Over the period of time, center of world economics and politics has been shifting from West to East. Resurgence of China and India as economic powers and their influence in Indian Ocean and South China Sea respectably opened window of opportunity for Asian struggling economies. The South China Sea in particular is a boiling pot of potential conflict and economic activities at the same time because of its strategic location and natural resources, with oil reserves of several billion barrels, an estimated nine hundred trillion cubic feet of natural gas. China’s claims over territories in South China Sea and its military buildup in Indian Ocean means that it will likely be a pivot point for global war and peace for the foreseeable future.

Robert Kaplan a well-known journalist and political commentator, argued in his latest book “Asia’s Cauldron”, he turns to the South China Sea, a waterway that he describes as being “as central to Asia as the Mediterranean is to Europe”. If we look at the geographical significant of Asian Cauldron, it contains part of the Pacific Ocean, the South China Sea covers an area from Singapore and the Malacca Straits to Taiwan. It consists of more than 200 small islands, rocks and coral reefs, about three dozen of which are permanently above water. These are subject to overlapping claims from China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. China as a big player in global economy lays claim to almost the entire South China Sea by feature of what is known as the “nine-dash line”. The sea is fast becoming “the most contested body of water in the world”, the main arena for geopolitical competition between a rising China and a US. With the rise of Dragon, the old order of American military unipolarity in the waters of the western Pacific is slowly fading. US strategic partnership with Japan, South Korea and India in Eastern hemisphere is the key to counter Chinese economic dominance. US motives to contain China is supplementary based on the security reasons rather than economic. China’s strategic aim must inevitably be to “exercise de facto hegemony over their own Asian Mediterranean”. Beijing wants to achieve its strategic goal while maintaining cordial relations with Western powers and tempering anxiety in Southeast Asia.

However, Modern China dominates world trade, following major reforms introduced in 1978 that were more focused on market-oriented economic development. The country’s economy is ranked at second position in the world after the United States, but China has been the world’s biggest exporter of goods since 2009 to up till now. China’s economy jumped 18.3% in 2021, compared to earlier years. In 2022, according to open data available on internet, China’s GDP worth is 14.236 trillion USD and it is rapidly increasing and sustains the 5.7% of economic growth bar. Moreover, China will overtake the US economy by 2028. The COVID-19 Pandemic and corresponding economic fallout have certainly tipped economic rivalry between China and West, and it ended in China’s favor. In Asian hemisphere, Japan is set to remain on 3rd position in World economic ranking with the GDP of 5.O6 trillion USD. In South Asia, India is also competing in economic race with 3.25 trillion USD worth of GDP. After overviewing the table, when Global economy is considered, Asian region is the most significant part of the world.
Apart from economic emergence, Cauldron States are perceiving the threat in South China Sea from China and its dream to be World super power. Therefore, they are pushing China, with an attempt to dominate the area even while acknowledging the presence and claims of other states in the South China Sea. China’s domination in the South China Sea would certainly clear the way for key Chinese air and naval influence throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In that scenario, the US is at the center of the Asia-Pacific’s political and defense affairs which cannot be ignored. While most Southeast Asian states are cultivating their economic relations with China, they acknowledge the US’s role and in fact want the United States to remain involved in regional affairs. If only to be an effective balance to the rising economic and military power of China. The military superiority of the US is expected to offset China’s geographic, demographic and economic advantage.

On the other hand, China expanding her influence by relying on relatively weak economic states to maintain its superiority in the region. China is practicing the Anti-Area Access Denial (2A-AD) strategy in South China Sea and beyond. Over the last two decades, Russian technologies combined with China’s efforts, including industrial espionage has gradually enhanced the capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to challenge U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region. The Anti-Aria Access Denial (A2/AD) is the strategy, with the aim of keeping out U.S. military intervention in its immediate areas of concern, including the disputed waters in the region.
As above mentioned Pros and Cons, Asian Cauldron has its own significance in World economy and politics, alongside it would be boiling pot for potential conflict which might create uncertainty in international Affairs. US trade war with China, and US support to Taiwan as autonomic State are the circumstances of it. Thug of war between two world best economic powers might leave negative impact on the weaker states of the region in coming years.

