriorated to their lowest point in decades since Biden and Xi last met in person under the Obama administration, particularly since US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August.

On November 9, 2022, Afghan women were prevented from attending Kabul’s amusement parks after the Taliban’s morals ministry announced that there will be limitations on women’s access to public parks.
When questioned, a representative of the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (MPVPV) acknowledged that women would be prohibited from entering parks, but they did not answer to inquiries for more information.
The extent of the limits and their impact on an earlier MPVPV directive requiring that parks, including outdoor areas, be divided by gender and set aside for women on specific days were unclear.

A call for comment was ignored by Bilal Karimi, a deputy spokesperson for the extreme Taliban leadership.
Taliban spies were present and observing the situation when numerous women were turned away by park staff at an amusement park with rides in Kabul.
For security reasons, Masooma, a Kabul resident, had intended to take her grandchild to the park but was turned away. “When a mother arrives at park with their kids, they have to be allowed in because they haven’t seen anything wonderful. They have to play and be entertained. We are now coming home after much pleading to let us enter the park was refused” she said.
In order to speak freely about this difficult issue, two park managers requested anonymity. They claimed Taliban representatives had instructed them to forbid women from entering their parks.

Since taking control of Afghanistan last year, the Taliban have enforced the belief that women should not leave the house without a male relative and must wear face coverings, though some urban dwellers choose to disregard this tradition and some women are now allowed to work in government institutions. On indications that all girls’ high schools would open in March, the group also reversed course.
The Taliban, according to Western nations, needs to change its position on women’s rights before the Taliban administration can receive official recognition. According to the Taliban’s understanding of Islamic law, they support women’s rights.

The Conference of the Parties (COP), often known as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, began on 6 November 2022. Global leaders converged on Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where they are debating and negotiating action on issues related to climate change. This summit is anticipated to centre on how countries should allocate financial responsibility for the crisis after a year of terrible climate impacts felt most keenly in developing countries.

About COP27:

197 countries that have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a global environmental agreement, are represented at the climate summit. Leaders from these nations formally gather each year to bargain, decide, and develop solutions to climate issues that are caused by humans.
In March 1995, the first of these seminars took place in Berlin, Germany. Nations decided to keep global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial levels during the 21st summit, which was held in Paris in 2015. That was the first COP where nations came to a legally-binding agreement on climate change. The conference has held its 27th session this year.
The two-week conference this year is taking place from November 6 to November 18 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The conference will take place in Africa for the first time since 2016 at this time.

Participants of the Summit:

Nearly 200 nations will have representatives there, including President Joe Biden, who is expected to show up on 11 November following the midterm elections. The conference is open to academics, activists, the media, and members of the public.
Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, Xi Jinping, the leader of China, and Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, are all absent. Greta Thunberg, a Swedish environmental activist who has previously attended conferences, will also not go this time. As another opportunity for influential people to get away with “greenwashing, lying, and cheating,” she has rejected the event.
The new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Rishi Sunak, made national news last week when he declared he would not go “because of other pressing domestic duties. However, he changed his mind and is now present. On the other hand, Charles III would not be there.

Agenda of the Summit:

This year, there will be a lot of discussion about climate financing, or how to pay for tackling and coping with the effects of climate change. “We are going to see huge conversations around finance for adaptation, mitigation, and for loss and damage,” says Lily Odarno, director of the Clean Air Task Force’s Energy and Climate Innovation Program for Africa. “But I also think that we are going to see developing economies try to assert their voices more in the climate debate,” Odarno adds. “Every day, we see the tangible effects of climate change all around us. Therefore, there will be an increased drive for rich nations to accept responsibility for historical emissions.”
Food production, biodiversity, water, gender, climate change, and energy are further discussion points.

Climate Reparations:

The summit agenda now includes financing for loss and damage, also known as climate reparations. The unavoidable social and financial effects that countries are now experiencing as a result of climate change are referred to as loss and damage.
While impoverished nations are most harmed by climate change-related extreme weather, developed nations are the main contributors to carbon dioxide emissions. By the end of this decade, developing countries may need to spend an estimated $340 billion annually on climate change adaptation.
The first U.N. member state to provide loss and damage compensation was Denmark. It committed more than $13 million, or 100 million Danish crowns, to the Sahel region of Africa and other affected areas.

