The history of flooding in Gwadar, as for many coastal cities, intertwines closely with its geographical and climatic conditions. Gwadar, located on the southwestern coast of the Pakistani province of Balochistan, has experienced its share of natural challenges, including flooding, which has been exacerbated by its position along the Arabian Sea and its exposure to monsoon seasons. For much of its history, Gwadar was a small to medium-sized settlement with an economy largely based on artisanal fishing. The strategic value of its location was recognized in 1954 when it was identified as a suitable site for a deep-water port by the United States Geological Survey at the request of Pakistan. The construction on the first phase of Gwadar Port initiated in 2007 marks a significant point in its development history. However, until the launch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in 2015, Gwadar’s potential to be a major deep-water port remained largely untapped, partly due to various challenges including security concerns and lack of investment Flooding in Pakistan, including regions like Balochistan where Gwadar is situated, has been a recurring challenge, impacting vast areas and causing significant economic and human losses. The 2022 flooding event, for instance, affected most of Pakistan, including Balochistan and Sindh provinces, leading to at least 1,500 deaths and affecting 16 million children. The economic impact was profound, particularly in the agriculture sector, with crop damage in Sindh alone amounting to approximately Rs297 billion Gwadar’s exposure to natural calamities like flooding underscores the need for comprehensive planning and investment in infrastructure to mitigate these risks. This includes enhancing the city’s resilience through improved drainage systems, flood barriers, and early warning systems. Additionally, as a critical node in the CPEC initiative, ensuring Gwadar’s resilience to flooding and other natural disasters is vital for the economic stability and security of the region. The strategic importance of Gwadar in the broader context of CPEC cannot be overstated, with significant investments aimed at transforming it into a major deep-water port that links northern Pakistan and western China to the Arabian Sea.

1. Cyclones and Storm Surges: The Arabian Sea is prone to cyclones, particularly during the monsoon season from June to September. These cyclones can cause storm surges that lead to coastal flooding in Gwadar and surrounding areas.
2. Heavy Monsoon Rains: The monsoon season can bring heavy rains to the region, overwhelming the drainage systems and causing urban and flash floods.
3. Inadequate Drainage Systems: Gwadar’s rapid urbanization without proper planning for drainage infrastructure contributes to the flooding problem. The existing drainage systems are often inadequate to handle the runoff from heavy rains, leading to waterlogging and flooding in many areas.
4. Geographical Features: The topography of the area, including its coastal location and the surrounding hilly terrain, also contributes to the risk of flooding.

Relief Operations

In response to flooding, Pakistan’s national and provincial disaster management authorities, along with local government bodies, NGOs, and international organizations, have conducted relief operations in Gwadar. These operations typically include:

• Evacuation of residents from high-risk areas before or during the flooding.
• Provision of emergency shelters, food, clean water, and medical aid to the affected populations.
• Restoration of essential services such as electricity, water supply, and communication networks.
• Rehabilitation of damaged infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and drainage systems, to restore normalcy.

Gwadar recently faced significant flooding due to record-breaking rainfall, prompting the district administration to declare a state of emergency. This unusual weather pattern for the winter season was highlighted by the Chief Meteorologist, emphasizing that Gwadar received an unprecedented amount of rain during these months In response to the calamity, Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif unveiled a comprehensive relief package during his visit to the affected areas. The package includes financial compensation for the affected families: Rs2 million for families who lost loved ones, Rs500,000 for the injured, Rs750,000 for residents whose homes have been completely demolished, and Rs350,000 for households with partially damaged properties. Additionally, 7,000 ration bags are being distributed daily among the displaced people. The Prime Minister also highlighted the government’s commitment to aiding the victims, emphasizing that the relief is a duty, not a favor. The relief efforts include the distribution of cheques and relief goods, such as food items, blankets, and water coolers, to the affected residents The Pakistan Navy has also played a crucial role in relief operations, deploying helicopters to deliver ration bags, clean drinking water, and food items to the flood-affected villages of Pishukan and Kappar. Navy personnel have been actively involved in distributing rations and relief goods in Gwadar city and other affected areas. They have also undertaken de-flooding operations in various localities to clear flood water These recent floods in Gwadar, exacerbated by record rainfall, have prompted significant relief and rehabilitation efforts from both the government and the military, highlighting the challenges and the responsive measures undertaken to mitigate the impact on the affected population.

Upgrade Drainage Infrastructure: Enhance the city’s drainage system to efficiently manage heavy rainfall. This includes expanding drainage capacity, clearing blockages regularly, and installing advanced water management systems.
Flood Barriers and Sea Walls: Construct flood barriers and sea walls along vulnerable coastal areas to protect against storm surges and high tides.
Flood-Resilient Urban Planning: Implement urban planning practices that take into account flood risks. This could involve zoning laws that restrict construction in flood-prone areas and promoting green spaces that absorb rainwater.
Early Warning Systems and Preparedness Plans: Develop and implement advanced early warning systems to alert residents of incoming floods. Establish comprehensive emergency response plans and conduct regular community drills.
Community Awareness and Education: Increase community awareness about flood risks and safety measures through education campaigns. Encourage participation in preparedness activities.
Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation: Restore and conserve mangroves and other natural barriers along the coast. These ecosystems act as natural defenses against floods and erosion.
Rainwater Harvesting and Storage: Promote rainwater harvesting and the construction of water storage facilities to reduce runoff and utilize rainwater for non-potable uses.
Resilient Infrastructure: Ensure that new infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, and public buildings, are designed to withstand flood conditions.
Insurance and Financial Instruments: Encourage the uptake of insurance and other financial instruments that can help mitigate the financial impact of floods on businesses and households.
International Cooperation and Assistance: Seek technical and financial assistance from international organizations experienced in flood management and urban resilience.
Research and Data Collection: Conduct research and data collection on flood patterns, climate change impacts, and effective flood management strategies. Use this data to inform policy and planning.
Strengthen Governance and Coordination: Strengthen the coordination among national, provincial, and local governments in managing flood risks and responses. Ensure that there are clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability.
These recommendations require collaboration between government authorities, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and the local communities to effectively reduce the risk and impact of flooding in Gwadar. Implementing these measures can also enhance the city’s resilience to future climate-related challenges.

Conclusion

The recurring flood events in Gwadar call for comprehensive planning and investment in infrastructure to mitigate these risks effectively. Recommendations for combating flooding in Gwadar encompass a broad spectrum of strategies, including upgrading drainage infrastructure, constructing flood barriers and sea walls, implementing flood-resilient urban planning, and establishing early warning systems. Moreover, community awareness, ecosystem restoration, rainwater harvesting, resilient infrastructure development, and strengthened governance and coordination are essential to enhancing the city’s resilience against flooding. Ensuring Gwadar’s preparedness and resilience is not only vital for its inhabitants but also crucial for the economic stability and security of the region, given its strategic role in CPEC. Thus, Gwadar’s journey from a quaint fishing town to a focal point of international trade under CPEC, juxtaposed with its vulnerability to flooding, highlights the pressing need for integrated and sustainable solutions. These measures are imperative for safeguarding the city’s developmental gains, protecting its communities, and securing its position as a linchpin in regional trade and economic growth.

