Author: Caracal

  • How Will Bangladesh Evolve After Hasina?

    How Will Bangladesh Evolve After Hasina?

    Bangladesh, founded just 50 years ago as a result of the conflict between Islam and Bangla language patriotism, is now facing one of the most challenging periods in its history. The country, marked by a flawed democracy, had been under the rule of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina since 2009. Following intense protests that resulted in over 300 deaths, Sheikh Hasina finally resigned. Although her course was constitutional and she won all elections, it frequently resembled an authoritarian regime, with all institutions under the control of the Prime Minister’s Awami League party, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among the people.

    Every regime has a limit. The series of protests, which led to Hasina’s resignation, began with university students protesting against the quota bill. This bill was intended to employ more Awami League supporters in government services, while educated youth continued to suffer from unemployment and poor wages. However, the protests quickly spread across Bangladesh, with opposition party workers and others who suffered under Hasina’s rule joining in. The government tried to suppress the movement by deploying police and Awami League party workers with the authority to enforce severe measures. However, these actions proved ineffective. Although the Supreme Court ruled to scrap the bill, leading to a brief lull, the focus soon shifted to demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. When violence erupted again following the Supreme Court ruling, Hasina labeled the protesters involved in sabotage and destruction as criminals rather than students, calling for a harsh response. The ruling Awami League party claimed that the demand for Hasina’s resignation indicated that the protests had been taken over by the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the now-banned Jamaat-e-Islami party, who seek to Islamize Bangladesh.

    On Sunday, in an attempt to quell the escalating protests, the government declared a holiday from Monday to Wednesday, closed the courts indefinitely, and suspended mobile internet services. Access to Facebook and messaging apps, including WhatsApp, was also restricted. Schools and universities across the country were closed. At least 11,000 people have been arrested, and authorities imposed a shoot-on-sight curfew in some areas. However, on Monday, Sheikh Hasina decided to step down as the protests became increasingly violent. Video footage emerged showing people rushing to the Prime Minister’s residence and vandalizing it, reminiscent of the events in Sri Lanka a few years ago. Other footage depicted protesters vandalizing a prison van at the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Dhaka. Protesters set fire to vehicles and ruling party offices, with some wielding sharp weapons and sticks, escalating the unrest into severe riots against the rule of law.

    Political turmoil has long been a feature of Bangladesh. After gaining independence, the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Father of the Nation, initially formed the government. His regime moved towards establishing a one-party state in 1975, marking the start of democracy’s first collapse in the country. During this period, civil liberties were curtailed, and many newspapers were banned. Following Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s assassination in 1975, Bangladesh experienced two decades of authoritarian rule, including military regimes. Students were consistently vocal against poor governance and breaches of civil liberties. In 1990, civil disobedience and mass uprisings led by students resulted in the creation of a Caretaker Government under Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed. Subsequently, the parliamentary system was reintroduced through a public referendum.

    After the Seventh Parliament election in 1996, Sheikh Hasina assumed the role of Prime Minister for the first time. However, in the subsequent term, a four-party alliance led by the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami established a new government under Khaleda Zia. This period saw frequent protests and unrest, which eventually paved the way for Sheikh Hasina’s return to power.  Since 2008, Hasina has faced no serious opposition in elections, consistently securing nearly 250 out of 300 seats, a great majority in Parliament. However, her resignation, following mass protests, threatens her political future, and reports suggest she may seek political asylum in India. Despite her authoritative behavior, she kept Bangladesh away from Islamization and fostered a very friendly relationship with its large neighbor, India. So, Her departure is expected to have significant domestic and international impacts.

    According to the military chief’s announcement, an all-party coalition government will soon be established, and it will follow a general election similar to those in the 1990s. It is anticipated that former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and her Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) will return to power in that election. The revival of Jamaat-e-Islami and other Islamic factions is also expected. Additionally, Bangladesh is likely to face significant geopolitical tensions. The current opposition parties are known for their anti-India stance, which may result in increased influence from Pakistan and China. Bangladesh is facing a challenging time on all fronts.

  • Can the U.S. Bring Indonesia onto Its Team?

    Can the U.S. Bring Indonesia onto Its Team?

