PoliTact’s Issue Brief

By Naade Ali

Context

After several rounds of intensive negotiations mediated by Qatar and Türkiye, Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to extend their ceasefire despite failing to achieve a major breakthrough. The decision followed a series of fierce cross-border clashes that caused heavy casualties on both sides. According to Türkiye’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both countries also consented to establish a monitoring and verification mechanism to ensure the ceasefire’s implementation and to penalize any violations.

The latest round of talks in Istanbul followed the initial negotiations held in Doha, where Islamabad and Kabul first agreed to an immediate ceasefire and the creation of frameworks to consolidate peace and stability. During the Doha meeting, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif and Afghanistan’s Acting Defense Minister Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob Mujahid signed a bilateral agreement prohibiting either country’s forces from targeting the other’s military, civilians, or critical infrastructure, while pledging mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Analysis

Throughout the negotiation process, several details have surfaced that expose the deep-seated fault lines underpinning the conflict between the two neighbors. Although cross-border hostilities have paused, a “war of narratives” has emerged in the aftermath of the Istanbul talks, with both Kabul and Islamabad accusing each other of distorting facts. Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid accused Pakistan’s military of fueling instability to pave the way for a U.S. return to Bagram Air Base, claiming Islamabad’s actions aim to create chaos. He said the Taliban do not trust Pakistan’s assurances of peaceful relations, adding that Pakistan’s demand for the Taliban to prevent militant attacks inside its territory was unrealistic. Mujahid also criticized Pakistan’s defense minister for making “threatening remarks” during the Istanbul talks, warning that “Afghans should never be spoken to in the language of threats.”

The principal point of contention remains the two sides’ differing perceptions of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which Islamabad designates as a terrorist organization and refers to as Fitna al-Khawarij—“deviant rebels sowing chaos.” Mujahid denied the presence of TTP leaders in Afghanistan, asserting that those identified by Pakistan were merely “Pakistani refugees” returning home. The Afghan side even offered to facilitate their repatriation, a claim Pakistan dismissed as deliberately distorted. Pakistan’s Information Ministry clarified that Islamabad had demanded action against militants operating from Afghan soil and, when Kabul insisted those individuals were Pakistani nationals, proposed that they be handed over via designated border posts.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Foreign Office stated that the Taliban regime had effectively admitted the presence of TTP and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan, offering various justifications for not taking action against them. In a separate statement, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif accused the Taliban regime of “treacherous and barbaric patronization of India-sponsored terrorism,” asserting that Pakistan harbored “no illusions” about Kabul’s intentions. Asif described the Taliban government as non-representative, deeply divided, and repressive toward Afghanistan’s ethnic minorities, women, and civil society. Amid these tensions, Pakistan is seeking a binding written agreement conditioning its cooperation on the Taliban’s commitment to prevent TTP from using Afghan territory for attacks. Asif stated that lasting peace would require the Taliban to end its support for the TTP, enforce a long-term ceasefire, and facilitate the repatriation of Afghan refugees.

The Taliban, however, rejected Asif’s characterization, insisting that the TTP issue is an internal matter for Pakistan. Doubts persist over the durability of the ceasefire and its ability to address the entrenched mistrust between the two countries. Anti-Pakistan and anti-Afghanistan sentiment has increasingly become part of national discourse on both sides, rapidly translating into broader social polarization. The growing hostility suggests that the prospects for durable peace or a return to normalcy between Islamabad and Kabul remain distant.

The Future of Ceasefire

Highlighting the fragility of the deal, Khawaja Asif cautioned that its success depends on the Taliban’s capacity to restrain militants targeting Pakistan. “Anything coming from Afghanistan will be a violation of this agreement,” he said, defending Pakistan’s right to carry out cross-border strikes. “They are in Kabul. They are everywhere. Wherever they are, we will attack them. Kabul is not a no-go area.” Asif emphasized that the ceasefire applies only to the Afghan Taliban and does not extend to the TTP, reaffirming that Islamabad will not negotiate with the group.

In response to Pakistan’s repeated threats of cross-border action, the Taliban have issued a strong warning through Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, asserting that Afghanistan would not tolerate any violation of its sovereignty. Haqqani cautioned that any aggression or incursion by Pakistan would be met with firm resistance, declaring, “If anyone attacks or invades our country, we will defend it. Our history speaks volumes about how Afghanistan has dealt with aggressors.” His remarks reflected the Taliban’s growing frustration over Islamabad’s rhetoric and underscored Kabul’s resolve to respond militarily if Pakistan carries out further strikes inside Afghan territory

Against this backdrop, it is unlikely that the agreement will substantially resolve Pakistan’s growing terrorism challenge. While ongoing tensions between the two countries offer no clear advantage to either side, they continue to hinder development and progress. Before the escalation, there were hopes that Afghanistan might participate in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Such economic interdependence, following the Chinese model, could have created a win-win scenario, reducing the likelihood of conflict and fostering regional collaboration. However, that prospect now appears increasingly remote.