Introduction:

The current repetition of interest in disinformation is not because the idea is innovative, but rather there is a growing consent that the digital revolution has greatly enhanced public vulnerability to manipulation by information, therefore, action needs to be taken to counter it. The related concept of propaganda has been around far longer, but many people see this as a means of driving engagement and mobilization for social or political change, rather than simply to mislead. The relatively new term ‘fake news’ covers a far wider range of content, often with financial motivations rather than political ones. Disinformation is the new tactical method in modern conflicts to create an environment where institutions can justify their violence, Governments can build their narratives and non-state actors preach their political ideology. Misinformation and fake news are new bombshells which are lunched from social platforms that leave impact on the human minds in large numbers. Modern militaries and actors in the conflict called this Hybrid warfare that is more effective and impactful than the actual military operations. Psychological operations by using the power of social media have become the part of military strategies in the realm of defense policies.

Disinformation Impact on Human lives: 

According to the World Risk Poll, “fake news” topped the list of concerns for internet users in 2022. Military and civilian actors alike have made gainful use of disinformation in order to control the narrative regarding the conflict. The deep civil disintegration individuals of conflict settings amplifies the effect of such disinformation by creating echo chambers that intensify confirmation bias and accelerate the uncritical sharing of inaccurate events or reports. Practically, conflict-affected persons may be especially vulnerable to the ill effects of disinformation due to their frantic living conditions, elevated exposure to violence and lack of access to trustworthy sources of information. Compounding the potential for harm is the fact that conflict environments have proven especially fertile incubators for disinformation, as evident by its recent flourishing nature in Israel and Palestine, Libya, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict:

In the recent confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, CNN reported that, “The Russian assault on Ukraine is not just an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation that is producing horrific destruction and civilian torment. It is also the biggest war of the modern misinformation era”, some scholars argued that, Russia’s misinformation offensive impedes diplomatic efforts to end the war. Russian state media has portrayed Russian’s as victims of the war and covered the invasion as an attempt to liberate the Ukrainian population even as bombs and missiles rain down on civilians. On diplomatic forum, Russians has been denying the existence of war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed with a straight face after talks with his Ukrainian counterpart in Turkey which, not surprisingly failed, that “Russia did not attack Ukraine”. It is an approach that has multiple payoffs for Moscow. It can be used as cover for atrocities and potential war crimes like the attack on the maternity hospital. Misinformation also plays into the Kremlin’s narrative about the nature of the war, that it is the victim, which is served up to Russians on state media networks. The Russian claims might be absurd but they also find an audience among conspiracy theorists on social media and can be used by propagandists, even in Western countries to cast doubt on the credibility of leaders building a united front against Moscow.

The disinformation fight:

The Oversight Board was created in 2020 by Zuckerberg but it is an independent body made up of former world leaders, activists and top lawyers to make decisions on the most significant content moderation challenges on Facebook and Instagram. Disinformation and misinformation are major challenges on these platforms and have always been important issues for the board because of the wide use of these social applications. Although social media companies have a big impact on people’s lives but the disinformation fight cannot be solved by Big Tech alone. United States and UN should step out to mitigate these challenges on domestic level as well as on international platforms. In Pakistan, Government had passed Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), through ordinance to handle fake news and disinformation on social media. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) takes a remarkably lenient approach to such misinformation actions and stratagems with one exception. Combatants may not resort to perfidy, defined in Article 37 of Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions as “inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”. Belligerents thus may not, for example, disingenuously accept a truce or announce their capitulation, feign injury or illness, or claim civilian or other protected status.

In the next paragraph of Article 37, however, explicitly permits ruses as “acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or induce a person to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious”. While this particular provision only pertains to international armed conflicts (IACs), ruses are likewise licensed in non-international armed conflicts under customary international law. But modern applications of misinformation or more accurately, disinformation call into question its reflexive characterization in IHL as a ruse for several reasons. First, while ruses are presented in source materials as being intended to mislead an “enemy” or “adversary”, disinformation campaigns during armed conflict today are instead often oriented primarily towards the civilian population. Under that obligation of IHL, Militaries can mislead their enemies on the battle field, but they cannot misguide or mislead the population in International armed conflicts.

We are living in the digital era where media is playing a prominent role in our daily lives from individual to statecraft. Media has its own atmosphere which impacts on human minds. So, in that realm of the digital world, we cannot ignore the presence of digital media and its influence in politics.