    Indonesia, an archipelago state situated at the intersection of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, holds significant geopolitical importance. Although the United States is building a military bloc against China in the region, including major countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Singapore, Indonesia does not appear interested in joining. Whichever side Indonesia decides to align with will gain a substantial strategic advantage, but Indonesia is advocating for non-alignment, as it did during the Cold War. But Many expect escalating tensions might force it to choose a side, especially given China’s proximity. In this situation, the United States certainly does not want Indonesia to align with China, but its relationship with Indonesia is not as strong as it is with Malaysia and Singapore. The United States has not put as much effort into engaging Indonesia as it has with Malaysia or Singapore. Given Indonesia’s strong demand for investment and its growing reluctance to accept additional Chinese funding, this could be an opportune moment for the United States to strengthen its relationship with Indonesia.

    Indonesia’s rapid population growth and significant infrastructure developments have heightened the country’s investment needs. Recently, President Joko Widodo began working from the presidential palace in Indonesia’s ambitious new administrative capital. This modern city, being developed amidst rainforests, is set to be one of the largest investment ventures in the nation’s history. Despite being a centerpiece of Widodo’s two terms, the project has encountered delays. Announced in 2019 with a $33 billion budget, it is currently behind schedule and facing investment challenges.

    The project has been marred by confusion, as expected investments have failed to materialize. Indonesian Maritime Affairs and Investment Coordinating Minister Luhut Panjaitan had estimated the total investment needed to be between $30 and $40 billion, which is a lot of money for Indonesia. In 2022, the Japanese SoftBank Group withdrew due to concerns about returns. But the President Jokowi has assured investors that the project will advance regardless of the outcome of the 2024 Indonesian presidential election, stressing that Nusantara represents a valuable investment opportunity. As of August 2023, the government had allocated only 20% of the needed funds, while investors were reluctant to cover the remaining amount due to political uncertainty and Indonesia’s track record of underinvestment in infrastructure. By November, Jokowi acknowledged that no foreign investors had yet committed funds to Nusantara.


    The lack of investors in the megaproject poses a significant challenge for Prabowo once he assumes the presidency. Having promised continuity as part of his campaign platform, Prabowo has pledged to continue Widodo’s landmark projects, including Nusantara. However, the relocation project has already placed considerable strain on the economy. The need for foreign investors is urgent, and there are three potential sources to consider. One option is investment from Gulf countries. Indonesia has strengthened its ties with Islamic nations, and countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE have previously made significant investments. However, as these nations are now focusing on policies to protect their own economies, the likelihood of substantial investment in Indonesia is low.

    Another option is the People’s Republic of China, a major trading partner for Indonesia. Despite the ongoing South China Sea disputes, China has made significant investments in Indonesian infrastructure, including the newly inaugurated bullet train. However, with China grappling with economic challenges and growing concerns about its influence, Indonesia has responded by imposing tariffs of up to 200 percent on various Chinese goods in 2024. Additionally, Indonesia is working to restrict Chinese investment in new nickel mining and processing projects, aligning with U.S. efforts to limit Beijing’s influence on the electric vehicle supply chain.

    This situation presents an opportunity for the United States. By increasing investments in Indonesia, similar to their approach in Malaysia, the U.S. could foster development and potentially integrate Indonesia into a regional bloc that includes Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Such alignment could boost investments from these countries and relief from reliance on Chinese goods, promoting growth and stability in the region.

    There are still a lot of issues to resolve between Indonesia and the U.S. Public sentiment may be unfavorable due to the ongoing Gaza issue. it is certain that China will closely monitor the situation and attempt to align Indonesia with its interests, which could challenge  the U.S.. But now,  For Indonesia, cooperation with the U.S. seems to be a great option for advancing its infrastructure projects and boosting the economy.

  • What’s next for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic?

    What’s next for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic?

    It was a significant week for Israel; they humiliated Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic all in the same week. They killed Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, at a safe house during his visit to the Iranian capital, Tehran, just hours after killing Hamas’s military commander, Mohammed Deif, at a safe house in the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The Qatar-based official’s death is likely to affect progress in talks for a ceasefire and hostage release deal, which were already faltering. It appears that Israel is gaining the upper hand, with Arab countries uninterested in regional escalation, and the UN is a big humor.

    Hamas, which began the conflict with a brutal attack on October 7th by crossing into Israeli territory, is now facing severe repercussions. Their leaders are being consistently assassinated, even as they flee to Syria, Iran, or Qatar. Hamas’s plan to negotiate using hostages has already failed, and the people of Gaza, who initially celebrated the attack, are now suffering the most. According to Hamas authorities, the death toll in Gaza has approached 40,000 and the situation seems far from being resolved, as indicated by Netanyahu’s address to the U.S. Congress.