As Pakistan enters Phase Two of CPEC and the U.S. begins investing in its critical minerals sector, Islamabad cannot afford to let terrorism persist. The Pakistani military faces mounting pressure from China, whose personnel and infrastructure have already come under attack. If any such incident were to occur with American ventures, it would have severe repercussions for Pakistan’s security apparatus and its relations with Washington. Hence, countering terrorism has become a top priority for the Pakistani military, which aims to ensure a secure environment for foreign investors in the country’s vast mineral resources.

The current ceasefire with Afghanistan is viewed as Pakistan’s last opportunity to compel the Afghan Taliban to reconsider their stance toward the TTP. However, if the Taliban fail to act, the situation could deteriorate further. The prospect of a wider Pakistan-Afghanistan confrontation cannot be ruled out, particularly as Kabul and New Delhi draw closer. India has recently upgraded its technical mission in Kabul to a full embassy, and last year, Indian Minister of External Affairs J.P. Singh held a landmark meeting with Taliban Defense Minister Mullah Yaqoob, who expressed hopes for enhanced defense ties with India.

Islamabad is concerned that the warming diplomatic relations between India and Afghanistan could evolve into security cooperation, extending Pakistan’s threat landscape. Pakistan has accused India of waging a low-intensity proxy war through Afghanistan, alleging that New Delhi aims to keep Islamabad preoccupied on both its eastern and western fronts.

Nonetheless, these developments reflect Islamabad’s deepening insecurity and impatience toward Kabul and raise the possibility that any India-Afghanistan defense cooperation could be perceived by Islamabad as a direct threat to its own security, potentially drawing the two countries into a broader conflict. Without addressing these core issues, any ceasefire will remain fragile, and true peace between the two neighbors, crucial to regional stability, will remain out of reach.

Related Articles:

Afghanistan’s Strategic Outlook And New Geopolitical Realities – Aug 18, 2025
Afghanistan, Pakistan Relations and Great Power Rivalry – Jul 21, 2025
Pakistan-Afghanistan Tensions, Trump, And Wakhan Corridor – Feb 3, 2025
Political Or Military Solution; Pakistan’s New Counter-Terrorism Operation Azm-e-Istehkam – Aug 1, 2024
Convergences in US Pakistan Ties and Afghanistan – Jan 1, 2024
Pakistan’s Afghan Dilemma And TTP – Feb 22, 2023
Post Withdrawal Campaign Against Extremism In Afghanistan And US-Pakistan Relations – Sep 7, 2022
Emerging US Policy Towards Afghanistan After Withdrawal – March 2, 2022
Recalibrating The US-Pakistan Partnership In Afghanistan – Jun 22, 2021
US-Pakistan Relations And Afghanistan Under Biden – Mar 2, 2021

The post The Fragile Truce Between Pakistan And Afghanistan And The War Of Narratives appeared first on Politact.

Naad-e-Ali Sulehria – South Asia Fellow, PoliTact

As the conflict between Ukraine and Russia continues, statement has set in. In recent negotiations, both sides rejected each other’s terms thus suggesting that finding a resolution remains elusive.

Despite previous indications of openness to a ceasefire, Russia, in a Security Council meeting this Monday, criticized and rejected Ukraine’s peace proposal. Russia denounced President Zelensky’s plans, which include the withdrawal of Russian troops from all Ukrainian territory and the prosecution of Russian officials for war crimes. Russia asserted its readiness to negotiate for peace but not on compromising terms while declaring the present plan a guise to continue Ukraine’s war ambitions while obtaining more western funds.

Zelensky, in turn, has rejected Russia’s offer for a ceasefire, expressing concerns that any frozen conflict would likely reignite. By exploiting Ukraine’s vulnerabilities, Russia can launch a new aggression that could expand to other countries. Zelensky believes that accepting a ceasefire at the current positions, where Russia has already annexed four Ukrainian regions, would provide Russia with a claim to victory. Meanwhile, Ukraine will lose the gains it has made or could make in its offensive against Russia.

Last week at the World Economic Forum, Zelensky voiced his fear that any shortage of military equipment and ammunition will result in strengthening Putin, especially as the EU and the US, have shown reluctance to fulfill their commitments.

In response, the US and EU have affirmed their support for Ukraine, with promises from US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. However, despite renewed commitments, Zelensky’s hopes for a significant breakthrough may be dashed as attention has been diverted by the Gaza-Israel conflict and upcoming US elections.

Support for Ukraine is contingent upon the outcome of the US presidential elections. European allies, including NATO, are also anxious about the result of these elections. Zelensky has expressed concern over Donald Trump’s suggestion that he could swiftly end the Russia-Ukraine war if he returns to the White House. Apprehensive about the past ties between Putin and Trump, Zelensky insists that any unilateral decisions by Trump would undermine Ukraine’s genuine demands and would weaken Ukraine’s position.

The post Ukraine-Russia: Stalemate Ensues, Concerns Multiply appeared first on Politact.

Naad-e-Ali Sulehria – South Asia Fellow, PoliTact

The ongoing cross-border military escalation between Hezbollah and Israel has taken a more aggressive and provocative turn, bringing them dangerously close to an imminent and highly destructive all-out war and a wider regional conflict. In a recent incident, an Israeli drone strike in Southern Lebanon resulted in the deaths of two more Hezbollah fighters with a total of 140, and over 195 Lebanese civilians causalities since October 7.