Digital media is the main source of information from common to upper classes, when states and regimes controlling the flow of information. According to data provided by “Our World”, it is estimated that one in three people uses social media worldwide, more than 2.3 billion people out of seven billion use the social media to access information. The use of social media for manipulation is commonly increasing in different parts of the world which is quite evident. Many political and non-state actors use social media to proliferate their ideologies in general population. Their activities range from disinformation campaigns to rumors over transit options and hate speech around different groups. Social media is leading to overloaded distrust information, critical gaps as well as confusion over news and information.

In the context of conflicted areas, social activists, international organizations, independent news agencies use social media as a weapon to report human rights violation.  State organized violence and mass killing highlights the stories of oppressed ones. In the region of Kashmir which is disputed territory between India and Pakistan. The social media have played an effective role during recent mass mobilization for “right to self-determination”. Indian administration imposed some serious censorship over digital and main stream media to cover up the human rights violations in the valley. Social media activism is posing a major challenge to the Indian state in Kashmir; most people are tending towards use of soft-power to empower their cause of right to self-determination.

Ground realities from conflicted area portrayed through digital media has helped international organizations, NGO’s and government institutions to pressurize the Indian occupation forces to stop violence. Frequent internet bans in Kashmir territory have been widely criticized by international organizations like UNO and Amnesty International. Many political analysts across the world as an arbitrary act to sabotage dissent and to serve as a form of ‘collective punishment’ for Kashmiri people in the region.

After the killing of Burhan Wani, a young social media activist with a fundamental ideological approach towards Kashmir movement, by Indian Armed forces inspired a whole generation of young people to raise their voices against Indian government and their atrocities in the region. This particular event and Burhan has become a symbol of both the youthful defiance on streets and the oppression of the Indian security forces by using Camera and Gun at the same time.

On August 5, 2019, India abrogated Article 370 and 35 A, which further more destabilized the valley of Kashmir. When the Indian government scrapped the region’s semi-autonomous status, and declared Kashmir as part of Indian union territory against all international and bilateral agreement with Pakistan, this created the political instability in the region and people started chanting on the streets against the unlawful act by the Indian Administration. In response to that, Indian authorities imposed a sweeping communication and internet shutdown in the region. The internet shut down continued for months, the longest internet suspension that took place in a democracy. According to an international organization “Access Now”, social media giants like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube joined hands with Indian government to remove the content related to Kashmir, which is projecting the freedom struggle of Kashmiri people.  Kashmiri voices in the digital spaces through the frequent suspension of the accounts of artists, academics, and journalists based in and outside the disputed region, a move termed by experts as “inacceptable in free world”.  Geeta Seshu, co-founder of Free Speech Collective group stated that, “Successive governments have censored and silenced voices of dissent in Kashmir for decades now but when social media companies do so too, it becomes all the more reprehensible.”

Kashmiri activists and artists came with new ideas to cope up with this situation and initiated campaigns using the instrument of Music, Culture and Poetry to support Kashmiris against the oppression of India.  On September 20th 2019, Kashmiri artists, highlighted the theme of “Resist to Exist” with the collaboration from British-Kashmiri artist Sumaya Teli and Kashmiri-American artist, Nouf Bazaz. Through the collaboration of artists, the event shared stories of the Kashmiri struggle against Indian occupation and militarization and for the right to Kashmiri self-determination. It went viral in different parts of the world, and help youth to understand the Kashmir situation and Indian mistreatment of Kashmiri people. In the recent six to seven years, we have seen, how digital media revolutionized the Kashmir Conflict and created the environment where young researchers and activists can access the information to understand the conflict and to advocate the worth of freedom for the next generations.

In 2015, Iran signed a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, which is commonly known as “Iran Nuclear Deal”. The signatories of the deal were Islamic Republic of Iran and world powers including USA, UK, Russia, France, China and Germany ( P5+1) which refers to the five permanent members of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and Germany. The main purpose of the agreement was to control Iran’s nuclear program, nuclear non-proliferation in order to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and technology in Iran as well as to ensure that nuclear technology is used only for peaceful and civilian purposes.

Here is the timeline of Iran’s nuclear program which starts from 1950s Iran was the first beneficiary and signed an agreement in 1957 with Washington. The first nuclear reactor was built in 1967 with the help of US. During 1970s, Iran expanded its nuclear plan to a greater extent, in this time Iran’s relationship with western countries deteriorated due to which west support for the Iranian nuclear project came to an end. In 1984, US Department of State listed Iran as state sponsors of terrorism and sanctions were imposed. Throughout the 1990s, US monitored the activities of Iran to look any kind of transfer of material and technology that could help in developing any conventional weapons. In early 2000s, covert nuclear program sites in Natanz and Arak for uranium enrichment were revealed by Iran to which International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution against Tehran to suspend its nuclear activities. Iran’s first domestically made satellite launched in 2009, which increased the concerns of the international community over the potential growth of ballistic missiles.