Current Climate Goals:

The newest U.N. emissions gap report sets the world to warm by between 4.3 and 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, exceeding the Paris conference goal of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. This increase is based on countries’ present pledges.
All nations agreed to reinforce and update their pledged carbon reductions during the meeting held in Scotland last year. However, according to the Climate Action Tracker, just 27 out of 193 had actually sent updated plans to the U.N. as of November 8th. A smaller group of nations ratified the Global Methane Pledge, a strategy to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030, also during COP26. As part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the United States “approved its first-ever charge on methane,” marking one of several countries that have made progress in this direction.
Developed nations pledged to provide developing nations with $100 billion in climate financing annually by 2020 in 2009. It is estimated that this goal would not be achieved until at least 2023.

The UN warned on November 3, 2022, that the effects of climate change on the world’s most vulnerable nations could surpass attempts to adapt to global warming. This is despite the fact that “substantial” amounts of international financing have already been diverted for other projects.

Numerous emerging economies, which are least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, are among those most vulnerable to the effects of the climate, including intensifying drought, flooding, and cyclones. One of the most challenging topics of the UN climate negotiations, which start their latest round in Egypt, is funding to assist them in adapting to accelerating consequences and reducing emissions.

Rich countries have fallen short of their promise to give underdeveloped countries $100 billion year, only giving them $83 billion in 2020. That $29 billion was only used in part for adaptation. Inger Andersen, the head of the UN Environment Programme, noted that this leaves a “yawning vacuum to be addressed” and that the real demands were roughly five to ten times more than the funding allocated in 2020.
While states have pledged to provide additional funds for countries that are vulnerable to climate change, richer countries have been accused of passing off other forms of help, such as humanitarian aid, as climate funding. According to Henry Neufeldt, author of the UNEP report, “some of that money — and we don’t know how much, but certainly a considerable percentage — is not genuinely adaptation or mitigation, it’s repurposed.”

But as the planet warms, the effects of climate change get more severe, and planning for them becomes more expensive.

UNEP increased its projections for adaptation from a year earlier, stating that by 2030, countries will require $160 billion to $340 billion yearly to boost resilience, increasing to $315 billion and $565 billion by 2050.
The UN issued a warning that the world was far from meeting the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

The shooting at a political gathering on November 3, 2022, which Imran Khan’s party described as an assassination attempt and resulted in one person being murdered, other people being hurt, and protests from Khan’s fans, was survived by Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan.

The gunshot at the PTI gathering that injured former prime minister Imran Khan and others was “highly condemned” by the United States. In a statement, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed sympathies to the family of the victim who was slain and wished Imran Khan and all others a speedy and complete recovery. The Secretary of State urged all parties to refrain from using violence, harassment, and intimidation, saying that it had no place in politics. The United States is deeply committed to a democratic and peaceful Pakistan, and we stand with the Pakistani people, the secretary continued in his statement.

The assassination attempt on former Prime Minister Imran Khan was denounced by numerous other foreign leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. “I strongly condemn this violence and utterly reject the attack on Imran Khan and his followers. It has no place in our culture, in politics, or in any democracy. Imran and all those hurt today deserve a quick recovery, Trudeau tweeted on his official Twitter account.
The attempted assassination of the former premier in Gujranwala was condemned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well.
In addition, “Imran Khan is strong and will get back on his feet,” according to Britain’s Minister of State Zac Goldsmith, who called the news of the incident disgusting. He said, “Those forces in Pakistan who think they can suppress democracy there via murder are wrong, and they will be exposed to be wrong.”

Moreover, the news shocked and saddened eminent Islamic scholar Mufti Menk. “I send him my best wishes for a quick recovery. Regardless of our disagreements, all forms of violence are completely abhorrent and wrong” he continued.
In this context, James Cleverly, the British foreign secretary, added on the microblogging website that “violence has no place in politics.” Also, Malala Yousufzai, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, added with this that “it is always unacceptable to insult political leaders of any party or belief system.”
According to a European Union (EU) team in Pakistan, “Violence is never a legitimate form of protest. I hope Imran Khan gets well completely. Violence in all its manifestations is wrong and intolerable.”

The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) is the sole representative organization of the Muslim world. It is an inter-governmental organization consisting of fifty-seven states which represent one-quarter of the members of the United Nations.