With ongoing tensions, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, has conditioned any negotiations with Israel on ending the Gaza war, linking the ongoing escalations to the situation in Gaza. Last Friday, Hezbollah issued a stern warning that Israel “would receive a real slap in the face,” asserting its readiness to counter Israeli aggression endlessly. On the other hand, Israel has threatened to replicate its Gaza offensive in Lebanon.

If hostilities reach that point, it could potentially draw the US and Iran into the conflict. For Biden’s administration, a full-scale Israel-Hezbollah war would be a significant diplomatic and political failure with repercussions for his upcoming presidential elections. For Iran, the stakes would be too costly, as it would not only lose its strategic deterrence asset in the form of Hezbollah, but may also bring a full-scale war home, which it cannot afford to fight.

Recognizing the sensitivity of the situation, the U.S. is engaging in diplomatic efforts to avert war, proposing a preliminary solution involving Hezbollah withdrawing its fighters from the border with Israel and the Lebanese army establishing a buffer zone. However, Hezbollah has rejected this proposal, as sheltering its fighters near the Israel border has given it strategic leverage. Notably, Israeli authorities have managed to evacuate over 96,000 residents who live near the Lebanon border. Most of these individuals are hesitant to return to their homes, fearing the possibility of Hezbollah crossing into Israel and taking hostages.

With all signs indicating the expansion of the conflict and apparently no bargaining chips for negotiations in hand, the likelihood that Hezbollah and Israel would come to a peaceful agreement on Gaza in the coming days is diminishing,

According to the latest reports, Hezbollah is expanding its footholds in the region and has its forces on the ground in Yemen, helping to direct and oversee Houthi confrontations with Israel in the Red Sea. Through its regional expansion, Hezbollah has demonstrated its capability to open several war fronts against Israel. Siding with the Houthis, Hezbollah has delivered a message that they would not stop confronting Israel until it ends its offensive in Gaza. Israel has indicated that the window for diplomacy is closing, and if no negotiated agreement is reached by the end of January, it will escalate its confrontation with Hezbollah. This undesirable scenario could result in widespread destruction and civilian suffering, regardless of who claims victory.

The post Hezbollah-Israel Tensions Escalate, Threatening Wider Conflict appeared first on Politact.

Naad-e-Ali Sulehria – South Asia Fellow, PoliTact

On January 16, in an unexpected twist Iran launched airstrikes into Pakistan’s Balochistan province, claiming to have targeted two strongholds of the anti-Iran militant group Jaesh al-Adl (Army of Justice). In less than two days, Pakistan responded with a tit-for-tat strike, hitting hideouts of ethno-nationalist Baloch separatists within Iranian territory. This abrupt eruption of cross-border military hostilities severely strained the otherwise amicable relations between the neighboring countries, with Pakistan condemning Iran for violating its territorial sovereignty and subsequently severing diplomatic ties as well.

In the aftermath of Pakistan’s counterstrikes, Iran found itself exposed, raising concerns that the situation could be exploited by Iran’s adversaries. To counter, Iran conducted air defense drills using drones designed for intercepting hostile targets along its southwestern to southeastern coasts.

Tensions between Pakistan and Iran sparked fears of a regional conflict. However, both nations eventually de-escalated the situation by stressing that issues should be resolved through dialogue, and agreed to enhance counter-terrorism cooperation utilizing existing communication channels.

Although a brief escalation, the recent episode has underscored the fundamental challenges both countries face in conducting counter-terrorism – with mutual distrust and security concerns persisting over time. Pakistan and Iranian governments have struggled to fully secure this volatile region, as people on both sides of the 559 miles long border feel deprived of basic necessities, face discrimination, and demand a larger share of their resources.

Both nations have long accused each other of providing safe havens to their respective enemies. Pakistan consistently alleges that India’s intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), operating from Iranian soil, orchestrates attacks in Pakistan’s Balochistan region and supports the anti-Pakistan Baloch separatist movement. Conversely, Iran blames Pakistan for inaction against anti-Iran elements with sanctuaries on its side of the border – and not controlling infiltration that results from human trafficking and smuggling of weapons.

Pakistan is also wary of Iran’s increasing involvement in fomenting sectarian violence within the country. Recently, Pakistani security forces apprehended a top commander of an Iranian-backed militant group, Zanabiyoun, in Karachi, accusing him of carrying out targeted killings of prominent Sunni clerics on behalf of Iranian intelligence.

Sanctions imposed on Iran due to its nuclear program and support for non-state actors, especially in the Middle East, have also complicated its relations with Pakistan. Projects such as Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline could not move forward due to these sanctions. Despite its fluctuating ties with the US and strategic ties with China, Pakistan is still considered a close American ally. On the other hand, Iran has had long term relations with both China and Russia.