Till 2014, “Two Track Diplomacy” was followed by the major powers as they encouraged Iran for diplomatic negotiations, at the same time sanctions were being imposed on Iran’s energy and finance sectors. All these events led to the nuclear deal, a landmark accord reached in 2015 which brought together the permanent members of UN Security Council and the European Union for a shared commitment. Under the deal, Iran dismantled much of its nuclear program and opened the nuclear sites for inspection, in return sanctions were lifted and Iran was allowed to make economic relations with the international community. Iran agreed to restrain nuclear activities and it was assured by US that no new sanctions will be imposed.

When Donald Trump came into power in 2018, a unilateral American withdrawal from nuclear deal was observed and again sanctions in 2020 were imposed on Iran specifically on its oil sector for not acting in accordance with deal. However, the IAEA repeatedly corroborated that Iran has complied all the nuclear deal obligations. Other signatory members of Iran Nuclear deal objected the decision taken by US and said “United States cannot unilaterally invoke “snapback” sanctions because it withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018”. These members have interests in Iran because of its significant geostrategic location, also suggested by various analysts after JCPOA that it is a “roadmap for cooperation”. The nuclear deal was of great importance for all the stakeholders including; Iran, P5+1 as well as MENA countries. The prospects of the deal were to strengthen Iran’s position in the Middle East, economy, infrastructure, and political aspects. For EU, extensive trade and investment opportunities were predicted and the issues of concern like the nuclear program, regional security will be discussed with framework and negotiations. Despite of Washington’s isolationist policy, European Union has good relations and a unique approach towards Tehran.

On the other side, Russia did not follow the move of US.  Russia was highly disappointed and slammed the decision by considering it as a blatant violation of international law and continued to maintain bilateral relations with Iran in political, economic and military areas. Since the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, Russia has become an advocate of the deal and has made active diplomatic efforts to induce its Western European signatories to resume economic relations with Iran despite US sanctions. The relationship between Russia and Iran is essentially based on geopolitical and strategic factors. The strategic relationship is mostly based on their shared objective in limiting US influence; Tehran is primarily concerned with the regional dimension while Moscow considers global perspective. The Russian leadership view Iran as a vital partner with whom it shares a number of objectives; who understands power dynamics and is ready to seek practical solutions where Moscow and Tehran’s interests diverge.

The Joe Biden administration after coming to power in 2021 pledged to revive the nuclear deal to which Iran also agreed on a condition of indirect involvement, talks resumed in November in Vienna. Last month on 23rd Feb 2022, a European Union representative to talks said “We are nearing the end” over the success or failure of renewed Iran nuclear deal. The next day Russia-Ukraine crisis erupted, for the UK, US and EU have imposed sanctions on Russia’s oil, gas and financial sector, trade and travel restrictions also made, in response to that Russia has also banned exports. According to the participants of talks, the deal was on the verge of being finalized after a year of discussions. But, last-minute demands from Russia, one of the deal’s signatories, have threatened to undermine the efforts to revive JCPOA. Russia has said it wants assurance that Western sanctions imposed on Moscow will not prohibit Russia from doing business and military cooperation with Iran. The outcome of the current intensive discussions in Vienna aimed at restoring Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers and Iran’s relationship with Russia now has to be foreseen in coming days.

The conflict between China and Taiwan dates back to the Chinese Civil War in 1949. China has territorial claims over Taiwan and considered it as a breakaway province that has to become a part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) ultimately. However, the Taiwanese oppose the view and contemplate Taiwan as an independent state. The US have been a primary actor in the particular issue since the inception of civil war, even it was announced that no official position will be taken and two sides must resolve the issue peacefully. Initially, the US recognized Taiwan until 1978 after that “One China” policy was adopted by the US who laid the foundation of Sino-US formal diplomatic relations in 1979. But at the same time, non-diplomatic relations were maintained with Taiwan. In the same year, Taiwan Relation Act (TRA) was passed to support the island and govern policy toward Taiwan. The TRA affirmed US help for Taiwan to defend itself. For that purpose, the US deployed troops on Taiwan, kept selling arms, and also retained its nuclear weapons in Taiwan Strait. It is specified by the country that “Taiwan’s Future” is a risk to Western Pacific and is of utmost concern for the United States.