    Ismail Haniyeh, who lost all his family members in Israel’s retaliatory actions, was an important figure in the Hamas movement. While Hamas will likely regroup and survive, this war has left them with a leadership vacuum. Salah al-Arouri, considered one of Haniyeh’s deputies, was killed in a strike in Lebanon in January, and Marwan Issa, Hamas’s deputy military chief, was reportedly killed in Nuseirat in March. On Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed that an airstrike in Khan Younis last month successfully targeted Hamas’s military chief, Mohammed Deif.

    In the past, Hamas used a secret ballot in Gaza, the West Bank, Israeli prisons, and abroad to choose their political chief, but that is currently impossible. Instead, Khaled Meshaal, who is currently the head of the Hamas office in the Palestinian diaspora and was Haniyeh’s predecessor, is likely to step back into the role, at least as the acting politburo leader. Khalil al-Hayya, a Qatar-based deputy who has led Hamas’s ceasefire negotiation team, is from Gaza and is reportedly well-regarded by officials in Tehran, which positions him well to succeed Haniyeh.

    Even if a peace-seeking leader were to emerge within Hamas, peace in Gaza remains elusive. Prime Minister Netanyahu has consistently affirmed that the military operation will continue until all Hamas militants are eliminated. Israel claims to have eliminated half of the leadership of Hamas’s military wing, including six senior brigade commanders and more than 20 battalion commanders, and to have killed or wounded 14,000 militants. With the collapse of the hostage deals Hamas was relying on, it is becoming evident that this is the endgame for Hamas.

    Hezbollah, engaged in conflict with Israel alongside Hamas, is facing significant setbacks despite their control over certain territories. They have suffered major losses from Israel’s targeted strikes, with the most recent incident involving the death of a key militant leader who was believed to be secure in a residential area of Beirut. This event is a humiliation not only for Hezbollah but also for Lebanon. Last week, Hezbollah reportedly sent a warning through U.S. mediators that any strikes on Beirut would cross a red line and lead to retaliation against Tel Aviv. Despite this warning, Israel seems to have disregarded it and continues its hunt of Hezbollah leaders, exacerbating the group’s troubles.

    The Guardian of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, led the prayers over the coffins of Haniyeh and his bodyguard, who were draped in traditional black and white Palestinian scarves. Iran is also facing turmoil due to escalating tensions with Israel. Many believe that the death of former Islamic Republic President Ebrahim Raisi was planned and executed by Israel, along with other reported deaths from targeted killings. Despite attempts at retaliation, Iran has been unable to take effective action against Israel. However, Iran appears to be increasingly enraged. Speakers at Haniyeh’s funeral, which was attended by Khamenei, Iran’s new president Masoud Pezeshkian, Revolutionary Guards chief Gen. Hossein Salami, and senior members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, vowed to avenge his death. While Israel has already launched a new wave of attacks in Lebanon, Iran’s response is of significant interest. It remains to be seen whether Iran will continue its proxy warfare using militants in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, or if it will escalate to a direct conflict with Israel or engage in combined warfare similar to the 1960s.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t have any worries on escalating situations and they announced on Thursday that his  country is fully prepared to respond to any aggression from any party. Although international officials have limited influence over Israel and Iran, they are working to de-escalate the cycle of retaliation and prevent a broader conflict.

  • The Importance of Blinken’s Visit to Singapore

    The Importance of Blinken’s Visit to Singapore

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently concluded his visit to Singapore, where he discussed enhancing security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region. This visit was part of his six-country tour of Asia from July 25 to August 3, which also includes Laos, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and Mongolia. During his two-day stay in Singapore, Mr. Blinken met with Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and Foreign Affairs Minister Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan. The discussions focused on strengthening collaboration in the business, scientific, and national security sectors. These meetings are considered pivotal to the U.S. mission of promoting a free, open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific region, while ensuring that ASEAN countries do not align with China against U.S. interests.

    Mr. Blinken’s visit to the region comes at a politically tumultuous time in the U.S., following President Joe Biden’s announcement of his withdrawal from the presidential race. With a new president to be elected this year, Mr. Blinken’s presence is crucial in showing that the shifting political landscape in the U.S. will not alter American foreign policy. During his visit to Singapore, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at the Istana. After their meeting, Mr. Wong, who also serves as Finance Minister, highlighted on Facebook that the bilateral relationship is in excellent shape.