Meanwhile, Pakistan faces a fresh wave of Baloch protests, calling for government action on enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. These ongoing protests have triggered a stern response from the Pakistani interim government, with caretaker Prime Minister Anwarul Haq Kakar dismissing the Baloch protests as supporters and relatives of those opposing the state.

Pakistan anticipates a high-level visit from the Iranian Foreign Minister in the near future. However, despite their commitment to collaborate against a common enemy, the root causes of Iran-Pakistan tensions persist and are exploited by outside powers.

Naad-e-Ali Sulehria – South Asia Fellow, PoliTact

The post Iran-Pakistan Cross-Border Clashes And Deep-Rooted Challenges appeared first on Politact.

The Race for Building Trade Corridors and Connectivity

Context

When laying out the master plan for Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China must have grappled with two strategic considerations. One, what would a potential future conflict with US, or more generally with the West, mean for its security and economic interests. Second, how it would secure the energy needs if the strategic sea pathways, through which much of its present-day trade passes, were to become unstable.

These worries are not unique to China alone, every major international actor is attempting to find their respective answers to these growing risks in era of great power competition. The dynamics around the politics of trade corridors and energy pipelines can be understood by the following three factors:

1. Which countries have the energy reserves and other products to export?
2.  Which nations have the most need for these energy reserves and products and,
3. The intermediate countries whose strategic location relative to these trade corridors increases their leverage vis a vis the global and regional powers.

Post globalization and post Covid international commerce is governed by a new principle. A nation should not have supply lines and trade, especially of strategic nature, with a country that could become an adversary in the future. President Biden has called it de-risking when it comes to trade between US and its allies with China. The reason for this is that Free Trade can provide tremendous leverage to a potential adversary and create a dependency.

Belt and Road Initiative

In view of these strategic considerations, China’s BRI and its various tributaries, appear to provide alternative routes for the sustenance of its trade and the steady supply of energy needs to maintain its growth. BRI is a combination of two routes; the New Silk Road Economic Belt will run westward overland through Central Asia and onward to Europe. The second route, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR), will run south and westward through sea to Europe, with stops in South East Asia, South Asia and Africa.

Under the auspices of BRI, at least six arteries are being developed, with CPEC being one of them:

1. The China-Central Asia-West Asia Corridor will be built with China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region as its starting point
   2. China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will be built to connect the ports of Pakistan’s Gwadar with Xinjiang’s Kashi
   3. The northern China-Mongolia-Russia Land Corridor will connect Russia to China and starts from the Chinese province of Heilongjiang, and
   4. The south running China-India-Bangladesh-Myanmar Corridor (BCIM), will be built with Kolkata as its starting point
   5. The Indochina Peninsula Corridor
   6. The New Eurasian Land Bridge, running from central China to Europe via Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus

BRI will allow China to consolidate its access to Eurasia, Central Asia, South East Asia, including Africa. More significantly, it will help its penetration into the maritime regions, especially the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Sea. These regions are estimated to include 4.4 billion people, constituting 63% of the world population, and US $2.1 trillion in gross production that makes up 29% of the world GDP. Considering this, BRI will provide lucrative opportunities for China, expanding its trade with the littoral and inland states.

CPEC in Relation to China’s BRI

While CPEC is just one of the tributaries of the Chinese BRI vision, it is perhaps the most important one. Ideally, China would desire all the corridors to operate as envisioned. However, the success of each strategic passage is dependent on mitigating several key security risks.

For example, the Gwadar Port situated very close to the Strait of Hormuz, will allow China the shortest access to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. Moreover, it will provide an alternative route to the conflict prone and crowded Malacca Strait, sandwiched between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Obviously, this carries economic and security implications. Writing in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, PoliTact’s strategist Claude Rakisits pointed out in 2015:

“However, in geo-strategic terms the success of CPEC would not be good news for the US: it would displace the US as Pakistan’s major external patron in favor of China. Most importantly, it would provide China with a firm and reliable long-term beachhead in the Indian Ocean close to the Persian Gulf, effectively making China a two-ocean power. This would be a red rag to India.”

Thus, if tensions between India and China, and matters related to the South China Sea, were to escalate, the BCIM strategic corridor is likely to become nonfunctional. In this case, CPEC would take on an added emphasis.

Then there are concerns regarding the stability of Middle East. The Middle East reigns as China’s largest supply of oil and energy: 60% of China’s oil comes from the Middle East. These supplies travel from the Strait of Hormuz to Strait of Malacca, curling through the Indian Ocean and reaching China while passing through South China Sea, East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. However, if the situation of Middle East deteriorates due to extremism and continuing worries regarding Iran’s nuclear program, it is possible that the Strait of Hormuz itself becomes quite insecure.

BRI and IMEC

Discussions have been brewing for a while that the US needs to counter BRI and provide an alternative. And for this – various names and formulations have come to the fore – the latest one being the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC). The new corridor was announced at the recently concluded G-20 meeting held in India. It will be a combination of a rail and shipping route covering two continents – and two corridors. The Eastern Corridor will connect India to the Arabian Gulf and the Northern corridor connecting the Gulf to Europe.

But the question is how IMEC compares to the BRI tributaries. The connectivity corridors have become another tangent of the escalating global power tussles between US, China, and Russia.