Beijing’s policy towards Taipei is of deterrence, the goal is to stop Taiwan from formal independence, western support for Taiwan, and particularly US intervention. US policy towards Taipei is of “strategic ambiguity” in case of Beijing’s attack. Taiwan, a small island, yet it is of the utmost importance for China as well as the United States. On the basis of the geostrategic location of Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific region and to restrain the rise of China in global politics, strengthened military posture and influence in East Asia has shifted strategic objectives of US. The United States has been playing the “Taiwan Card” for the strategic rivalry with China. Apart from strategic, US have expanding economic as well as ideological objectives. Taiwan is the world’s largest chip manufacturer and the 10th biggest trading partner of Washington in the high-tech industry and semi-conductor production while supporting US economy with $600 Billion. Another strategic factor is that, when Taiwan will be under the jurisdiction of China, it would extend its missile ranges eastward by around 150 nautical miles. As a result, China would become the dominating force in the East China Sea, making it easier for Beijing to attack its rivals. US-China strategic competition and cross-strait relations are resulting in strong alignments among US and Taiwan.

All the actors involved in the conflict have different perspectives over Taiwan depending upon their interests. When we look at the NATO’s objectives in China and Taiwan conflict, the European member countries of NATO have economic objectives that could be disrupted because of a military confrontation. US along with these NATO members has underscored the importance of Taiwan in terms of peace and stability in a joint statement. In opinion of China, Washington has destabilized the region with provision of weapons to Taiwan. Therefore, demands are being made by Beijing to withdraw its deployed troops in Taiwan while US has asked the former to stop proactive military activities in Taipei. This has increased the magnitude of rivalry between two states. Also, the tensions between Taiwan and China has reached the highest levels in past few years especially after 2016, when Taiwanese President held the office and rejected the Chinese territorial claim of Taiwan. Both China and America have potential to ignite military and economic war over the issue of Taiwan. For unification of Taiwan and “Greater China”, Beijing has a political strategy which involves a military component and US analysts see invasion as the only military option which pose a great risk of military confrontation. The international order will be in jeopardy after Taiwan war. If the war begins at Taiwan Strait, it is more likely that Taiwan would be a battlefront for the world’s two countries with most powerful military forces and will become Sino-America war than China vs. Taiwan. The conflict will affect the overall region that may turn into a war zone. Impacts will also be seen on global supply chains, financial and transportation links.

The current ongoing war launched between Russia and Ukraine can also have an influence on China over Taiwan. Earlier, US intelligence chief stated; ‘’China’s interpretation of western reaction is being observed by Washington’’. Some experts have suggested that Ukraine crisis might encourage China to take military action against Taiwan, if it becomes necessary. President of US, Joe Biden has sent an extraordinary delegation of officials in wake of Ukraine-Russia war to warn China and declared Washington’s strong support for Taiwan. Meanwhile, the Chinese ambassador to Washington has also alerted US of military confrontation risk over Taiwan. The increasing tensions between Sino-US relations and cross-strait relations can be a flashpoint of military confrontation.

UKRAINIAN REFUGEES; IMPACT ON EUROPEAN UNION

BY HAMNA SEYYED

                  The crisis comes unexpectedly and is often unforeseen. Similarly, the Russian and Ukrainian forces’ abrupt war on 24th February 2022, was unexpected and left Ukraine in a chaotic situation. The destruction caused by the military invasion created unlivable circumstances for the Ukrainians and they had to leave. Therefore, it led to conflict-induced migration and the displacement of the Ukrainians. Once again Europe is dealing with the refugees as it did back in 2015. As per the United Nations, 100,000 Ukrainians are already being displaced.