On February 23, 2024, the European Union released its 13th package of sanctions against Russia, which amended and expanded existing targeted and trade measures. The new sanctions package went into effect on February 24, 2024, which brought 27 more entities to the list of more than 600 that were facing EU restrictions over alleged financial support to Russia. The latest sanctions are intended to further restrict Russia’s access to military technologies and are directed towards the Russian military and defense sector. The new measures include adding new people and entities to the list of partner countries for the import restrictions on iron and steel, as well as imposing additional export restrictions on advanced technologies and goods that could help Russia increase its industrial capacity. To further counter the Russia-Ukraine confrontation, the United States has imposed sanctions on over 500 Russian-affiliated targets. According to US President Joe Biden, Washington has also taken steps to further cut down on Russia’s energy income and placed additional export restrictions on almost 100 organizations that have supported Russia.

Since commencing operations, Shell became a major player in Nigeria’s oil industry, which has been pivotal to the country’s economy but has also led to extensive environmental damage and social conflicts.

One of the major issues associated with Shell’s operations in Nigeria has been the environmental devastation due to oil spills and gas flaring. The Niger Delta, one of the world’s most important wetlands and marine ecosystems, has suffered from pollution that has impacted millions of people’s livelihoods, particularly those relying on farming and fishing. Gas flaring, a process where natural gas is burned off during oil extraction, has been a particular point of concern. It releases a significant amount of greenhouse gases and toxic substances, affecting local communities’ health and contributing to climate change. Despite legal actions and rulings against gas flaring, it has continued, highlighting challenges in enforcing regulations and implementing sustainable practices in the oil industry.

The Ogoni 9:

The Ogoni Nine were a group of nine activists from the Ogoni region of Nigeria who were executed by hanging in 1995 by the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha. The group, which included Ken Saro-Wiwa, a prominent writer, environmental activist, and leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), were vocal critics of the environmental degradation of the Ogoni lands by multinational oil companies, particularly Shell. Their activism was aimed at securing environmental protection for their land, fairer distribution of oil wealth, and greater autonomy for the Ogoni people. The Nigerian government accused them of inciting the murder of four Ogoni chiefs at a pro-government meeting, charges widely regarded as fabricated to suppress dissent against oil exploration in the Niger Delta.

The trial of the Ogoni Nine was heavily criticized by international human rights organizations for its lack of fairness and transparency. Despite global condemnation and calls for clemency from leaders and organizations around the world, the Nigerian government proceeded with the executions, sparking international outrage and leading to Nigeria’s suspension from the Commonwealth of Nations.

The execution of the Ogoni Nine remains a poignant reminder of the struggles for environmental justice and human rights in the face of oppressive regimes and corporate greed. It highlighted the environmental and social costs of oil extraction in the Niger Delta and brought global attention to the plight of the Ogoni people and the broader environmental and human rights issues in Nigeria.

The Wikileaks report:

In 2010 WikiLeaks revelations about Shell’s operations in Nigeria exposed the deep level of influence and control the oil giant had over the Nigerian government. The documents revealed that Shell had inserted its employees into every key government ministry, giving it unprecedented access to sensitive information and decision-making processes related to the oil industry in Nigeria. This level of infiltration allowed Shell to shape policy and legislative outcomes in its favor, ensuring its dominance over Nigeria’s oil resources. Furthermore, the leaked cables highlighted discussions between Shell executives and US diplomats, revealing the company’s strategies for dealing with legislative changes, its views on competition from Chinese and Russian companies, and its internal security concerns regarding militant attacks on its facilities. The discussions also touched on Shell’s concerns about the political landscape in Nigeria, including the health of the then-President Yar’Adua and the company’s influence over the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

The implications of these reports are significant, suggesting a complex web of relationships between multinational oil companies, the Nigerian government, and foreign governments. The extent of Shell’s penetration into the Nigerian government raises questions about sovereignty, the equitable distribution of oil revenues, and the broader impacts on Nigeria’s development and democracy. These revelations underscore the challenges faced by resource-rich countries in managing their assets in a way that benefits their populations, and they highlight the need for transparency, accountability, and genuine reform in both governance and the oil sector.

The Ogoni case:

The unveiling of the “Assessment of the Environment of Ogoniland” by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on August 4, 2011, signified a pivotal moment in the environmental degradation saga of the Niger Delta. This report essentially serves as a critique of Shell’s operations in Nigeria, highlighting the company’s detrimental impact on the Ogoni land and its people, including the tragic executions of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders on November 10, 1995, amid widespread environmental destruction and human rights violations. UNEP’s findings revealed consistent and extensive pollution in Ogoniland, with every water body contaminated with hydrocarbons. In some instances, groundwater that supplies local wells was discovered to have layers of oil up to 8cm thick.

Moreover, the presence of benzene, a carcinogen, was detected in drinking water at concentrations 900 times above World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and in the air. Hydrocarbon levels were found to be 1,000 times higher than Nigerian standards for drinking water in several locations, indicating a life-long exposure of the Ogoni people to severe oil pollution, affecting soil up to depths of 5 meters in 49 surveyed sites.

The document further verified Shell’s non-compliance with the Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industries in Nigeria (EGASPIN), alongside its failure to adhere to international best practices and even its own operational standards, underscoring a pattern of negligence. This report suggests a pressing need for Shell to face sanctions and have its operational license reconsidered due to its disregard for local environmental laws.

Dealing with Lawsuits:

Shell has faced multiple legal actions brought by Nigerian communities for oil spills and environmental damage in the Niger Delta. In a landmark verdict by a Dutch court, Shell Nigeria was held responsible for oil spills, and Royal Dutch Shell was found to have violated its duty of care. Shell agreed to pay 15 million euros to affected communities in Nigeria as part of a settlement over multiple oil pipeline leaks in the Niger Delta. This compensation was the outcome of a Dutch court case initiated by Friends of the Earth, where Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary SPDC was found responsible for the spills. This settlement aims to benefit communities impacted by oil spills that occurred between 2004 and 2007. Despite Shell’s stance that the spills were caused by sabotage, the court ordered Shell to pay damages and install leak detection systems in its pipelines to prevent future spills

Another case study highlights Shell’s strategy of denying responsibility for the actions of its Nigerian subsidiary, SPDC. In 2016, 40,000 Nigerians from the Ogale and Bille Communities sued Shell in UK courts for health harm and environmental damage due to oil spills. They argued that Royal Dutch Shell, the parent company, was responsible for the pollution caused by SPDC, claiming significant control over its Nigerian subsidiary. However, Shell contended it was not liable for its subsidiary’s actions, pushing for the cases to be resolved in Nigerian courts despite the lengthy judicial process there. The English Court of Appeal ultimately ruled in favor of Shell, finding the parent company not legally responsible for its Nigerian subsidiary’s actions. These cases underscore the complexities of holding multinational corporations accountable for environmental damages caused by their subsidiaries in other countries. They also highlight the evolving legal landscape regarding parent company liability for the actions of their subsidiaries.