While CPEC provides the shortest route to connect the Gulf States, IMEC bypasses Pakistan. Not only that, there already exists a 5,981 km train transit route completed in 2022 – which connects Pakistan to Turkey via Iran, called ITI (Islamabad, Tehran, Istanbul). The cargo train takes 13 days to reach Istanbul from Islamabad. The path envisioned by IMEC also by passes Turkey. Turkish president Erdogan recently commented “the most convenient line for traffic from east to west has to pass through Turkey.” And that there is no corridor without Turkey.

On the other hand, IMEC envisions a train route through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel – bypassing the Suez Canal. From Israel, the Northern shipping route will connect with Greece.

IMEC seems to be promoting an alternative connectivity offered by Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey – and configure the world that is suitable for Western alliance and maintaining of its influence over the Middle East. Moreover, to use that sway over the Core Arab Muslim nations, towards pressuring Peripheral Muslim states to join IMEC. To reap the benefits of IMEC, necessitates normalization of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which is being actively pursued by the Biden administration. This will undercut the growing Chinese penetration of the Middle East, as witnessed be the facilitation of Saudi-Iran peace deal – and around $400 billion China-Iran Security deal reached in March 2021.

The post China’s Belt And Road Initiative And India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) appeared first on Politact.

Context

Alarmingly, US witnessed four 1-in-1-thousand years rain events over the summer. One of these events was in late July in Saint Louis when 9.04 inches of rain fell during a 15-hour storm. Around the same time, 14 to 15 inches of rain came down in Kentucky over a 5-day period. In early August, Southern and Central Illinois witnessed 8 to 12 inches of rain during a 12-hour period. And then the driest place in North America, Death Valley California, saw the most rain it has ever seen in August. Just as October arrived, Hurricane Ian hit Florida with a destructive blow.

And while this was occurring in the US, Europe was experiencing severe heat with several fires breaking out in France, UK and Portugal. In South Asia, after 2010, Pakistan observed its own water deluge with worst flooding ever this monsoon season. According to latest assessments, more than 1503 people died and 33 million have losses to livestock, crops, homes, and their livelihood. The World Bank projects the record-breaking floods caused loss and damage in-excess of $40 billion.

Speaking at an event hosted by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) on September 27, UNDP Development Program Administrator Achim Steiner commented on how dire the global economic situation is. He noted that amid a series of global shocks and overlapping crises — from climate change and COVID-19 to rising inflation and crippling debt — fragile and conflict-affected states are under unprecedented strain. Rising food and energy prices resulting from the war in Ukraine have pushed 71 million people into poverty, worsening risks of instability and conflict.

Faced with increasing environment induced calamities – the daunting inquiry is how we got here, who is responsible for it, and how to pay for it. This is pretty much the same dynamics confronted with Covid-19, where China was often blamed for the pandemic.

According to the US National Intelligence Estimate that goes through 2040: “Geopolitical tensions are likely to grow as countries increasingly argue about how to accelerate the reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions that will be needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Debate will center on who bears more responsibility to act and to pay—and how quickly—and countries will compete to control resources and dominate new technologies needed for the clean energy transition.”

Dealing with the Future

As the climate crisis gets acute around the world, each nation is being pushed to refine their adaptation and mitigation strategies. Not only that, they are also having to define their narrative, approach, and capabilities to seek green funding sources.

One impediment is the amount of time it takes to to get approval for project funding. In an article published in Pakistan Today, Khurram Lalani listed some key challenges in seeking assistance from climate funds.

“Once the project is accepted, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) board’s approvals follow. In Pakistan’s case, the GCF took another 288 days on average to process approvals. Overall, this has meant that a total of 826 days were spent to get one project past the approval line. This does not factor in the work that a project proponent does on its own before submitting anything.”

He goes on to comment that lack of technical expertise and credible feasibility studies are some of the other obstacles in getting approval. Moreover, projects are poorly designed which results in a lot of money being unutilized, stated Kashmala Kakakhel speaking at an event organized by TABADLAB.

Nations that have the relevant expertise, like India and China, have ready access to climate funds. GCF is also plagued with bureaucracy. Lalani states: “To tackle the size and scale of climate finance, some sort of blitz-scaling is required. Some new iterations, trial and errors, speedier processes and faster timelines. Time for business as usual is receding fast.”

This sentiment was echoed by UNDP’s Achim Steiner as well, he urged more incentivize financial architecture that prioritize investments. He went on to add that our present political and economic systems are not evolving with the speed and intensity of catastrophes being confronted. Steiner backed the more networked multilateral systems to confront these natural calamities in a more proactive fashion.

Climate Change and Pakistan’s Response

During his visit to the US in September, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto presented a need for Green Marshall Fund – a likely reference to G7 plan to raise $100 billion annually to deal with climate change. But these funds are not meant for one country. To get a piece of the pie, and to be successful at the upcoming COP27 conference in Egypt, in addition to technical expertise, Pakistan clearly has to define its needs. For example, Syed Mohammad Ali, who is also a Senior Fellow at PoliTact, suggested:

“Pakistan could specifically ask the US for help with climate proofing the Indus Water Treaty, given that it was the US insistence which led the World Bank to broker this treaty back in the 1960s.”