For the time being, Refugees are being welcomed by the European Union states like Poland, which plans to host up to 1 million Ukrainians, as well as Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Moldova, where 4,000 Ukrainians came, are among the host countries. Yet, these countries are presently unprepared to stop the influx of refugees expected to arrive on their borders in the coming weeks. Hosting refugees is not an easy task at all. The major receiving countries in Central Europe can simply lack the capacity to address such needs on a large scale and over a long period.  Conflict-Induced Migration is supposed to be temporary but the migrants or refugees can only be sent back once the conflict from their homeland gets over but the situation does not seem to get fine in Ukraine.  Ukrainians’ needs range beyond the supply of temporary food, clothing, and shelter to get them through. They are at risk of being evacuated for a longer duration, which requires institutional pathways to legal status, reintegration services, housing, education, and healthcare. Refugees also require mental and social rehabilitation. Living in the era of the pandemic, they also require vaccination against Covid-19. Not only this, but European Union states still have to do a lot more for them, it will entail creating a regional resettlement plan and ensuring that overpopulation does not occur. Ukrainians may stay in the EU for up to three months without a visa, but it’s uncertain what sort of legal status they will have further than that. That has to be handled as well. The refugee crisis in Ukraine provides Europe with not only an important opportunity to prove its humanitarian values and commitment to the international refugee protection regime but it also offers a critical interesting perspective that now it is a challenge for Europe that whether it will be able to embrace the humanist spirit of the ‘’1951 Refugee Convention’’ or not. All the European states have different systems that they follow but, it will be mandatory for all member states to apply the provisions of this Convention. According to Article 3 of the Convention, ‘’The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.’’

The best-case scenario can be that the violent conflict transforms and the pull factors in Ukraine shall be created so the refugees voluntarily return to Ukraine. The worst-case scenario can be analyzed in a way that if the conflict prolongs, the refugees have to stay for a longer period in the European Union states. This will be challenging to tackle.  As a refugee or the conflict-induced migrant is the one who is coming from the conflict zone and brings a lot of grievances along with him, survival will always remain the priority and he will fight for it to an extent. If the refugees are not taken proper care of by the host states, the threat of host-stranger conflict can arise. It has been assessed that the refugees often have a cut-throat policy. Refugees can pose a threat to the national security of the states and their ability to govern. One of the examples of the refugee issues is of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Who knew that the conflict in Afghanistan will remain protracted? Pakistan is facing a refugee crisis now. We live in the world of globalization and it has both, advantages and disadvantages.  Pakistan’s culture and security did get affected by the Afghan refugees. The Refugees create an economic burden in the host states and because of this instability can be caused. Refugee identity crises have also seen to emerge in the case of many refugees throughout history. Refugees can pose a threat to a state’s sovereignty. Furthermore, the security issues like cross-border terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal trade activities cannot be neglected. The root causes of the refugee’s problems have to be addressed and in the case of Ukrainian refugees, European Union states that are dealing with the refugees shall play a diplomatic role in terms of the Ukraine-Russia war. It will not only help the refugees but the European Union itself as well. European Union needs to be proactive and adopt policies for the refugees for the short, as well as a longer period of time with United Nations’ assistance.

Prime Minister Imran Khan, on the special invitation from the Chinese leadership visiting China from 3rd February to 6th February to attend the opening ceremony of winter Olympic games.  The prime minister will be accompanied by a high-level delegation including members of the cabinet and senior government officials. As a global event, the Olympic Games foster mutual understanding, inclusivity and friendship among the peoples of the world. Beijing will soon become the first city to host both summer and winter editions of the Olympic Games.

Moreover, the prime minister would hold bilateral meetings with President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang. The leaders will review the entire gamut of bilateral relations, with a particular focus on stronger trade and economic cooperation including CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor). A further number of Memoranda of Understandings MOUs and agreements will be concluded during the visit. In Beijing, the prime minister will also meet prominent business leaders of China and representatives of leading Chinese think-tanks, academia, and the media and make the bilateral ties stronger and collaborate with them.

The visit is very important and many countries have an eye on it. This is the prime minister’s fourth trip to China as he paid the last visit in October 2019. Prior to his visit, Prime Minister Khan ordered the removal of red tape hindering the Chinese investment in Pakistan, besides doing away with 37 regulations to ensure one-window operation for foreign investors. Pakistan and China supported each other in their fight against the Covid-19 pandemic and pushed forward high-quality development of CPEC. Beijing had invested over $25 billion in Pakistan on CPEC projects generating 80,000 jobs, producing 5500MW of electricity, and building over 500km of roads.
CPEC is a transformational project. Among 70 early-harvest projects, 46 have been launched or completed with a total investment of $ 25.4bn, creating 80,000 local jobs.

Oman is the nearest Arab country to Pakistan, because of this, they both share a maritime boundary with each other. Pakistan and Oman cooperate in diverse sectors to enhance the bilateral economic, military and trade relations. Pakistan and Oman share common interests in ensuring maritime security and free flow of commerce through the region. Accordingly, navies of the two countries have been cooperating on a wide range of issues in maritime domain. Both navies have been regularly participating in Maritime Security Operations at sea. In the area of human resource, PN is providing officers and men on deputation to Omani Navy to support RNO in fulfilling its maritime and naval obligations. The two navies have also been closely collaborating in the field of training of respective officers and men.