    During the visit, Mr. Blinken and Dr. Balakrishnan signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement, known as a 123 Agreement. At the signing ceremony, Dr. Balakrishnan emphasized that the agreement will grant access to information and technological expertise, enabling Singapore to work more closely with U.S. civil nuclear experts. The agreement aims to enhance peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Singapore, grounded in their mutual commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. The two countries plan to explore how advanced nuclear energy technologies, including small modular reactors, can contribute to climate goals. This agreement will enable Singapore to work more closely with U.S. institutions and civil nuclear entities in other countries. It will require review by the U.S. Congress before taking effect and will remain in force for 30 years once enacted.

    Singapore is expected to benefit from the U.S.’s generous approach, akin to the investments made in Malaysia. In his statement, Wong highlighted the extensive ties between the two nations, spanning areas from the economy to defense and security. For instance, the U.S. is Singapore’s largest investor, with nearly 6,000 U.S. firms operating there, creating numerous jobs for Singaporeans. Cooperation is being expanded into new areas, including critical emerging technologies like AI and civilian nuclear energy, to stay abreast of technological advancements and better assess future energy options for Singapore.

    The U.S. views Singapore as a crucial gateway to ASEAN and aims to reinforce its partnership. For Singapore, maintaining strong ties with the U.S. is vital for economic prosperity.  It appears that the U.S. is investing significantly to maintain its influence, and Singapore stands to benefit from this relationship.

  • Armenia’s Blossoming Relationship with India

    Armenia, feeling abandoned after its humiliating loss in the war with Azerbaijan, struggles to make decisions in international relations. Russia has chosen to side with Azerbaijan, but Armenia cannot become hostile toward Russia as it still heavily relies on Russian military support and the Russian economy. Armenia cannot turn much toward the West either, as it observes the situation in Ukraine. Considering NATO is challenging for Armenia because Turkey, a NATO member, is a historical enemy. China does not prioritize its relationship with Armenia since Azerbaijan is one of its important trade partners. Therefore, no superpower is completely reliable for Armenia at the moment. However, in this situation, a surprising entry is gaining importance. Despite being a developing country, India is a rising superpower both militarily and economically, with aspirations for greater influence. India, which maintains friendly relations with both Russia and the USA, is becoming a great partner for Armenia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who heads a Hindu nationalist party and has shown past animosity towards Islam, is looking interested in strengthening ties with Armenia.

    For Armenia, partnering with India is an excellent option at present. Armenia seems interested in further developing its relationship with India, which has flourished through bilateral military cooperation. In March 2020, Armenia signed an important agreement to purchase four Swathi Weapon Locating Radars for $40 million from India. In September 2022, Armenia agreed to purchase four batteries of Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers, anti-tank rockets, and various types of ammunition from India for $240 million. Indian Aerospace Defence News reports that by the start of the current fiscal year 2024-25, Armenia’s total weapons purchases from India had reached $600 million, making it the largest buyer of Indian weapons.

    There will be restrictions on obtaining military equipment from Russia, which is at war and favors Azerbaijan. Buying U.S. weapons could send the wrong message to Russia, and Israel will not supply weapons to Armenia due to its good relationship with Palestine. Thus, Indian weapons are currently the best option for Armenia. Additionally, Indian weapons are inexpensive and compatible with those Turkey supplies to Azerbaijan. 

    For India, the relationship with Armenia is somewhat emotional. The current Indian government, led by Hindu organizations that are critical of Islamization, feels sympathy for Armenia’s Christians, who have been treated harshly by their Islamic neighbors. Pakistan, India’s Muslim-majority neighbor with whom India has ongoing conflicts, maintains a strong relationship with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Although not of Turkic ethnicity and predominantly of Indian background, Pakistan claims a Turkic heritage and seeks to ally with Azerbaijan and Turkey. This alliance of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan appears to have grown beyond social media, and Turkey’s criticism of India is considered part of the worsening relationship between these countries. As a result, India has decided to boost its relationship with Armenia.