Former USAID and State Department officials who have worked on these matters, reiterate the same, advising that Pakistan would have to articulate its asks – and back them up with credible data. They add, the confusion is also where the responsibility lies, at the provincial or the federal level.

Speaking at the Middle East Institute’s Podcast on Pakistan’s Climate, Economic, and Political Crisis, Stimson Center’s Senior Fellow and Director for South Asia Program, Elizabeth Threlkeld, commented that Pakistan also has an opportunity. As opposed to playing a victim role, the country should frame a clear narrative as it relates to climate justice – since its being impacted so much. Moreover, there is a potential for the nation to conduct needed reforms, think ahead, and identify cost-effective and realistic climate adaptation strategies – and offer it to the others. And in this sense, it can lead the Global South.

Pakistan American Community

In the wake of devastating floods, politically active organizations that represent the Pakistan-American diaspora are in active mode as well. They are engaging with congressional leaders to demand a flood relief package. They are also striving to mobilize and coordinate the activities of various community groups to best assist flood impacted people. Particularly, identifying funding sources and technical expertise that Pakistan can benefit from. This is not an easy task, and the present political stalemate in Pakistan, including the state of US-Pakistan ties, are coming in the way.

While the Democrats recognize the dangers of climate change and have put this at the center of their policies – there is no such buy-in from the Republicans. After all, it was Trump administration that decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2020 – which Biden rejoined in 2021 after coming to power.

As US prepares for midterm elections in November and the Presidential election in 2024, politically active Pakistan-American community groups are having a challenging time framing their message to US representatives as it relates to flood aid for Pakistan. Republicans could take one or both chambers of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections.

This is a predicament they share with the Pakistan government in what narrative to adopt. Do they join the larger debate in seeking aid and climate justice – or present a case that Pakistan’s flood disaster is a one-off humanitarian tragedy, to which Republicans are probably more amenable.

Additionally, the matter is also how to categorize the assistance, under Loss and Damage or Adaptation and Mitigation. US has favored Mitigation as opposed to Loss and Damage Fund, since that has more chances of getting Republican approval. Conversely, developing nations have advocated for Loss and Damage assistance to rebuild as they face extreme weather events.

Conclusion

The disconnect between Pakistan and the US is at the strategic level. In the growing great power rivalry, the nation is often seen standing on the opposite side of the isle. And this dynamic should not be allowed to play out in the realm of climate change. Like Covid-19 and Campaign Against Extremism, climate change can only be countered by everyone working together.

Being a strategic partner, India has an extensive climate track-II dialogue with US – and to a lesser extent with UK. Though Pakistan exists in the same region, it has no such elaborate engagement. This should not prevent the nation, as advised by climate experts, to seek Chinese assistance in climatizing projects being undertaken under CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor). China has also cooled down its cooperation with the US on climate due to tensions over Taiwan. However, US envoy for climate John Kerry stated that “we need to get China” back – a country with 30% of all emissions.

Kerry further added:“I personally vehemently disagree with that. Climate is a universal issue, a universal threat. Without political ideology, without political party. It does not represent global competition. It represents a global threat to the world, which the two largest emitters and two largest economies could greatly benefit the world by coming together and cooperating to try to deal with it.”

Arif Ansar is Chief Analyst at PoliTact. He can be reached at aansar@politact.com

The post Dealing With Climate Change In Pakistan And COP27 appeared first on Politact.

Context

Serious questions have come to the fore since Capitol Hill got overwhelmed by Trump supporters on January 6^th. While there are security dimensions of what took place in Washington DC that day, for example why was the Capitol Police not prepared, the focus here is to understand what led to the violent attack – and what it could mean for American politics and the US global standing.

The dramatic events of January 6^th may have come as a surprise to many – but matters had been boiling for a while. Since last November, and even before, President Trump consistently remained ambiguous on if he would accept the election results if he were to lose – and when he actually lost – he remained defiant.

Furthermore, Trump’s appealing to right-wing extremists was also nothing new. Political pundits have overlooked this right-wing empathy as rhetoric and posturing. This belief came crashing down when supporters of Trump ran over Capitol Hill, with five casualties.

While he hardly exhibits the wherewithal to stand for a cause he is promoting, it seemed convenient to exploit the grievances of the disenfranchised Americans. The attack has now manifested the rhetoric; indicating that Trump meant what he said. While he has since attempted to back track – is the genie out of the bottle?

And this raises the alarming prospects for what comes next. To understand the trajectory, Trumps phenomenon and mantra of American First needs to be grappled with.

Politics, American Standing and Biden Administration

In the aftermath of the disturbances, Trump released a video indicating that he will allow a smooth transition of power. However, the political landscape has been seriously wounded. With the newfound majority in both the House and Senate, the Democrats move to impeach Trump would further aggravate political polarization. Moreover, it is unclear that the sentiments that Trump has ignited can now be tapered down.