In recent years, Shell has taken steps towards reducing its onshore presence in Nigeria due to operational challenges, including oil theft and sabotage. The company has expressed its intention to decrease its involvement in onshore oil production while maintaining its deep-water and integrated gas positions in the country. Shell’s recent activities include lifting force majeure on its Bonny export program, achieving significant milestones in deep-water exploration, and investing in renewable energy solutions for West Africa. Despite these efforts, Shell’s legacy in Nigeria remains contentious, with ongoing legal actions and demands for greater corporate accountability and environmental remediation

On the 20th of February, a resolution advocating for a ceasefire, supported by Algeria, was submitted for voting to the United Nations Security Council. The resolution was voted upon, narrowing the voting down to 13 in Favor of the ceasefire, United Kingdom abstaining and the United States vetoing the resolution. This is the third time; the United States has vetoed a resolution on ceasefire between Israel and Palestine since the October 7th attacks. The allies of the United States have expressed regret over the United States decision to veto the ceasefire proposal. According to the US, this motion calls to “Jeopardize” the talks to end the war. According to Algeria, the UNSC has failed once again to take concrete action upon war crimes being committed by Israel

The United States is a champion of democracy and Human rights yet in the case of Israel, it shows its sympathy for Israel regardless of it’s killing of 18,000 Palestinians that include innocent children and women as well. Israel should be held accountable according to the international law, Specifically, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols that contain explicit provisions for the protection of women and children. Firstly, The Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I stipulate special care and respect must be given to children, who are to be protected against any form of indecent assault, and measures must be taken to ensure their education and care if they are orphaned or separated from their families. The recruitment of children under the age of 15 into armed forces or groups and their participation in hostilities is also prohibited. Secondly, Women are afforded general protection from violence, particularly against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Additional Protocol II, relating to non-international armed conflicts, specifically prohibits violence to the life, health, and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture, and it explicitly mentions that outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution, and any form of indecent assault are prohibited. Sadly, all the conditions mentioned above are fully met by Israel, while the Champion of democracy and Human rights remains non-committal to the cause it champions for.

While there is a certain shift in the attitude of the people of the United States, due to the election coming ahead the word Ceasefire has been used for the first time in a draft they have proposed to the UNSC ever since the October 7th attacks. A recent Gallup survey revealed that 45 percent of Americans were not in favour of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The poll highlighted that opposition was particularly strong among Democrats (63 percent), people of colour (64 percent), and the younger demographic aged 18-34 (67 percent), all expressing disapproval of the conflict. Furthermore, only 32 percent of Americans expressed approval for how President Joe Biden managed the situation between Israel and Hamas. While 60% of the American population support a ceasefire in the conflict, only 11% of lawmakers in the Congress agree. The draft resolution in the UNSC drafted by the US calls for a “temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as practicable,”. In the defense of the United states, immediate ceasefire will be harmful for the negotiations that are taking place between the Israel and Hamas. Similarly, the United states has called for “phased release of hostages”.

The International arena has expressed it’s regret over this decision made by the United states. Moscow has claimed that it is a “license to kill” granted to Israel by the United states while China has claimed, “this will develop a more dangerous situation”. Additionally, the statement made by the former assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs, aims to assure Israel that weapons will be resupplied with weapons at burn rate. The US has pledged F-35 jets to the Israel air defense along with CH-53 heavy lift helicopters. The United States has previously pledged $38 billion to Israel in military aid for the period from 2019 to 2028. This agreement has been considered the largest such aid package in American history. It was signed in 2016 during the administration of President Barack Obama. It is intended to support Israel’s military needs and strengthen its security, emphasizing the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of Israel. An extra 14 billion dollars has been pledged by the Biden administration in 2023.

The question that arises is that why has the US shown such unwavering support in the case of Israel, but previously shown strong discontent in the case of Libya in 2011 or Iraq in 2003. There are a few factors that I would like to highlight:

1. Common enemy: History has show that in the time of the holocaust, before even Israel was born, the jews and the US had a common enemy that were the Nazis of Germany. Another incident is from the cold war, the US and Israel had a common enemy once again, that was the Soviet Union’s communism. So historically, the US and Israel have been on the same side of history.
2. Common Regional enemy: Iran is said to be a common enemy for the United states and Israel. Iran has claimed from time to time that the day it acquires nuclear weapons, it will destroy Israel. America is considered as a source of all evil by Iran. While, America thinks Iran is source of Islamic fundamentalism in the region.
3. Strategic ally: Israel is strategic ally to the US in a volatile region. Israel’s willingness to share intelligence with US is viewed as an asset in mitigating regional threats such as Iran and protecting the Interests of the United states in the region.
4. Sharing common democratic values: The United States view Israel as a “Lone democracy in a region characterized by authoritarian regimes”. They share common democratic values, freedom of speech, freedom of press that has led to a natural partnership between the two ally states.
5. Protection of Interest: Many of the MNCs that run the US economy have their development centers located in Israel including IBM, Intel, Yahoo etc.
6. Pre-emptive Measures: The United States has actively engaged in pre-empitive measures to deter any kind of threat it faces; a similar situation is seen in the case of Israel. The United states is pre-emptively providing military packages and latest ammunition in order to create fear among the Hamas. According to Israel, their bombing in Rafah is a mechanism of self-defense used in order to deter the possibility of any attacks made by the Hamas in the future.
7. Pro-Israel Lobby: There is a lobby that exists it within congress known as AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs committee, that actively engages in efforts to propose bills that are in favor of Israel.

The recent veto by the United States against a ceasefire resolution in the Israel-Palestine conflict underscores the complexities of international diplomacy and U.S. foreign policy. This action highlights the balancing act between strategic alliances, democratic values, and the imperatives of international law. As public opinion within the U.S. shows signs of shifting, particularly in the context of upcoming elections, there is an emerging discourse on reconciling America’s global role with its commitment to human rights. This situation calls for a reflective examination of policy decisions to ensure they align with the ethical standards the U.S. seeks to champion on the world stage.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an intergovernmental organization comprising eight member states, has emerged as a pivotal force in shaping the geopolitical landscape of Eurasia. Since its inception in 2001, the SCO has played a crucial role in fostering regional cooperation, promoting economic integration, and addressing shared security challenges. For Pakistan, a full member of the SCO since 2017, the organization has been a catalyst for growth, development, and enhanced global engagement.

The legislation is being considered as a global standard for governments seeking to use AI’s potential advantages while mitigating the threats associated with it. Amid a highly fragmented landscape of rules and regulations worldwide, the EU bill is regarded as the most comprehensive attempt to date to regulate AI.

Economic Transformation and Infrastructure Development

Within the SCO, an institution that strongly prioritizes energy cooperation among its member states, there has been discussion about cooperation in the energy sector. Joint ventures for energy production and exploration, as well as support for renewable energy initiatives, fall under the purview of the SCO and align with the overarching goals of fostering sustainable development and fortifying economic ties. Pakistan’s incorporation into regional and international commercial networks has also been made easier by the SCO. It seeks to increase commerce among SCO member states by lowering tariffs on a variety of items. Furthermore, the SCO has played a significant role in advancing regional connectivity by means of programs like the SCO Road Transport Agreement and the SCO Railway Cooperation Plan.