    Armenia and India have had a strong relationship throughout history. Both countries have exchanged culture and trade since medieval times, even when they were under Islamic empires. Many people of Armenian origin still live in India, and Armenian Christians have churches there. The relationship between modern Armenia and India has also blossomed. Indian presidents and prime ministers visited Armenia when it was a socialist republic in the Soviet Union, and India was among the first to recognize Armenia’s independence. In 1995, 2003, and 2017, Armenian Presidents Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Robert Kocharyan, and Serzh Sargsyan visited India, resulting in the establishment of several agreements. In a 2019 interview, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed Armenia’s support for India in the Kashmir conflict with Pakistan. This was a significant support for India, as Western countries and Islamic states tend to side with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. Amid the deepening relationship between India and Armenia, calls for recognizing the Armenian Genocide have increased in India, though there is opposition from Islamist and liberal factions. And For the first time under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, the Indian embassy in Armenia officially acknowledged the genocide, and in 2021, Indian Ambassador Kishan Dan Dewal paid tribute to its victims.

    India and Armenia are a perfect match, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, as both nations have maintained their culture and beliefs despite significant regional changes. They now share common adversaries. Prime Minister Modi’s interest in cultures and histories fosters a desire for closer ties. This relationship is undoubtedly beneficial for Armenia, as it offers military, technological, and economic support without antagonizing Russia or the United States.

  • Israel-Lebanon Tensions Mount as Beirut Is Hit

    Israel-Lebanon Tensions Mount as Beirut Is Hit

    Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah have been exchanging fire across the border since last October, with daily confrontations gradually intensifying. Deaths and casualties have been reported from both sides, and thousands of people have been displaced from their homes on both sides of the border. The conflict has been between Israel and Hezbollah, not Lebanon. There has been no attack from Israel outside of southern Lebanon, which is a stronghold of Hezbollah. However, it has been clear that if either Israel or Hezbollah escalates the conflict, Lebanon, an already fragile country, will be forced to join. This is now feared to be happening.

    Yesterday, Israel attacked a suburb of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. Israel described it as a targeted operation to kill Hezbollah’s top military commander, Fuad Shukur, who is wanted as a criminal. But, Lebanon is unhappy about the extension of the Hezbollah-Israel conflict into its densely populated capital city. The attack resulted in civilian casualties. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Health, three people, including two children, were killed, and 74 were injured in the attack.

    Lebanon’s cabinet is reportedly holding important meetings to discuss the attack, which the caretaker Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, condemned as a criminal act by Israel. In his statement, he added that the Israeli killing machine has not been satisfied by targeting the south of Lebanon and the Bekaa; it has now reached the heart of the capital, Beirut, just meters away from one of the largest hospitals and near the city’s important international airport.

    .In reality, Beirut had been bracing for Israel’s response to a rocket strike on a children’s football match in the occupied Golan Heights three days earlier. However, the attack on Beirut came as a surprise. The Golan Heights attack was attributed to Hezbollah, with both Israel and the U.S. blaming the group, though Hezbollah denied responsibility. Global leaders engaged in intensive diplomacy on Sunday to persuade Israel against escalating attacks on Lebanon, amid fears of a broader regional conflict. The U.S. has been spearheading global diplomatic efforts to prevent Israel from targeting Beirut or Lebanese infrastructure, aiming to avert a full-scale regional war. Although it was anticipated that Israel would retaliate, the assault on the capital city has left Lebanon feeling humiliated as an independent nation. Efforts are now underway to work with Lebanon to de-escalate the situation.

    Despite widespread anger expressed on social media, the Lebanese government is actively working to ease tensions. Lebanon’s foreign minister called the strike on Beirut a shock, given prior assurances from Israel’s allies that the country was planning a limited response that would not escalate into war. Lebanon plans to file a complaint with the UN Security Council and has requested Hezbollah to carry out a proportional retaliation. He stressed the need to end the cycle of destruction, killing, and death. In a briefing, Hagari noted that Hezbollah’s ongoing aggression and brutal attacks are pulling Lebanon and the entire Middle East into a broader escalation. It looks like Israel also aims to resolve hostilities without a larger war, the IDF is fully prepared for any scenario. 

    Both parties are growing increasingly vigilant as the situation in the region reaches a state of heightened tension. Tensions in  Lebanon have escalated to its peak since Saturday’s rocket strike on a town that killed 12 children playing football. Queues formed at petrol stations across the city as people filled their cars in anticipation of further escalation. Many airlines have canceled flights to Beirut, with Greece’s Aegean Airlines and Germany’s Condor joining Royal Jordanian, Air France, and Lufthansa in suspending services. But the chance of full scale war is less, because both parties will suffer.