The present chaos and drama is reflective of the tremendous stress US is under to chart out its future direction; whether it be the globalized one or based on America First. The coronavirus has added to the woes – where many have lost jobs and the lifestyle of others acutely impacted – adding to the public anger and stress.

Irrespective of who is to blame for what transpired on January 6th, Biden administration would have to focus on how to bring the disillusioned, and the Trump supporters, back into the system. This is the best approach to prevent matters being further exploited. This implies Biden would have to address the concerns reflecting by the America First mantra – to provide jobs and to improve the economic well being of the Americans than outsourcing jobs overseas.

The challenge would be to differentiate between those that want to deal with the differences peacefully – and those that are bent on using violence.

As far as the American image and global standing is concerned, its directly connected to how smartly Americans are perceived to be choosing the future direction of the country. For example, getting out of the deals US itself help shape was a clear sign to the world that America is confused about its future course. This also adversely impacts its global standing and credibility.

The post Storming Of Capitol Hill; Biden Administration, Globalization And American First appeared first on Politact.

Context

As the reach of the coronavirus deepens – so does the need to understand the extent of its geopolitical implications. While the most recent focus has been on the health and economic shock, little has been understood about the geopolitical and defense related repercussions.

Some of this could be due to the time needed to assess the damage; the other may have to do with safeguarding the strategic policies and postures. Some recent estimates suggest that over 10 years, the economic loses for US could add up to about $11 trillion in an optimistic scenario, and $19 trillion in a worse case scenario.

Obviously, economic prowess influences the political dynamics and defense postures. If one reveals how a nations defense capabilities have been compromised, then possibly this could become a leverage for the adversary. Since all nations have been negatively impacted by the still spreading coronavirus, the question becomes what capabilities are affected more. And associated with this exercise is the process of exploring options to recover or replace such capabilities – for the short and long term.

While there are many dimensions of this assessment, the main attempt is to recalibrate the global balance power. For example, one such critical inquiry relates to the campaign against extremism that is being fought in various theaters, but primarily in the Middle East, North Africa, and South and Central Asia. As noted before, the war against extremism has been intertwined for some time now with the global balance of power of tussle.

Some of the key related questions in this regard are:

1. How will the Syrian conflict be impacted if the major stakeholders like Iran, Turkey, and Russia are busy dealing with the COVID-19 issues? The civil war is brewing there and the nation’s health care systems is in ruins. According to UN Refugee Agency, there 6.6 internally displaced persons in Syria, while 5.6 million people have fled Syria since the conflict began in 2011, seeking refuge in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordon and beyond.
2. How will the situation of Yemen evolve, as Iran and Saudi Arabia now have to deal with challenges deriving from COVID-19? According to Save the Children charity organization 85,000 children may have died between 2015 and 2018 due to severe malnutrition. About 80% of Yemen’s 24 million population needed humanitarian assistance even before the coronavirus arrived. While Iran was already under sanctions, the drop of oil prices will likely curtail Saudi ambitions. Meanwhile, there are media reports that Yemen peace process is making major headway.
3. In Libya, a previously agreed temporary peace has fallen apart and hostilities between the warring factions have escalated. A UN migration agency has indicated that Libya is ill prepared to deal with coronavirus and it could be catastrophic for the internally displaced people (IDP) and about 700,000 refugees and migrants there.
4. The Iraq situation was already under political stress with the government unable to deliver to people resulting in protests. The Iraqi officials are concealing the real number of infections because that could once again ignite public disorder. Iraq’s neighbor Iran was hit hard early by the pandemic and Iraq receives many religious pilgrims from across the region. Both Iran and the US may have to reevaluate their positions in Iraq as they deal with the aftershocks of coronavirus. Meanwhile, reports indicate that Iran militants have increased rocket attacks on US bases.
5. The peace agreement was reached between the US and Taliban on February 29, just as coronavirus was picking pace in Europe. This is pressurizing all immediate stakeholders, to include the Afghan government, Taliban, Pakistan and the US, to not let the peace process stall under the circumstances.
   
   For example, since the agreement was reached the disunity of the Afghan government has been apparent. More so, it refused to release 5,000 Afghan Taliban prisoners promised in the US-Taliban deal. To pressure the Ashraf Ghani’s government, US went as far as threatening to withhold $2 billion dollars of US aid to Afghanistan. The American patience is likely to decrease even further in the evolving situation resulting from the coronavirus.
6. At this stage, it is not clear how much will with the pandemic impact India and Pakistan related matters. Nonetheless, focus on dealing with the pandemic could mean less Indian focus on Afghanistan, and increased militant activity in Indian held Kashmir, where India has put the entire population under a security lockdown since 2019 for different sets of reasons. Recent easing of the security and communication lockdown in Kashmir is direclty linked to the pressures exerted by the infectious disease.

Non-State Actors

While the impact on state actors overtime is measurable, it’s unclear how the non-state actors and proxies will be handling the indiscriminate reach of the virus. With lack of immediate medical assistance, and the backers of various proxies distracted by their own economic woes, one can assume dismal consequences.