This year The Pakistan Navy and Royal Navy of Oman (RNO) participated in the naval exercise ‘Thamar Al Tayyib 2021’ (TAT-21) in the North Arabian Sea. The exercise conducted in Pakistani territorial waters from December 13-18 included the participation of surface and air units, besides special operations forces from both navies. The Omani Navy Task Group comprised RNO ships Al Dhaferah and Al Seeb. Maritime patrol aircraft of Royal Air Force of Oman also participated in the exercise. The sea phase of the exercise comprised counter-terrorism, anti-air and anti-surface warfare operations with an overall aim to curb illicit activities at sea. Exercises between the two navies have regularly been conducted since 1990. The last exercise in the TAT series was conducted in Oman waters in 2019. During the harbour phase of the exercise, operational and tactical-level discussions and pre-exercise conferences were conducted. The sea phase of the exercise included counter-terrorism training, anti-air and anti-surface warfare operations with a focus on curbing illicit activities at sea, according to the official statement. Gwadar Port and Salalah Port can be used to create efficient communication channels between the two countries because both ports possess excellent infrastructure and other facilities.  Regular conduct of bilateral naval exercise between the Pakistan Navy and the Royal Navy of Oman are indicative of long-standing brotherly relations between the two countries in general and both navies in particular.

The Houthis have a complex relationship with Yemen’s Sunni Muslims. The movement has discriminated against Sunnis, but also recruited and allied with them. Under the leadership of Hussein Badreddin al-Houthis, the group emerged as an opposition to former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh, whom they charged with massive financial corruption and criticized for being backed by Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The Houthi movement attracts its Zaidi-Shia followers in Yemen by promoting regional political-religious issues in its media, including the overarching U.S.  Israeli conspiracy theory and Arab “collusion”. In 2003, the Houthis’ raised a slogan, “God is great, death to the U.S, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam”, and it became the group’s trademark. Houthis officials, however, have rejected the literal interpretation of the slogan. Iran is widely accused of backing the Houthis, a Zaydi Shiite movement that has been fighting Yemen’s Sunni-majority government since 2004. The Houthis took control of the Yemeni capital Sanaa in September 2014 and continued on towards Aden, Yemen’s largest city. In response to Houthi advances, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states launched a military campaign in March 2015.

Recently, The Houthi armed group has fired artillery and ballistic missiles indiscriminately into populated areas of Yemen’s Marib governorate resulting in civilian casualties, including women and children, and causing a new wave of civilian displacement. And now Houthi rebel attack on the Saudi Arabian town of Jizan resulted in two casualties and seven injured. The Houthi–Saudi Arabian conflict is an ongoing armed conflict between the Royal Saudi Armed Forces and Yemeni Houthi forces that has been taking place in the Arabian Peninsula, including the southern Saudi regions of Asir, Jizan, and Najran, and northern Yemeni governorates of Saada, Al Jawf, and Hajjah since the onset of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen in 2015. On December 7, 2021, Reuters reported that the Saudi-led coalition bombed military targets in the capital Sanaa after the Iran-aligned Houthis launched ballistic missiles and armed drones into Saudi Arabia.

What is happening in the conflict now?

As the war has dragged on, Houthis have stepped up the boldness of their attacks on Saudi Arabia. Using drones and missiles, the Houthis have launched attacks on Saudi airports, oil facilities and military sites.

While Houthi attacks have failed to cause massive devastation, they have been enough to rattle global oil markets. Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia have more than doubled this year compared to last year. CSIS records 78 Houthi attacks per month this year on Saudi Arabia, compared with 38 a month in 2020.

In Yemen, there is much criticism of the Saudi-led coalition’s attacks for targeting civilians in one of the world’s poorest countries. More than 80% of the population of 30 million requires food assistance. Estimates on the number of fatalities caused by the conflict vary widely, though at least some 130,000 have been killed over the course of the conflict. By contrast, the UN estimates the conflict will have claimed 377,000 by the end of the year, both through the direct and indirect consequences of war, such as disease and starvation.