    Hezbollah will need to retaliate now, and Israel will follow…

  • US and Japan Are Getting Ready for China

    US and Japan Are Getting Ready for China

    The United States and its top ally in the Asia-Pacific, Japan, are preparing for a potential confrontation with China in the near future. As part of this effort, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been making frequent trips to Tokyo, where he holds essential meetings with his Japanese counterpart and signs important agreements, including plans to increase arms production to address China’s aggression.

    Most recently, Secretary Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with their Japanese counterparts, Yoko Kamikawa and Minoru Kihara, in Tokyo at the US-Japan Security Consultative Committee, referred to as the “2+2” talks. They reaffirmed their alliance in the wake of President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the November presidential race. Both US and Japanese defense leaders, along with senior diplomats, agreed to strengthen their military cooperation regardless of any administrative changes, acknowledging that China remains a significant threat to both nations.

    Japan, which dismantled its military after its defeat in World War II, is now rapidly remilitarizing with the support of the US in response to threats from China. They are increasing investments in the defense sector and strengthening military cooperation with regional allies. And the US and Japan are upgrading the command and control of US forces stationed in Japan and boosting American-licensed missile production. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin noted that the command upgrade will be the most significant change to the US Forces Japan since its creation and one of the strongest improvements in the military ties with Japan in 70 years. These new operational capabilities and responsibilities will advance collective deterrence. Japan is home to more than 50,000 US troops, but the commander of the US Forces Japan (USFJ), based in Yokota in the western suburbs of Tokyo, currently has no direct command authority. Instead, directives are issued by the United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) in Hawaii.

    Diplomatic meetings among “Asian NATO” countries are increasing rapidly. With China making slow progress on its economic goals, there is growing concern that it might turn to its political interests. Japan, due to historical tensions and its geographical proximity, could become a primary target if China decides to act. So, Japan is taking swift measures to counter Chinese ambitions in the region. It is evident that the weakened Japan emboldens China both economically and politically. Therefore, the United States is actively encouraging Japan to adopt a more assertive stance and is prepared to offer full support. Given the strong alliance between China, North Korea, and Russia, the United States recognizes that this coalition cannot be managed alone and views Japan as its most reliable partner in the region.

    Escalating regional tensions into full-blown war would be disastrous for everyone involved. While conflict is always costly, creating fear in an opponent can be an effective strategy. Political analysts suggest that the US and Japan are working together with this strategy to counter China’s ambitions. Sometimes, showcasing military strength can be more effective in maintaining peace than negotiations alone.  Following the recent 2+2 talks with Japan, the US announced its commitment to “Extended Deterrence”, including nuclear weapons, in response to nuclear threats from Russia and China. This marks a significant shift from Japan’s previous reluctance to openly address this sensitive issue, given its history as the only country to have endured atomic attacks.

  • Why is the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace pact challenging?

    Why is the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace pact challenging?

    The Armenia-Azerbaijan war ended almost a year ago. Armenia lost the war, and Azerbaijan gained control of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, a historic Armenian region also claimed by Azerbaijan. The Republic of Artsakh, the entity established by ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, is officially dissolved, but tensions remain high. A peace treaty between the two countries is not yet possible, as this is not merely a political dispute over borders; it is an ethnic clash, and solving it is not easy.

    Coexistence was only possible while they were under the Soviet Union; otherwise, ethnic clashes were common and led to deep-seated resentment. Peace can only be achieved through a formal treaty. Now, Europe and the West are taking a greater interest in resolving the issue, while conflicts of interest among the parties involved in the region persist. Russia supports Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan has strong ties with Turkey, Turkey has historical animosity towards Armenia, Armenia maintains a relationship with Iran, and Iran is an ally of Russia. This complex web of connections complicates the situation.

    At the recent NATO summit in Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken indicated that the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process might be nearing a resolution. However, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are currently adopting a cautious stance, hesitant to show too much eagerness to make concessions. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev were expected to hold direct talks in London during the European Political Community summit, but the meeting did not take place. As anticipated, both sides have accused each other of obstructing the discussion. Their most recent meeting occurred in Berlin in February, mediated by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. This was the first encounter since Azerbaijan’s complete takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023. At that time, the prospects for a peace agreement seemed remote.

    In May, Pashinyan’s government made a significant breakthrough by agreeing to transfer four villages in disputed border areas to Azerbaijan. Since then, both sides have shown interest in finalizing a peace agreement. On July 20, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated at a media forum in the Karabakh town of Shusha that up to 90 percent of the draft peace treaty has been settled. However, reaching an agreement on the remaining 10 percent may prove challenging. Azerbaijan’s demands including Karabakh pose challenges for Armenian politicians. 