The main objectives of the Constitutional Charter of the Islamic Cooperation are aimed at improving and strengthening solidarity among Member States, protecting Islam’s true image and preventing its defamation, promoting dialogue among civilizations and religions, striving to get integrated and sustainable human development, and ensure the development of the Members in the organization. Despite these objectives, the Muslim world is still witnessing a threat to their unity and is unable to emerge as a single bloc.

Failures of OIC on Political Issues:

Among the main failures of OIC includes lack of cohesion and unity, as there are inter-state differences among the member states, there are Shia-Sunni conflict, antagonistic foreign policy with major Western world influence and territorial disputes. Likewise, there is rising Islamophobia as in the western world Islam is perceived as a threat to Western values such as liberalism, democracy, individualism and women emancipation. Moreover, there is terrorism that has given bitter image of Islam. The growing incidence of violence and suicidal attacks, sectarian violence and increasing growth of religious-political parties, which has depicted negative Western approach about Islam.

Israel-Palestine issue:

With OIC backing, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) received recognition from the international community to represent stateless Palestinians. Israel became even more aggressive in fighting against the Palestinians and establishing its legitimacy in Palestine. In this conflict Israel defeated not only the Palestinians, but all the OIC countries.

Kashmir issue:

Like the conflict in Palestine, the Kashmir dispute is another of the oldest unresolved conflicts at the United Nations. The OIC has adopted numerous resolutions with little impact in reality in resolving the crisis. Overall Kashmir has become another source of constant difficulty for Muslim societies today.

Human rights:

The OIC has been criticized for not discussing the treatment of ethnic minorities in member countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria and Turkey, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Hazaras in Afghanistan, the ‘Al-Akhdam’ in Yemen, or the Berbers in Algeria.

Role of OIC in Conflict Resolution:
Iran-Iraq War

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was a testing ground for OIC’s ability to resolve intra-Muslim conflict. The OIC played a mediating role as war broke out in September 1980. The Iranian leadership did not seem to trust the OIC.
The OIC formed an “Islamic Peace Committee” and continued its mediating role. It proposed a cease-fire with the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Iranian territories. It urged both countries to exchange declarations of non-interference in the internal affairs of the other country. But both did not paid attention to these proposals. The Iranians were of the view that the OIC first identify the aggressor in the conflict and punish them. Iran wanted the OIC to do this without participating in its meetings. Thus, the OIC lost its credibility as a mediator.

September 11 Attack:

Muslim internal disputes have gotten worse since the attacks of September 11, 2001. As a result, the OIC General Secretariat in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, established a dedicated unit known as the “Peace, Security and Mediation Unit (PSMU). It was stated that the PSMU would initially concentrate on creating capacity, after which it would primarily operate by monitoring actual and potential crisis situations in order to recognise and assess the main causes of conflicts and decide how to settle them. However, the OIC has not done a very good job of handling these situations.

The Prospects of OIC:

Following a discussion of the organization’s failings, the issue of whether the OIC has any chance of success inevitably emerges. When it first existed and even now, the OIC had the capacity to play a significant role in world politics. The OIC is unfamiliar to most people, despite being the second-largest intergovernmental body after the United Nations. This is as a result of its poor execution. When it first appeared, it gave many people reason for hope, but since then, their hopes have been dashed by its failure. This concept can be discovered by conducting a brief analysis of the Afghan conflict.
Al-admission Qaeda’s of guilt in the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban’s steadfast defence of al-Qaeda leadership led the United States and its allies to consider invading Afghanistan. The U.S. failed to completely eliminate either al-Qaeda or the Taliban, despite the civilian deaths that allowed it and its allies to take control of the entire country. It is reasonable to assume that the OIC will be able to permanently reduce antagonism.

Conclusion:

On the international map, the OIC has served as the only voice of the Muslim Ummah, speaking for 57 different countries, however this organisation has fallen short of what the Muslim Ummah had hoped for. The OIC’s weakness stems from a lack of internal coherence. It is unrealistic to expect an organisation that has served as little more than a debate forum and a platform for making meaningless announcements for almost four decades to suddenly transform into a proactive international entity. Regarding the main issues facing the Muslim Ummah, such as Palestine, terrorism, and globalisation, the OIC merely established contact groups and passed resolutions without taking any concrete action that would pose a significant threat to aggressors. The difficulties thus remained the same.
OIC should develop a mode to act practically worldwide. For this purpose, OIC should follow the footsteps of other successful organizations of the world like EU and Council of Europe. OIC needs to create a strategy for acting practically everywhere. OIC could emulate other globally successful organisations like the EU and Council of Europe for this goal.