Energy Security and Resource Diversification

Cooperation in the energy sector has been debated within the SCO, an organization that places a strong emphasis on energy cooperation among its member states. Within the framework of the SCO, joint ventures in energy exploration and production, together with assistance for renewable energy programs, are in line with the larger objectives of strengthening economic connections and promoting sustainable development. This can help Pakistan in combatting it’s needs for energy.

Security and Shared Challenges:

Pakistan’s security concerns are deeply intertwined with the broader security dynamics of the region. The SCO, with its diverse membership and focus on regional cooperation, provides a valuable platform for Pakistan to address these concerns and collaborate with other member states on shared security challenges. Additionally, major actors in the SCO including Russia share a good relationship with India. Matters of cooperation can be ensured through platform of SCO to ensure peace in Asia.

Combating Terrorism and Extremism:

Pakistan’s battle against terrorism and extremism heavily relies on the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) of the SCO. Pakistan can effectively tackle these threats thanks to RATS, which makes intelligence sharing, cooperative exercises, and capacity building among member states easier. Combating cross-border terrorism and stopping the spread of extremist beliefs have benefited greatly from the organization’s emphasis on exchanging best practices and promoting regional cooperation.

Afghanistan and Regional Stability:

Pakistan and the wider region are seriously concerned about security due to the current situation in Afghanistan. Through its ministerial meetings and summits, the SCO offers Afghanistan’s neighbors a forum for communication and collaboration, fostering regional stability and preventing unrest from spreading to other nearby nations. Long-term peace in the area also depends on the organization’s work to alleviate the humanitarian situation and aid Afghanistan’s economic development.

Cyber security:

Pakistan is receiving more and more assistance from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to improve its cyber capabilities and tackle cybersecurity issues. Pakistan’s cyber resilience has increased thanks in large part to the organization’s emphasis on capacity building, information sharing, and regional cooperation.

Through its Working Group on Information Security collaboration, the SCO has created a framework for regional cybersecurity collaboration. The working group gives member nations a forum for exchanging intelligence regarding cyberthreats, creating cooperative cybersecurity plans, and working together on cybersecurity exercises. To help member states share cyber threat intelligence, the SCO established the Cyber Information Sharing Centre (CISC). Member states can exchange information regarding cyber threats, vulnerabilities, and incident response protocols via a secure site offered by the CISC. Member states are better able to defend their vital networks and infrastructure against cyberattacks thanks to this information sharing. To assist Pakistan in improving its cyber capabilities, the SCO has put in place several training and capacity-building initiatives. Professionals in Pakistani cybersecurity is trained in subjects like digital forensics, incident response, and cyber threat analysis through these programs. The training enhances Pakistan’s capacity to identify, stop, and mitigate cyberattacks.

Cyberterrorism concerns are being addressed by the SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS). Cyberterrorism scenarios are part of the collaborative counterterrorism exercises that RATS undertakes. By participating in these exercises, member states can better coordinate and cooperate in the fight against cyberterrorism. Apart from these regional endeavors, Pakistan has received bilateral support in the field of cybersecurity from the SCO. For instance, Pakistan received equipment and training from the SCO in 2019 to aid in its efforts to combat cybercrime. The SCO will probably become more crucial in assisting Pakistan in addressing cybersecurity issues as the cyber threat scenario changes. The organization is dedicated to advancing cybersecurity cooperation with Pakistan and assisting the nation in creating a more secure and resilient cyberspace.

Global Engagement and Regional Leadership

Pakistan now has a platform to expand its international presence and fortify its relationships with powerful nations thanks to the SCO. Pakistan has benefited from the organization’s summits and ministerial meetings, which have given it the chance to highlight its development accomplishments, advance its foreign policy objectives, and interact with important regional and global partners. Pakistan’s standing as a regional leader has also increased because of its SCO membership. Pakistan now has a forum to discuss regional concerns including commerce, energy, and security from the standpoint of the organization. Pakistan’s status as a responsible and constructive regional actor has been reinforced by its active participation in SCO efforts.

Geopolitical Maneuvering:

SCO membership enhances Pakistan’s position as a key player in Eurasian geopolitics. The SCO offers an alternative to Western-dominated institutions, allowing Pakistan to engage with a multipolar world order. This promotes a multi-faceted approach to global challenges and a stronger voice for developing nations. Increased interaction with regional partners like China, Russia, and Central Asian states strengthens Pakistan’s strategic partnerships and fosters a multi-dimensional foreign policy approach. SCO provides a platform for dialogue and conflict resolution, where Pakistan can play a constructive role in mediating regional disputes and fostering greater understanding between India and other member states. SCO membership elevates Pakistan’s international image as a responsible and proactive player in regional and global affairs. Increased engagement through SCO initiatives showcases Pakistan’s commitment to regional cooperation and strengthens its image as a reliable partner. Cultural exchanges, educational collaborations, and other SCO-led initiatives create avenues for Pakistan to showcase its rich cultural heritage and project a positive image on the international stage.
By fostering communication and cooperation with other member states, Pakistan can address biased narratives and showcase its positive contributions to regional stability and development.

Conclusion

The growth, development, and international participation trajectory of Pakistan has been significantly impacted by the SCO. The organization’s framework for comprehensive collaboration has promoted economic integration, boosted security cooperation, improved energy security, and given Pakistan a platform to further its international engagement. Pakistan is well-positioned to gain greater advantages from its participation in the SCO as it develops and broadens its reach, thereby enhancing stability, prosperity, and interconnectivity in the Eurasian area.

South Africa, the current head of the BRICS group, hosted the “Extraordinary Joint Meeting on the Middle East situation” on Tuesday, November 21. This meeting aimed to highlight the contrasting perspectives among India and the other BRICS-plus members regarding the current situation in Israel and Palestine. The alliance based on economic interest has expressed its dislike for the actions of Israel against civilians in Gaza. This is the first time that the group has opted to issue statements on political matters. The grouping has called for an end to war crimes and easing of hostilities from both parties, aiming to alleviate the escalating humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has seen the active involvement of the United States for over fifty years. Its engagement began post-World War II when it joined the UK in a 1946 inquiry suggesting the resettlement of one hundred thousand Holocaust survivors in Palestine, envisioned as a state neither exclusively Jewish nor Arab. In 1948, the U.S. became the first nation to recognize Israel’s sovereignty. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, the U.S., along with other nations, attempted to mediate the broader Arab Israeli conflict. The pivotal moment came in the 1973 war, prompting the U.S. to take the lead in diplomacy. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a crucial role in shuttle diplomacy in 1974-75, easing tensions and facilitating disengagement.

The group was unable to produce a joint statement, but each representative including Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa have reflected their opinion on the matter through their speeches at the online summit.

Initially, China’s stance was unequivocal as until the day next of the October 7th attacks, China referred to both parties in an equal manner for collaboration. It was until a week after the continuous attacks that the attitude of the Chinese diplomats shifted, the Chinese diplomat’s see Israel’s action as Collective punishment being imposed on Gaza. China believes that Israel’s right to self-defense must be guided by International law and should be at the cost of innocent civilians. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping said, “It is necessary to ensure the safe and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and stop the collective punishment against the people of Gaza through forced eviction, as well as turning off water, electricity and oil,” Xi said on Tuesday via video link at the summit hosted by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Xi repeatedly vouched for a two-nation stance, which will ensure peace among the two.