    One major condition set by Aliyev is Armenia’s formal agreement to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group, which has traditionally overseen the peace process but has recently been largely ineffective. Aliyev has criticized the Minsk Group for being biased towards Armenia and has claimed that it has been dysfunctional for many months, possibly even for a couple of years.

    The second condition is more difficult: Azerbaijan is demanding that Armenia amend a provision in its constitution’s preamble that identifies Karabakh as part of Armenia. Aliyev has argued that this provision represents a territorial threat to Azerbaijan because it implies the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. This demand for a constitutional amendment could potentially derail the negotiations.

    On July 25, an Armenian Foreign Ministry representative said that the government is preparing a response to Azerbaijan’s demands. Pashinyan has started internal discussions about possible constitutional amendments, leading to speculation that his government might be exploring ways to meet Aliyev’s conditions. Daniel Ioannisyan, a member of the working group on constitutional amendments, noted that any changes are unlikely to be finalized before 2027, and that modifying the preamble’s wording is not currently being considered. Edmon Marukyan, a former ally of Pashinyan and ex-ambassador-at-large of Armenia, said that Armenians are seeking clarity on several unresolved issues, including the process for returning prisoners of war.

    While maintaining a tough stance on the constitutional provision, Aliyev’s administration extended an invitation to Armenia to attend the UN climate conference (COP29), which will be held in Baku in November. An administration representative described the invitation as a gesture of goodwill. Yerevan has not yet announced whether Armenian officials will attend COP29. 

    Countries situated in the small area  between the seas and mountain ranges are struggling to resolve their tensions. The region is drawing the attention of various external parties, which could lead to increased volatility in the future. As a result, resolving ongoing disputes through a peace pact is crucial. Armenia, grappling with both domestic and international challenges, faces extra hurdles in reaching an agreement, with some emotional issues likely to persist across generations.

  • Bangladesh After the Civilian Outburst

    Bangladesh After the Civilian Outburst

    Bangladesh has witnessed a significant uprising against the government in recent weeks. The uprising nearly escalated to the level of a civil war with direct confrontations in the streets. On one side, police, paramilitary forces, and supporters of the ruling party are aligned, while on the other side, students and citizens opposing the authoritarian government are gathered on a large scale. Cities, including the capital Dhaka, have experienced deadly violence, with reports of almost 200 deaths and over 1,000 serious injuries.

    Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Bangladesh’s founder Mujibur Rahman and Prime Minister since 2009, has successfully cracked down on the situation and prevented a potential civil war. But The seasoned politician, understanding the mood of the state, is taking measures to regain control over the judiciary, executive, military, and public sentiment. The image of the weeping Prime Minister in front of the dead bodies was a significant move to restore her deteriorating image.

    The reintroduction of quotas for the descendants of participants in the independence war in government jobs was widely viewed as a move to appease members of the Awami League, a party born out of Bangladesh’s independence struggle. This decision sparked widespread outrage on campuses, as students already dealing with an economic downturn and high youth unemployment saw one of their few chances of securing a stable job being taken from them, with thousands of civil service positions to be filled through patronage rather than merit.

    As support for the protests grew, a violent, state-led crackdown began, and campuses descended into bloody battlefields, resulting in about 200 deaths. The Rapid Action Battalion, an elite unit of Bangladesh’s police forces, fired teargas from helicopters on crowds below, while army forces fired at protesters with what appeared to be light machine guns.  Government-backed violent student groups and armed riot police, operating under shoot to kill orders, used violence and deadly weapons against peaceful protesters, resulting in some of the worst clashes in Bangladesh in over a decade.

    The strength of the state-led crackdown has galvanized many on the ground to see the protest movement as no longer just about quotas, which were scaled back by the court on Sunday. While this decision was made by the courts, it was seen by many as a thinly veiled political maneuver by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has a tight grip over the judiciary. The movement has grown into a civilian-led effort to oust Hasina, who has ruled with an increasingly authoritarian grip since 2009.

    The prime minister has been ruling for 15 years and has spent so much time strengthening her hold over state mechanisms that she believes she has become invincible. In statements this week, widely criticized by protesters, Hasina argued that the violence was provoked by political opposition and Islamist groups hostile to Bangladesh as a nation, prompting her to send paramilitary and police forces to protect the students. Over 2,500 members of the political opposition including students have been arrested.