When talking about terrorism, it is witnessed in almost every society throughout the human history. It is said that that its roots lie in the French Revolution but, terrorism can be sketched in the earlier times as well. Looking into the definitions of “terrorism”, we cannot find a single idea or explanation which defines it. Taking the most reliable definitions in consideration, FBI defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. In addition, US code defines it as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups. This simply draws an idea that terrorism is use of violence against individuals or governments to intimidate them. By the definitions it’s clear that such sought of activities are labelled as “terrorist activities” but only some of the acts occuring around the world fall under “terrorism”.

The superpowers or the dominant powers take the authority to label certain acts as terrorism and not the others. Why there exists such a divergence when considering terrorism? From the above definition it is clearly evident that any sort of religion or group is not associated with terrorism, then why only specific groups or religion is targeted when terrorism is considered in the world system. Why when same acts of terrorism is carried out by a specific group or a state is not recognized as terrorism and they are called as freedom fighters but when these very acts are carried out by a different group or state they are labelled as terrorist activities under terrorism. From where does this distinction emerge? The very reason of religion underlines this distinction.

During the Iraq war, many of the civilian population were killed and different forms of violence were used, but still this act will not be labelled as terrorism. Here is the distinction that the term terrorism is not associated with the western world, but most importantly associated with the Arabs and the Muslims. Majority of the world if asked to define terrorism through a portrait they will through one way or the other portray it through the Islamic World. Even our very own Pakistan is seen as a terrorist country by many around the globe after the 9/11 attacks. It is seen as a hot bed of terrorism or a nursery of terrorism and it is even said that there are school based terrorist ideas in Pakistan.

In addition to this, the terrorism word is so associated with the Muslims and the Arab world that even on the airports these individuals have to go through a strict security check. Even many of the movies are giving this distorted idea against the Arab World labelling them as terrorists. So, the basic idea is that Terrorism is usually associated with a specific religion and under these other acts of terrorism are simply forsaken. Association of Terrorism with religion and particularly with Islam is not justified as none of the religion in this society give teachings to practice terrorism to safeguard rights and it would not be wrong to say that Terrorism has no religion which means that its not an act supported by any faith or moral teachings.

Terrorism is seen as an ideological and political concept to achieve political, religious and ideological objectives by state or non-state actors. There main aims can be revolution, national liberations, revenge etc. Terrorism usually occurs due to threat to one’s identities or when that particular group wants their identity to dominate over others. Number of terrorist activities were influenced by warfare between races, struggles between the rich and poor or battles between political outcasts and elites. Terrorists usually justify their bloody actions under the basis of social, economic and political unfairness. In addition, they take inspiration from religious beliefs or spiritual norms which inspires them to walk towards the road of Terrorism.
Many of the states also exploit terrorism in other states to guard their own national interest. For example, Iran is known for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon against Israel. Also, United States sided with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against the communist government of Gamal Abdel Nasser and also the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.

CASE STUDY
United States, War On Terror And Its Global Hegemony:

The United States after defeating Soviet Union in the cold war, continued to fight against terrorism as its rival. This rivalry is targeted towards the global terrorism. United States is utilizing Terrorism as a threat to specially develop their military might. They are of the view that they face a threat from the civilizations especially the Islamic Civilization so to overcome it, they want to develop their military might. So, in this war against terrorism, United States is actually doing threat manufacturing. In addition, United States is using this war on Terrorism as a justification to intervene in different states for example its intervention in Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. Through these activities, United States is trying to maintain its global hegemony all over the international world. Seeing through the lens of offensive realism, United States is at a constant war with terrorism around the globe, being a superpower, it easily exercises its power over other states and Intervene in case of acts of terrorism. On international stage, all states pledge to stand against and defeat terrorism but in reality, use it against other states. Once the President of United States said that it can use its military might if United States has to pursue its interests in the Middle East region.