In the case of Russia, Vladimir Putin stated that it is due to failed policies of the United states that the people of Gaza are suffering. It cautioned Israel to show restraint and to agree upon a political settlement between the two conflicting parties. Putin expressed sympathy for Palestine stating, “Due to the sabotage of U.N. decisions, which clearly provide for the creation and peaceful coexistence of two independent and sovereign states – Israel and Palestine – more than one generation of Palestinians have been brought up in an atmosphere of injustice towards their people, and the Israelis cannot fully guarantee the security of their state,”. He called the large-scale deaths of Palestinian children “terrible” on Tuesday and added that seeing operations done on youngsters without anesthesia “evokes special feelings”.

Putin and Xi hit more focused notes, asking for a cease-fire and the release of civilian hostages. Both the countries unleashed the same level of criticism on Israel’s atrocities in Gaza.

The South Africa President, Cyril Ramaphosa had the most sensitizing approach in all the countries that formulate BRICS. “The atrocities that we have witnessed are the latest chapter in a painful history of suffering, oppression, occupation, and conflict going back more than 75 years. The root cause of this conflict is the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel as reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which states that “Israeli settlements constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” We therefore urge the international community to agree on urgent and concrete actions to end the suffering in Gaza and establish a path towards a just and peaceful resolution of this conflict,” he said. The President of South Africa accused Israel of War crimes and acts “tantamount to genocide”. Ramaphosa also condemned Hamas for its attacks and claimed that both the sides involved are violating International Law. Ramaphosa started his speech by saying that “The collective punishment of Palestinian civilians through the unlawful use of force by Israel is a war crime,” and that “The deliberate denial of medicine, fuel, food and water to the residents of Gaza is tantamount to genocide”. “We affirmed … that a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be achieved by peaceful means.”

Moreover, President Modi of India was not able to attend the summit due to election campaigns in Rajasthan. Instead of Prime Minister Modi, the External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar joined them. India has condemned the killing of the civilians in Palestine but has been unable to outwardly call for a ceasefire. The Indian government has requested Israel to practice restraint. The Indian government is seen to side with the Western block on the matter of the conflict as they abstained from voting in the United nation General Assembly. Moreover, Mr. Modi skipped the meeting with President of China and Russia on the issue of Israel and Palestine but did host the G20 summit online the next day.

According to commentators, South Africa, the smallest of the BRICS nations and a nation that endured harsh apartheid for over 40 years, sees parallels in the Palestinian cause and has continuously been among the most vocal proponents of a ceasefire. Argentina’s Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero stated that his nation accepted Israel’s right “to legitimate self-defense while strictly respecting humanitarian international law”. Ebrahim Raisi, the President of Iran, has suggested that Palestinians should hold a referendum to determine their future. This is a significant departure from the previous Iranian government’s position, which was to support a one-state solution in which Palestinians and Israelis would live together in a single state.

Historical Background

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a decades-old dispute with roots in the early 20th century, when Jewish and Arab nationalism arose in response to the Ottoman Empire’s decline. The British government’s 1917 Balfour Declaration pledged a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, spurring Jewish immigration and settlement. This heightened tensions between Jewish and Arab communities, both of which claimed the land. The conflict is fueled by competing narratives and territorial disputes.

How has the U.S. been involved in the conflict?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has seen the active involvement of the United States for over fifty years. Its engagement began post-World War II when it joined the UK in a 1946 inquiry suggesting the resettlement of one hundred thousand Holocaust survivors in Palestine, envisioned as a state neither exclusively Jewish nor Arab. In 1948, the U.S. became the first nation to recognize Israel’s sovereignty. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, the U.S., along with other nations, attempted to mediate the broader Arab Israeli conflict. The pivotal moment came in the 1973 war, prompting the U.S. to take the lead in diplomacy. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a crucial role in shuttle diplomacy in 1974-75, easing tensions and facilitating disengagement.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter hosted the Camp David peace talks, resulting in frameworks for future Mideast diplomacy. Although excluded from the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, the U.S. played a significant role in 1998, sponsoring talks leading to the Clinton Parameters for a two-state solution. While mediating, the U.S. shielded Israel from international criticism, frequently using its UN Security Council veto power. The Trump administration departed from the long-standing U.S. policy of neutrality, siding with Israel and brokering the 2020 Abraham Accords between Israel and the UAE.

The Biden administration signals a shift, emphasizing equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians over a resolution of the overarching dispute. Biden supports Israel’s right to self-defense while pledging humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza.

What is the U.S. position on Palestinian statehood?

Biden has reiterated U.S. backing for a two-state solution, advocating the creation of separate Israeli and Palestinian states with borders resembling those pre-dating the 1967 war, encompassing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and parts of East Jerusalem. The Clinton Parameters outlined the establishment of a Palestinian state and the resolution of final status issues. George W. Bush, in 2003, became the first U.S. president to publicly endorse a Palestinian state through the Road Map for Peace, a plan jointly presented by the U.S., the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations.

The Obama administration also pursued a two-state solution, but talks collapsed in 2014 due to disputes over settlements, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and other issues. In 2016, Secretary Kerry outlined principles for a two-state solution based on those final status talks.

Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan proposed a Palestinian state but granted Israel sovereignty over an essentially undivided Jerusalem, including the Old City and holy sites, with the Palestinian capital relegated to a portion of East Jerusalem. The plan did not allow Palestinian refugees the right to return but promised a $50 billion investment in a developing Palestinian state. The conceptual map indicated a 30% reduction in Palestinian territory in the West Bank as Israel annexed the Jordan Valley and settlements. Despite historical support for a two-state solution, the U.S. has traditionally opposed Palestinian statehood bids at the UN, insisting on negotiations with Israel. Since 2011, the Palestinian Authority has sought full UN membership for Palestine, a move requiring Security Council approval, where the U.S. holds veto power. In 2012, 138 countries at the UN General Assembly voted to recognize Palestine as a nonmember observer state.

What is the U.S. position on Jerusalem?

When the UN General Assembly voted in 1947 to partition British-controlled Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, it designated Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, acknowledging its shared religious significance for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Nevertheless, upon gaining independence, Israel established its government in the western part of Jerusalem and later took control of East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967. Israel subsequently expanded the city’s municipal borders to encompass nearby Palestinian towns, effectively annexing the territory.

In the 1993 Oslo Accords, a pivotal agreement in the conflict, Israel and the PLO affirmed that decisions regarding Jerusalem would be part of final status negotiations. Presently, Israel considers the entirety of Jerusalem its capital, while the Palestinian Authority regards East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state, viewing Israel’s control as an occupation.

For many years, the U.S. and most other countries with relations with Israel maintained their embassies in Tel Aviv to avoid prejudicing potential peace negotiations. However, in 2017, Trump departed from this practice by moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and officially recognizing the city as Israel’s capital. This decision led Palestinian officials to sever ties with the Trump administration. Although President Biden has restored these relations, he has confirmed that the U.S. embassy will remain in Jerusalem.