By Shaista Riaz, Research Associate at Pakistan House

There are major decisions that need to be made especially when we are witnessing a massive humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The Afghani citizens and world leaders share one common dilemma, will the Taliban go back to its old ways or is it safe to trust the Taliban? Either way, the main goal should be to avert the current humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and gradually build a peaceful bridge between the Taliban and the rest of the world. This article aims to present an analysis of the current diplomatic setting affecting Afghanistan and provide brief recommendations.

Afghanistan in the last two decades built itself on an American model with no efforts to sustain it after the US left. According to more than 2000 pages of documents obtained by the Washington post, military commanders, diplomats, and aid workers revealed privately and in blunt terms, the US presence in Afghanistan to be an unclear mission, a failed strategy, and an effort to sway public opinion. For example, the Afghan government relied on foreign grants that financed around 75 percent of the public spending. This means that under the Taliban control that money will presumably dry up and the economy is poised to collapse. But it is not just about the foreign grants, the economy is danger from a major brain drain. Since the doctors, lawyers, and other skilled workers are fleeing the country, leaving Afghanistan with limited gains achieved in the past two decades. This is because the gains made under the US presence were not secured and the Afghan citizens are suddenly presented with a dilemma.
So, after twenty years of war in Afghanistan, many Afghans are left traumatized or have been killed by the Taliban, all while the overall sentiment is of deep betrayal. This sense of betrayal has emerged from the un-sustained efforts made by the US administration and by the US servicemen who executed those efforts, who are left questioning what it was all for. Hence, the US does have a clear obligation to take in the Afghan citizens who do not feel safe and grant them humanitarian parole.

Besides, China and Pakistan can play a major role by helping Afghanistan in its humanitarian crisis. Which could lead to stronger ties with the Afghan government. As Beijing is expected to recognise the Taliban regime, it may be futile to believe that the Central Asian states will not eventually recognize the Afghan government. One of the reasons for this possibility is because the Central Asian states have been an active part of China’s Belt and Road initiative. Although the debt burden is increasing in Central Asia, the countries have become dependent on the vested interests of Russia and China. Regardless of the prospect, Beijing has created an economic dependency of Central Asian states on China. This raises a question as to what extent would the economic dependency of Central Asian states can affect their diplomatic decisions? The general idea does dictate that the economic leverage can dictate the political decisions of a country.

Since the discovery of valuable minerals in Afghanistan, the bordering countries can envision a greater outcome of BRI’s presence in Asia. Russia has maintained security presence in Central Asia. However, Russian officials are now downplaying the Taliban’s threats, this could be because a Taliban government would be simpler to work with than the UN-backed government that has now departed. There is no doubt that the Taliban will be a difficult partner for China. Significant uncertainty surrounds the Taliban leadership’s idea of Islamic beliefs, as well as how this may affect the group’s foreign policy, particularly toward its Central Asian neighbours.

Another dimension focuses on the trade relations of Afghanistan that could stabilise the country to some extent and serve as a bridge between Afghanistan and the rest of the world. This can be seen with regards to trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan that might result in revenue benefits on both sides. After prolonged uncertainty in Kabul, exporters from Pakistan have resumed supplying goods to Afghanistan. In particular, the rise in fruit export from Afghanistan has been noticeable. Hundreds of trucks lined the Khyber Pass, the key road that connects Pakistan and Afghanistan across the Torkham border. They are loaded with food and are ready to cross the border into Afghanistan’s eastern Jalalabad. Trucks usually carry cement, sugar, flour, cooking oil, salt, bananas, pomegranates and other food items to Afghanistan. Moreover, Pakistan’s Finance and Revenue Minister, Shaukat Tarin, told the Senate Standing Committee on Finance that trade with Afghanistan would now be in rupees in order for the government to save its dollar revenues. Thus, recognising the need for bilateral trade with Afghanistan would not only benefit Afghanistan’s stability but also allow countries to construct sustainable markets with the new Taliban regime.

The least we could do is help alleviate the humanitarian crisis which is only achievable once the countries recognise their priorities, that is to support the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban regime also needs to understand that its actions in Afghanistan will be the determining factor for achieving the trust of its Afghan citizens and of the world leaders. One of the ways to achieve stability in Afghanistan is through establishing bilateral trade and allowing the market forces to engage Afghanis in economic participation. Moreover, in order to settle the fear of Afghan citizens, the US, Pakistan, and China can encourage soft power diplomacy towards the Taliban for long-term gains from economic and security aspects. As for Central Asian states, it is advisable for them to work alongside the Taliban to ensure the progress of BRI investments in their countries.