According to Constructivism, it is said that anarchy is what we make of it. What we perceive we label it as such. For example, for some states an act of violence of a state is considered a threat while by others, it is not considered a threat. This is what United States did in their war against terrorism. After the 9/11 attack, they stood against the terrorist group of Al-Qaeda and declared it as Terrorist. But on the other side of the story, United States also supports Israel and provide them with weapons and considers Israel as an American ally, here it is seen that Israel is not considered as terrorist who commit terrorism against Palestine. This shows that United States have constructed this concept of terrorism under which they have forsaken Israel and this is due to America’s own national interests in the Middle East and they also want to contain Iran. The oft-quoted statement that ‘One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’ reminds us that the definition of terrorism is based on how it is being constructed by an individual or state. Therefore, United States see Israel as their ally, rather than a terrorist.

Conclusion:

Terrorism is considered as among the biggest threat faced by the international world. Most of the terrorist acts are associated with religion and this is done by the major powers of the world. Terrorism needs to be identified clearly and then steps should be taken by the world community collectively to contain this act of violence rather than targeting a specific group. Keeping aside the national interests, States needs to drive their efforts to counter such acts

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to be the United States’ most “consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades,” according to the National Defense Strategy (NDS), which was published on October 27, 2022. This report, which is created every four years, identifies dangers to the US and provides the Department of Defense with long-term direction.

China is cited by the Pentagon as the most “comprehensive and serious challenge” to US security in the National Defense Strategy that lists threats. China was identified by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin as the biggest threat to the US, followed by Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Pentagon also demanded an immediate increase in deterrence against Beijing. The People’s Republic of China’s coercive and increasingly aggressive endeavour to redefine the Indo-Pacific region and the international system to accommodate its interests and authoritarian preferences, the report said, is “the most extensive and significant challenge to US national security,” and it goes on to say that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is developing its conventional as well as cyber and space capabilities.

In order to be able to project military power worldwide, the report stated that the PRC is also increasing the PLA’s worldwide footprint and aiming to develop a more comprehensive overseas and basing infrastructure. The PRC is speeding up the upgrading and expansion of its nuclear capabilities concurrently.

According to Lloyd Austin, the secretary of Defence, “All three of the department’s key strategic reviews—the NDS, the nuclear posture review, and the missile defence review—were undertaken simultaneously for the first time in its history. The United States is committed to updating its nuclear triad, a military posture that maintains launchable nuclear weapons on platforms in the air, sea, and land. According to Austin, the main purpose of US nuclear weapons is to prevent nuclear attacks on the US, US allies, and US partners. One programme for nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles has been halted by the Pentagon because Austin deemed it unnecessary.

Austin forewarned that if Russia did use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, there would be a “very strong response from the international community.” This follows the emergence of such fears. Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested using nuclear weapons, but US officials have stated they do not perceive a change in Moscow’s nuclear posture and called Putin’s suggestion of using nukes as irresponsible. Russia was referred to as a “acute threat” to the US in the National Defense Strategy. Austin remarked, “We chose the term ‘acute’ with consideration.” He added, “Unlike China, Russia cannot pose a sustained systemic threat to the US. However, Russian aggression does present a direct challenge to our principles and interests. And Putin’s rash war of choice against Ukraine has made it obvious, posing the biggest threat to European security since the end of World War II.

The report cited dangers from Iran, North Korea, and violent extremist organisations in addition to those from Russia and China. It stated that “Iran is taking steps that would increase its ability to produce nuclear weapons should it decide to do so, even as it develops and exports extensive missile forces, uncrewed aircraft systems, and advanced maritime capabilities that threaten chokepoints for the free flow of energy resources and global trade.” On the contrary, Iran denies wanting a nuclear weapon despite ongoing anti-government demonstrations. Iranian and American diplomatic efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement, which saw Iran curtail its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions, have stalled lately.

The assessment was nevertheless published two weeks after the White House issued a report of a similar nature in its National Security Strategy, in which it was stated that China was the only rival with the intention and, increasingly, the financial, diplomatic, military, and technological clout to alter the international order. It may be claimed that US President Joe Biden, like his predecessor Donald Trump, sees China as the US’s biggest geopolitical adversary. Additionally, relations between Beijing and Washington have deteriorated recently due to a number of causes of contention, such as trade disputes, Taiwan’s legal status, maritime claims in the South China Sea, and a continuous US campaign against expanding Chinese dominance in the Indo-Pacific.