In 2021, Biden expressed his intention to reopen the Palestinian mission in Washington and the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem, both of which were closed by Trump. However, as of mid-2022, they remained closed. Reopening these diplomatic missions faces challenges, as a law from 1987, evaded by Trump’s predecessors, prohibits Palestinians from having a mission in the U.S. Moreover, the Trump administration enacted legislation to prevent future leaders from waiving this restriction. Reestablishing the consulate in East Jerusalem would necessitate the approval of the Israeli government, a prospect deemed unlikely.

What is the U.S. position on Israeli settlements?

Following the 1967 war, Israel initiated the construction of settlements in territories it had acquired. Initially started by Labor party governments to bolster defense in areas of the West Bank with significant wartime activity, settlement expansion gained momentum as some settlers regarded the land as their religious and historical entitlement, while others found economic incentives. By 2019, approximately six hundred thousand Israelis resided in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. For years, the United States officially criticized these settlements, labeling them as hindrances to peace. However, the U.S. refrained from outright declaring them illegal to prevent potential international sanctions against Israel. A 1978 State Department legal opinion asserted that Jewish settlements in occupied territory violated international law, yet President Ronald Reagan, in a 1981 interview, described the settlements as “ill-advised” but “not illegal.” George H.W. Bush was the first president to tie the amount of aid to Israel with its settlement construction, deducting the cost of such construction from U.S. loan guarantees. However, Clinton later permitted exemptions for settlement building in East Jerusalem and for “natural growth.”

In 2004, George W. Bush, in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, acknowledged that the “new realities” (i.e., settlements) would make it impractical for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders in any peace agreement. While the Obama administration shielded Israel from political movements penalizing Israeli businesses in the West Bank, it also criticized Israel’s settlements by abstaining from a UN Security Council vote declaring them illegal. The Trump administration adopted a notably pro-Israel stance on Jewish settlements, aligning with its broader approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Biden administration has not officially articulated a position on the legality of the settlements.

How much U.S. aid goes to Israelis and Palestinians?

The United States has been a longstanding ally of Israel, primarily due to its support for the existence of a Jewish state. During the Cold War, Israel was seen as a key partner in countering Soviet influence in the Middle East, and it later became a significant contributor to U.S. counterterrorism efforts. In the present day, Israel remains the United States’ closest strategic partner in the Middle East. Both nations share concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for Islamist militants, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas. In light of these common interests, the U.S. has committed to ensuring Israel’s military superiority over any potential hostile combination of countries in the region.

U.S. military assistance to Israel began after its withdrawal from Arab territories as part of the peace process, with the United States providing more foreign aid to Israel than any other country since the end of World War II. While economic assistance was substantial from 1971 to 2007, Israel now primarily receives military aid due to its economic growth since the 1990s. President Biden’s fiscal year 2022 budget included more than half of the foreign military aid earmarked for Israel. A 2016 memorandum of understanding solidifies the commitment to provide nearly $4 billion annually to Israel, including $500 million for missile defense. Additionally, following the 2021 Israel-Hamas conflict, the U.S. provided an extra $1 billion in missile defense funding.

The United States also extends aid to Palestinians, primarily for government and humanitarian programs, totaling more than $5 billion between 1994 and 2018. Over $6 billion has been provided to the UN Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) since 1950. However, U.S. aid to Palestinians diminished under the Trump administration in 2018, with reductions in assistance to the West Bank and Gaza and discontinuation of contributions to UNRWA.

In 2019, Trump signed an antiterrorism law allowing lawsuits against recipients of U.S. foreign aid over alleged complicity in acts of war. The PA, fearing legal action, requested aid cessation. While the antiterrorism law remains in effect, the Biden administration has resumed aid to the West Bank and Gaza. Over $600 million has been announced for UNRWA, along with $100 million for East Jerusalem hospitals and $15 million to address food insecurity exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, pending congressional approval for some funds.

The people of Afghanistan have suffered greatly because of the US-Afghan war. Although many people would believe that the goal of war was to bring about stability in the area, there have been more negative effects than positive ones. Many Afghanis have migrated to Pakistan out of fear for the Taliban administrations ever after the United States formally declared the war to be finished. The Taliban are well-known for their extreme ideologies and stern adherence to Shariah law. The Taliban have now established their authority because of the withdrawal. Due to its proximity, most Afghan refugees are in Pakistan in quest of a better life. The international community has fully boycotted the Taliban administration during their control, which has left a financial gap. The current methods of running the Afghan economy include trafficking, smuggling, and the cultivation of opium.

The Afghani currency has decreased by 25% over the last two years, however it is evident that this has caused a significant increase in youth unemployment. According to reports, the joblessness rate reached 20% in 2023 and the disparity continued to worsen.

Afghani refugees have long considered Pakistan to be a safe shelter. To sustain their family, many refugees have already created businesses and residences registered under local Pakistani companies. However, these migrants are not given an identity. Afghans are experiencing an identity crisis as a result of being denied access to necessities like driver’s licenses and medical facilities, among other things. Although Pakistan does receive funding from other countries for the purpose of rehabilitating refugees, the living conditions in these camps are subpar and precarious. They lack proper access to medical care, lavatories, education, and leisure activities. A majority of the children in these camps for refugees are malnourished and at risk of contracting fatal illnesses.

A legislation pertaining to the deportation of 1.7 million refugees who were not officially registered with the Pakistani government was recently passed. Considering this, legislation is currently being implemented, and a nationwide crackdown has been launched after the time for voluntary returns collapsed. The most recent influx of refugees was of 600,000 consequently after the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. The question that arises is that, is it a viable solution for countries to forcibly deport refugees into countries where they have previously faced persecution?

It’s a question of security for the host country but how does that reflect upon the international community. According to the refugee and human rights legislation, the principle of non-refoulement is recognized by international law. The principle of non-refoulement forbids sending a refugee back to a place where they risk persecution, torture, or cruel or inhumane treatment. This means that Pakistan must uphold the principle of non-refoulement and refrain from sending refugees against their will back to a nation where they risk persecution.

The Pakistani government found it rational to house refugees in transportation containers and leave them stranded at the Border of Afghanistan. This inhumane treatment led to a severe accident where the driver of the container collided on a bridge resulting in 2 deaths and 14 refugees severely injured. Some Afghan refugees in their primary schools said goodbye to their peers not knowing what waits for them beyond the border. While many refugees are being deported back, the Taliban government has requested Pakistan to be tolerant towards their people and to let them have their time to move back efficiently. Pakistan has rejected the call and claimed that,

“This action is a testament to Pakistan’s determination to repatriate any individuals residing in the country without proper documentation,” Pakistani Interior Minister Sarfaraz Bugti said on social media platform X.

Islamabad uses concerns about Afghans who have carried out suicide bombings in Pakistan to justify its policy towards undocumented foreign nationals. This is especially relevant given the recent spike in fatal attacks carried out by Taliban-affiliated militants operating out of Afghanistan. Protests to remove the country’s refugee population and anti-Afghan sentiments have been sparked by these violent episodes. Pakistan is currently experiencing a protracted economic crisis that has led to record-high rates of inflation and skyrocketing energy prices.