However, past conflicts indicate that while there may be a temporary slowdown in conflicts due to the spread of disease, such as notably during Spanish Flu of 1918, ultimately the rivalries continued with each side trying to exploit the circumstances. Nonetheless, at least in Afghanistan and Yemen there is movement towards peace. However, there is also a risk of Arab Spring style public disturbances if the governments involved in the campaign against extremism are unable to deal amicably with the reach of coronavirus. And the refugees and internally displaced persons are likely to suffer greatly.

While US is busy dealing with its own health and economic emergency, its China that is extending its geopolitical influence by offering medical and humanitarian assistance to the needy in the war ravaged nations.

The post COVID-19 And Campaign Against Extremism appeared first on Politact.

Context

Before the arrival of Coronavirus to the US, President Trump appeared pretty comfortable with his prospects of winning the 2020 elections. However, the unfolding pandemic has adversely impacted the election season and many questions have since been raised on if the voting could even be held on time towards the end of the year.

A parallel discussion is raging on if alternative methods of voting, such as by mail or absentee ballot, will work, with Democrats in favor of it while the Republicans opposing it. Republicans claim such methods, other than in-person voting, increase the chances of fraud, and some believe such methods are likely to favor the democratic voters.

The Economy

One of the positives President Trump had going for him has been the economy. However, Coronavirus has jolted the Wall Street seriously. According to some estimates, all three major indexes had lost 20% of their value by mid March. Over the last three weeks, close to 17 million people have applied for jobless benefits, and the figure reportedly could go as high as 47 million by summer.

This has the made the present administration nervous. If they mishandle the crisis and it prolongs, the chances of Trump getting reelected are going to diminish. On the other hand, if Trump effectively deals with the pandemic and is able to contain it in the short term, then the American economy could possibly be on track to recovery come election time.

However, if the pandemic spreads and the crisis deepens, then the societal fissures are likely to become more acute. As witnessed during the economic crisis of 2008, while the corporations were bailed out, the benefits did not trickle down, and the middle class significantly lost its economic prowess. This in turn will also erode the public confidence in the political system and reinforce the argument that the political system is tilted towards favoring the few – at the cost of many. 

Short Term Scenario

If matters can be brought under control in two to three months, then the chances of normalcy returning are higher – just because the economic consequences of the lock down will be less. However, the system-level impacts and disruption to the supply chains will still linger for time – and so will be the questions regarding hard choices that will have to be made.

Then there is the aspect of staggering. The crisis that seems to have originated in China, gradually shifted to Europe before heading to the US. Within US, it hit Seattle hard before targeting New York. Many fear that its now heading to the other major suburbs of the US, and thus prolonging the crisis and making it difficult to manage the economic and political costs.

Then there is the lingering question, if the lockdowns are ceased too soon, will the infections resurge again? Gauging from where Coronavirus has treaded before, these questions have to be very carefully examined.

Long Term Scenario

However, if the situation extends for a period longer than 3 months, a direr situation could emerge. It would lead to stark choices regarding where the government spending would have to be cut – so that it can be beefed up for social programs. And the obvious area to be addressed would be the defense and security related funding. Moreover, it would lead to tensions between the state and the federal levels of government on budgeting issues. This would obviously further complicate politics.

In the US, these fissures are already beginning to emerge, but the debate has not shifted towards defense spending. Although US was already in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan, and drawing down its presence in Iraq. And it has also been pressuring NATO members to increase their defense spending. 

State of Emergency and Election Delay

If the long-term scenario does play out, there is a likelihood of an emergency situation, which can cause elections to get postponed. As this step is unprecedented, some have considered this to be a far fetched idea. However, the pros and cons of this prospect are being discussed. For example, in a recent tweet Hillary Clinton stated: “Let’s be clear. Trump does not have the power to cancel or postpone the November election.”

Without getting into the legal aspects of which institution has what power, there is a fear that President Trump may consider and impose emergency while postponing elections. This is especially true in the case of long-term scenario kicking in, when things don’t look promising for Trump to win.

The post COVID-19 And American Elections 2020 appeared first on Politact.

Context

On the anniversary of the December 2014 terrorist attack on the Army Public School, Peshawar, some important questions have been raised. How far has the campaign progressed in achieving the goals of the war against extremism? Moreover, what were the lessons learned from this tragic attack and have they been addressed as part of Pakistan’s National Action Plan?

A discussion was held on Voice of America to discuss the various facets of this campaign, which included the KPK Information Minister Shaukat Yusufzai. PoliTact’s Chief Analyst Arif Ansar, pointed out the economic loss is just one aspect of the cost – but often the most mentioned. One of the key consequences of the war against extremism is the societal transformation in the areas where this campaign has been carried out.

Like any individual that has undergone trauma, the places where the war is being conducted also needs ongoing rehab to address the psychological damage and aftershocks – to manage the anger – and to cure the mindset prone to violence. But this first requires a period of normalcy, which in many places has not been established. In fact, they are being confronted by many secondary and tertiary side effects, for which awareness has to be raised before they can be addressed in any meaningful way.

Listen to the Discussion:

The post The War Against Terror And Societal Transformation appeared first on Politact.