Benny Gantz, the Israeli Defence Minister, has announced a new era in security ties with Turkey as the two nations work to repair a relationship that has been strained for ten years. Gantz made his remarks on October 27, 2022, two months after Israel and Turkey reestablished diplomatic relations and during a one-day visit to the significant NATO member. After talks with the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the defence minister Hulusi Akar in Ankara, Gantz declared that there had been no formal security relations for more than ten years. He added, “Today, we’re changing it responsibly and gradually in a way that benefits Israel.”

Similarly, Turkish response is also positive as Turkish Defence Minister Akar said that deepened relations will also aid in “finding answers to some current subjects we think differently about, such as Palestine.” The defence minister added, “We believe that the growth of our relations and collaboration with Israel would also contribute to regional peace and stability.”

In response to the Palestinian movement’s presence in Turkey, Gantz stated that “the topic came up in our meetings” and that Israel was continuously in contact with Turkish security agencies. After a long period of time, “this is the first strategic security gathering,” he declared. He remarked that one shouldn’t consume too much of what you bring to one meeting. Gantz further added, “A lot more can be done collectively to lessen the effect of those who destabilise our regions by supporting or engaging in terrorism against innocent citizens.” He clarified that it equally applies to the Palestinian arena.

It is crucial to remember that Israel and Turkey were previously close allies in the military. Israeli air force pilots were able to practise across Turkish airspace because to agreements made in the mid-1990s. Israel sent drones and other cutting-edge weaponry as well as updated Turkish military tanks and aircraft.

Israel recently commended Turkey for helping them gather intelligence to thwart Iranian attempts to launch attacks in Turkey. According to Gantz, this year Israel was able to eliminate an alarming number of threats against Turkish Jews and Israeli citizens as a result of the close, clandestine contact between the two states. He congratulated the security agencies, Minister Akar, and President Erdogan for their vital, life-saving collaboration.

The two countries’ relations were also being rekindled due to economic and security concerns. Turkey will hold its presidential election in a year, thus, Ankara wants to attract investment from its neighbours, but with inflation at over 70%, this is difficult. Security issues also exist in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean region. Turkey sees Israel as a strong actor in a region where Iran is a concern, while Israel sees Turkey as a source of stability.

In the modern world, the term ‘security’ lacks a single definition that covers all of its domains. The emergence of terrorism and proxy warfare has diversified the concept of security. According to Baldwin, states are currently focused both on traditional military threats and non-traditional security threats like climate change, human rights, poverty etc. Pakistan’s case is no different, it is suffering from both traditional and non-traditional security threats.
Traditional security threats stem from military and doctrinal intent of the opposing state to initiate war, invasion or attack. In return, it gives birth to security dilemmas as a result both states find themselves in drastic armed conflicts. Pakistan has always felt threatened because of its arch-rival India. India, an immediate neighbour of Pakistan, never had harmonious relations with Pakistan. In the past seventy years both countries had fought three all-out-war and many armed skirmishes and military standoffs. The main focus of all the conflict between these two nations is Kashmir.

The worst thing for Pakistan is that it is relatively weaker in strength as compared to India. India is the world’s second most populous state and 4.1 times bigger than Pakistan in area. In addition, it has about five times the total defense budget of Pakistan and has a greater number of conventional military forces and weapons. This asymmetry including the growing economy of India that is putting a lot of pressure on Pakistan in terms of rivalry and threat perception. Thus, it is natural that there would no competition in the realm of economy of technology where India enjoys a numerical superiority (something it also enjoys in the military realm). Therefore, Pakistan has built up its own military architecture which also characterizes nuclear deterrence in pursuit to balance Indian numerical and firepower advantage.
For obvious reasons, Pakistan is increasing concern regarding India’s necklace of diamond strategy and considers it as a direct threat for Pakistan. Therefore, a maintenance of significant naval presence is necessary for Pakistan to keep her sea lanes open and defend her interests in the Indian Ocean region.