Amidst the deportations, there has been an increase in tension in the Parachinar region that borders Afghanistan. Sectarian violence is allegedly being created by rebel groups with deep ties to the Afghan Taliban Regime, although this is being done to push the Pakistani security forces to refocus their efforts within. The two main Muslim sects in Pakistan are now divided because of the 14 deaths caused by sectarian violence. Although some may view this as a diversion, if the Pakistani government does not address the issue effectively, it might cause even more chaos.

Pakistan must keep in mind that they are treading carefully in the event of guerilla warfare, even though security is still the government’s priority in the areas of the country that border Afghanistan. Since the Afghan refugees have lived in Pakistan for more than 30 years, their sudden departure will undoubtedly have negative effects on the country.

Role of Non-State Actors:

After World War II, the United Nations proposed a plan to address the situation in Palestine. In 1947, the UN passed Resolution 181, suggesting the termination of the Mandate and the partition of Palestine into two independent states – one for Palestinian Arabs and the other for Jews. Jerusalem was to be internationalized to address its unique significance to different groups. However, this proposal faced significant challenges and tensions. In the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. This war led to a second exodus of Palestinians, with an estimated half a million displaced. To address this situation, the UN passed Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967, which outlined principles for achieving a just and lasting peace. It called for an Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the conflict, a resolution of the refugee problem, and the end of all states of belligerency.

The 1973 hostilities resulted in Security Council Resolution 338, which called for peace negotiations between the parties involved. Subsequently, in 1974, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including self-determination, national independence, sovereignty, and the right to return. The Assembly also established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian people and granted observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the General Assembly and UN conferences. Efforts to find a peaceful settlement continued, with the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. This conference aimed to achieve a peaceful resolution through direct negotiations, focusing on two tracks: negotiations between Israel and Arab states and between Israel and the Palestinians. These negotiations were based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In 2002, the Security Council affirmed a vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, as a potential solution to the conflict. The Arab League adopted the Arab Peace Initiative the same year, offering a comprehensive approach to resolving the crisis. In 2003, the Quartet – consisting of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations – released a Road Map to a two-state solution. Additionally, an unofficial Geneva Peace Accord was promoted by influential Israelis and Palestinians in 2003.

Efforts continued with the Annapolis process in 2007-2008, but it failed to yield a permanent status agreement. The situation escalated in late 2008, leading to the Israeli ground operation “Cast Lead” in Gaza, which prompted UN Security Council Resolution 1860. On November 29, 2012, Palestine was granted non-member observer state status in the United Nations, a significant step in their international recognition. The General Assembly proclaimed 2014 as the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, further highlighting the ongoing concern for their rights and wellbeing. In 2016, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, which focused on Israeli settlements. This resolution reaffirmed the international community’s stance against Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and called for their cessation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a complex and ongoing issue, with various international efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace in the region.

Resolutions:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and long-standing issue with deep historical, political, and religious roots. The resolutions proposed are with respect to the realist school of thought. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, various approaches and proposals have been put forward over the years to resolve the conflict. Here are some of the possible conflict resolution options:

• Two-State Solution: This approach involves the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, with agreed-upon borders based on the pre-1967 lines (with possible land swaps). This solution has been widely supported by the international community and has been the basis for numerous peace negotiations.

• One-State Solution: This approach suggests creating a single bi-national state where Israelis and Palestinians would have equal rights and representation. It would require addressing concerns about demographics, political power-sharing, and the protection of minority rights. However, this solution is considered less feasible due to significant challenges related to historical animosities and differing national aspirations.

• Confederation or Federation: This proposal suggests establishing a confederation or federation that allows for significant autonomy for both Israelis and Palestinians within a unified political framework. It would involve shared governance structures, cooperative institutions, and joint decision-making mechanisms to address common issues while maintaining separate national identities.

• Regional Approach: Some argue that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a broader regional approach involving neighboring Arab countries. This approach could include comprehensive peace treaties, economic cooperation, and the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states. The 2020 Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries, represent a step in this direction.

• Incremental/Conflict Management: Rather than seeking a comprehensive solution, this approach focuses on managing the conflict through confidence-building measures, small-scale agreements, and improving living conditions for Palestinians. The goal is to gradually reduce tensions and create an environment conducive to further negotiations.

• International Intervention: Increased involvement and mediation by the international community, including regional and global powers, can play a significant role in facilitating dialogue, negotiations, and the implementation of a resolution. This could include initiatives by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, or other interested parties.

It is important to note that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is highly complex, and any resolution requires a genuine commitment from both parties, compromises, and addressing the core issues that have fueled the conflict for decades. The path to peace will likely involve a combination of the above approaches and may require innovative ideas and adaptations to specific circumstances on the ground.

The Zionist movement sparked a flood of Jewish immigration to Palestine in the late 19th century. Because of the theological and historical ties to Palestine, Zionism aimed to build a Jewish homeland there. Arab nationalists who were staking claims to the region’s territory and advancing their own national goals opposed this movement. Arab and Jewish leaders in the area received contradictory assurances from the British and French during World War I. The Balfour Declaration, published by the British government in 1917, expressed support for the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Although the Zionist movement applauded this announcement, tensions between the Arab and Jewish communities arose. In 1920, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain was granted a mandate by the League of Nations to oversee Palestine. The British had difficulties carrying out their contradictory promises to Arabs and Zionists. As Jewish immigration persisted, tensions with the Arab populace grew. Palestinian Arabs spearheaded the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt in Palestine, which sought to oppose Jewish immigration and British control. Although the British put an end to the uprising, it was a turning point in the history of Palestinian Arab nationalism and the rejection of Zionist ambitions. Support for a Jewish homeland increased internationally after World War II and the Holocaust. The UN Partition Plan of Palestine was a 1947 proposal that attempted to resolve the issue in Palestine between the Arab and Jewish communities. It suggested dividing Palestine into distinct Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem falling under international supervision. Fifty-six percent of the area was allotted to the Jewish state and 43% to the Arab state under the proposal. While Arab countries and Palestinian authorities opposed the plan, Jewish leaders approved it. The strategy prepared the groundwork for the 1948 Arab Israeli War, which led to the creation of the State of Israel. The partition plan is still a divisive topic that influences conversations about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nakba and Palestinian Refugees:

The 1948 Arab Israeli War, also known as the War of Independence for Israelis and the Nakba (“catastrophe”) for Palestinians, resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Many fled or were expelled from their homes, becoming refugees in neighboring Arab countries or within the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

First Arab-Israel war 1948-1949:

1948 saw the newly formed State of Israel engage in combat with several Arab states in the First Arab Israeli War. When Israel declared its independence and rejected the UN plan for Palestine’s partition, Arab countries—including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq—began military campaigns against the state. There was fierce combat throughout the conflict on several fronts, which led to a large-scale Palestinian Arab displacement. Israel was outnumbered and had few resources, but it was still able to muster its men, win battles, and protect and even increase its territory.
Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, sparking the start of the Suez Crisis, a significant global crisis. Israel, Britain, and France responded by launching a military invasion to reclaim.

Six days (Second Arab-Israel) war 1967:

The 1967 conflict between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria took place during the Second Arab Israeli War, commonly referred to as the Six-Day War. The military build-up in the area and rising tensions were the main causes of the war. Israel destroyed the Egyptian air force in a series of well-coordinated airstrikes against Egyptian air bases as a preemptive strike. After that, Israel increased the scope of its attack by taking the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. Six days, from June 5 to June 10, 1967, saw the start of the conflict. The conflict ended with Israel decisively victorious. The Israeli military exhibited exceptional military prowess and synchronization, culminating in the conquest of noteworthy regions. Israel gained sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Gaza Strip during the war, which altered the geopolitical face of the area. Tensions between Israel and the Arab states that it borders grew as a result, and Palestinian Arabs were forced to relocate. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict became even more complex because of the war’s contribution to the Israeli settlement activity in the occupied areas. There were attempts to use diplomacy to end the conflict, which resulted in UN resolutions and peace talks. But the unsolved problems and conflicting national ambitions still feed tensions and arguments in the region.

Arab-Israel War 1973:

Known by several names, including the Yom Kippur War and the Ramadan War, the Arab Israeli War of 1973 pitted Israel against a coalition of Arab nations headed by Egypt and Syria. On October 6, 1973, the war broke out amid the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. To recover territory that Israel had lost to Syria and Egypt during the 1967 Six-Day War, the two countries unexpectedly attacked Israeli forces in the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. At first, the Arab forces advanced significantly, surprising the Israeli Defense Forces. But Israel rapidly raised its armed forces and began a counteroffensive. With American assistance, Israel was able to change the course of the conflict. Threatening the capitals of the Arab world, Israeli forces advanced well into Egyptian and Syrian territory. The war resulted in heavy casualties on both sides and led to significant political and diplomatic consequences. International pressure, including from the United States and the Soviet Union, led to a ceasefire agreement, but not before Israel had made substantial territorial gains. The conflict highlighted the vulnerabilities of the Israeli military and intelligence, and it marked a turning point in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The war also led to a reassessment of peace efforts, eventually leading to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978. The Camp David Accords marked the first official recognition and peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation.

First Intifada 1987:

A six-year Palestinian rebellion against Israeli occupation, known as the First Intifada, started in 1987. Palestinian resentment of Israeli practices such land seizure and travel restrictions served as its main motivator. The rebellion brought attention from around the world and brought about important political changes by using civil disobedience, protests, and resistance against Israeli forces. It was essential in defining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helped bring about the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords. Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization came to an agreement known as the Oslo Accords, which set the stage for future peace talks and the eventual establishment of Palestinian self-rule. By resolving numerous difficulties and splitting the West Bank into distinct zones of control, the Oslo II Accord of 1995 advanced the peace process.

Second Intifada 2000:

The Second Intifada, also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, was a period of intense conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that began in 2000. It was characterized by widespread protests, demonstrations, and acts of violence. The conflict escalated with armed attacks, suicide bombings, and military operations. The Second Intifada resulted in significant casualties and further complicated efforts to reach a peaceful resolution. It deepened divisions and had a lasting impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations.

In the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, the Hamas movement won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, defeating the long-dominant Fatah party.

The President of Pakistan addressed the 78th session of the UNGA held on the 22nd of September 2023. He initiated his maiden speech with the central issues in International politics, and conflicts. He highlighted the Ukrainian conflict and mentioned that conflicts prevail in more the 50+ states across the world. He discouraged the current political arena, for promoting avenues of geopolitics. He emphasized the threat posed by geopolitics and said that the world cannot afford a “Cold War 2.0”. He further went on to quote that in today’s times, our priorities should be vested in promoting Geo-economics.

Secondly, he asserted the importance of Sustainable Development goals. The SDGS plays a pivotal role in developing countries facing setbacks due to COVID-19, climate change, and conflict. It’s important for the SDGs to be implemented for a better quality of life to be ensured in all parts of the world, especially in the Global South. He also emphasized the procurement of funds to the deeply affected nations by setting up development banks.

Mr. Kakar also vouched for Pakistan’s full support towards the principles and objectives laid down by the COP-28 summit, he announced that Pakistan is a huge believer in Climate change and is willing to cooperate with countries who work towards solving the problem of climate change. He reiterated the tragedy of 1700 lives being taken by the recent floods along with 1/3 of the population being internally displaced. He emphasized on the 4rF plan created for the recovery of Pakistan, to deal with the damage caused by the floods.

Regarding economic affairs, he announced that cooperation with China has been commendable in terms of the Belt and Road initiative. It has been a key holder in achieving access to Central Asia. But, he emphasized regional cooperation as that is important for achieving geo-economic success. The President emphasized the importance of the region growing together and openly called upon India for collaboration in trade, on the condition of Kashmir.

Kashmir has been a pivotal point of contention between Pakistan and India. Mr Kakar mentioned some of the atrocities that the Indian government had committed in the Indian-occupied Kashmir. Such as imprisoning leaders, shutting down peaceful protests, lockdowns, internet blackouts, etc. According to the Foreign Policy of Pakistan, Kashmir is the key to attaining peace with Pakistan. Pakistan believes that through the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, a fair plebiscite should prevail, and the Kashmiri people should decide their own fate. Pakistan has rejected ties with India based on the oppression it puts the Kashmiris through. Additionally, he also highlighted how the voice of the Kashmiris is not able to reach the masses because New Delhi doesn’t support the freedom of the press in Indian Occupied Kashmir. Reporters for the UNWATCH and UNHRC are not able to have access to the ground realities.

Moreover, Mr. Kakar talked about disarmament. He called upon nations to lessen their use of Conventional and strategic weapons. Mr. Kakar also talked about the conditions of the women and girls in Afghanistan. As a peace-loving nation, Kakar was able to project that Pakistan has always been a champion of human rights. Pakistan is deeply saddened by the humanitarian conditions that women and girls are being kept with. Pakistan is collaborating with Kabul in terms of humanitarian assistance and trade. As a part of the Belt and Road initiative, Pakistan is looking forward to Afghanistan’s role in regional connectivity and integration.

He welcomed the normalization of ties between Iraq and Saudia Arabia but didn’t forget about our Palestinian brothers who have been suffering at the hands of the Israeli government. He claimed that Pakistan believed in a two-state solution for Palestine in Israel.

Lastly, towards the end, he emphasized two things. According to Pakistan, all types of behaviors designed to thwart or endanger should be recognized as terrorism. Far-right extremists and Fascist groups should be called out for their harmful behavior for example the action of the Hindutva in India. For Pakistan, all religions are equal in terms of respect and no religious minority should have their temples, scriptures, or signs violated. Pakistan has been an active voice for the damage caused by Islamophobia to Muslims across the world ever since 9/11. Pakistan believes that the burning of the Quran should be outlawed by countries as it means a lot to Muslims. In his closing notes, he spoke about the need for additional members in the United Nations Security Council to diversify the panel in terms of decision-making and everyone’s opinion can be considered. The “Unity For Consensus” is a method of lobbying for additional non-permanent members in the Security Council, Pakistan is a strong supporter of unity for consensus. He recapitulated the entire speech by stating that peaceful coexistence must be achieved by self-determination, respect for sovereignty, and territorial integrity.