Pakistan, being a developing state, is vulnerable to cyber-attacks as it is not technologically advanced and its resources are being invested in other traditional threats. Thus, Pakistan has to safeguard herself against the emerging challenges. Recent statements from Chief of Army Staff General Qamer Javed Bajwa, about underscoring the importance of hybrid warfare are a manifestation of the fact that Pakistan has to brace itself for the new modes of threats.
India is also venturing into the space warfare domain. It has established her Defense Space Agency in 2019 & became only the fourth country in the world to shot down a satellite during her Mission Shakti. Pakistan is feeling concerned regarding India’s active involvement in the space domain, thus, it is cooperating with China actively to cement its plane in the newest battlefield.

Apart from India, Pakistan is also concerned regarding the security of Gwadar port. The port is touted as a game-changer for Pakistan’s future. But there exist countries who doesn’t want Gwadar port to become a successful venture for both China and Pakistan therefore, Gwadar Port is at risk of multiple security threats.
Pakistan, for quite some time has also been facing a host of non-traditional security challenges that have seriously impacted its development, growth, economic progress, as well as political stability.

The maritime security is currently one of the most important agendas on the table of Pakistani government mainly because the maritime security threats pose danger to Pakistan’s sea vessels and ports which in turn can lead to an economic breakdown and intensify sea conflicts. The current maritime security challenges of Pakistan include non-traditional security threats such as maritime terrorism, piracy, human trafficking, drug smuggling, trafficking of weapons, illegal fishing, threat of tsunamis and maritime pollution.

Water crisis is also considered as the non-traditional threat to Pakistan. Pakistan is among 23 countries which are facing drought emergencies over the past two years (2020-2022), according to the ‘Global Land Outlook’ report released by the United Nations. This report also predicted that Pakistan will face a drought by 2025. According to a report from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), an estimated 70 percent of households in Pakistan drink bacterially contaminated water while 85% of people in Balochistan have no access to clean water. The worst part is that the Water Shortage is leading to many health issues including water-borne disease, heatstroke, and kidney issues among the residents of the country.

Pakistan is particularly vulnerable to climate change as its socio-economic fabric is largely agrarian, which makes it highly climate-sensitive. Pakistan can mitigate the adverse effects of natural disasters through early warning systems, technological advances in building and infrastructure construction, improved sanitation systems, increased disaster preparedness and having an effective emergency response strategy.

Another threat which Pakistan encounters is of population explosion. Pakistan hosts a huge population of over 22 crores with highest urbanization rate in the South Asian region. The population explosion is the root cause of issues such as food crises, water crises, lack of available space for housing, infrastructure, agriculture land and forests, and resources.

Moreover, smuggling and trafficking are the major non-traditional security challenges for Pakistan. These includes human trafficking, trafficking of weapons, trafficking of drugs from Afghanistan, smuggling of goods, and even plenty of oil is being smuggled from Iran into Pakistan. We saw that a lot of dollars were smuggled from Pakistan to Afghanistan after US’ withdrawal, depreciating the value of rupee in Pakistan. In this way, money laundering has spoiled the economy of the country to a greater extent.

Anyone having remote knowledge of Pakistan has an idea that Pakistan is one of the most affected states by terrorism in the world. Terrorism, another security threat, has not only challenged Pakistan’s security but also its sovereignty and survival. In addition, Pakistan’s tourism industry and international image severely depleted because of terrorism. It is reported that Pakistan lost more than 80,000 lives in War on Terror with economic losses of more than US$ 200 billion.

Diseases also serve as a threat to Pakistan. It is safe to say that Pakistan fought well against COVID-19 pandemic but that does not mean Pakistan has not suffered. The economy of Pakistan went through severe hardships in this period.
Food security hasn’t been an issue for Pakistan for most of its history due to its agricultural basis. However, it is expected that medium-term food security challenges are going to be a big challenge if instant attention is not paid in order to manage resources related to agriculture such as natural resources. The heatwaves in Pakistan along with the water crises is severely impacting agriculture in Pakistan.

There is an abundance of both traditional and non-traditional issues that Pakistan is facing currently. While the Armed Forces of Pakistan have valiantly defended territorial integrity and sovereignty successfully over time, non-traditional security challenges are fast emerging as serious concerns to its overall security in the medium- to long term. The political elites have to take iron-clad measures immediately to avoid further damage. Pakistan could also look to gain the support of both regional and non-regional actors of the world. One thing that every Pakistani has to keep in mind, “by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”