    The growing authoritarianism of Hasina’s rule, including the past three elections widely documented as rigged, had been brewing a civilian “Outburst”. These protests underscore the struggle between democracy and Hasina’s move toward complete totalitarianism. Although there has been a significant trust deficit between Hasina and the people for a while, this is the first time we are witnessing defiant calls for her removal on such a large scale.

    An uneasy calm settled over Bangladesh after the court ruling on Sunday reduced the quotas to 5%. Student leaders temporarily halted all demonstrations, expressing a desire to avoid further bloodshed and presented Hasina with a set of demands, including an apology and justice for those killed in the violence. Student activists said further action was planned but hindered because many organizers were in the hospital or had been detained by police, with some alleging torture. Others confirmed they had been put under de facto house arrest, with all forms of communication cut off, and were under constant surveillance from a counter-terrorism police unit notorious for involvement in enforced disappearances.

    Hasina won this time, but the prime minister is getting weaker day by day. Next time, neither a curfew nor the army will be able to suppress the people.

  • Vietnamese Politics After Nguyen Phu Trong

    Vietnamese Politics After Nguyen Phu Trong

    Vietnamese politics is entering a new era following the death of General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong. Trong was Vietnam’s most powerful leader in decades, having served as General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) for the past 13 years across three terms. As Vietnam is a single-party state under an authoritarian system led by the CPV, the General Secretary holds the de facto highest position in Vietnamese politics. This new era, with a new General Secretary, is being closely observed both domestically and internationally, particularly in the context of serious geopolitical tensions in the region.

    Vietnamese politics remains largely stable despite frequent changes in the presidency and prime ministership, as the national congress, led by the Communist Party, makes the key decisions that shape the country’s direction. Over the past decade, Trong is credited with directing crucial policies, including those against corruption. He is arguably Vietnam’s most influential leader since its founding revolutionary, Ho Chi Minh. Trong became the general secretary of the ruling party in 2011 and made history by securing a third five-year term in 2021. He was also in the role of Vietnam’s president from 2018 to 2020. Despite the rapid changes in the presidency and prime ministership, the leadership of the Communist Party has remained stable, helping to preserve the country’s communist system. However, some uncertainty looms in Hanoi following the death of this long-serving leader. Trong left behind a mixed political and economic legacy, having overseen Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and a “blazing furnace” crackdown on corruption.

    Duties temporarily transferred to Lam, the 66-year-old who became president in May and was previously Vietnam’s public security minister. Lam is widely considered as Trong’s successor, particularly because he oversees Trong’s ambitious anti-corruption drive. Since 2016, this campaign has ensnared 40 members of the party’s Central Committee and dozens of military and police generals. Although the crackdown has enjoyed public support, the removal of six out of 18 Politburo members since December 2022, including three of Vietnam’s top five leaders since March, has sparked concerns about factional infighting and fears of a potential succession crisis. Acting leader Lam will hold the position until the Communist Party’s 14th Congress in January 2026. During the next 17 months, there will be limited policymaking as the Communist Party of Vietnam concentrates on selecting new personnel and preparing policies for the Congress.

    Despite the political turmoil, no change is expected in Vietnam’s foreign policy, with Hanoi remaining studiously neutral and maintaining deep economic ties with both China and the US and its allies. Observers generally viewed Hanoi’s pragmatic “Bamboo Diplomacy” under Trong’s leadership positively, as it delicately balanced relations between China and the United States amid a deepening rift with its northern neighbor in the South China Sea. However, Vietnam’s foreign policy could be influenced by external events. Potential flashpoints include Beijing’s rising assertiveness in the South China Sea, deteriorating relations with Cambodia, and possible changes in US policy under a new administration. Despite differences, Trong always maintained a good relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. Following the announcement of Trong’s death, the Communist Party of China and Xi Jinping issued a condolence message, honoring him as a good comrade, a good brother, and a good friend.

    Under Trong’s leadership, Vietnam’s relationships with the US and Russia also reached new heights. Over the past 10 months, despite his health issues, Trong hosted both Xi and US President Joe Biden in Hanoi and met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in June. Hanoi has also advanced its relationships with Japan, India, South Korea, Australia, and ASEAN neighbors.

    Trong did much to shape the country’s direction, and the likelihood of revising his policies or changing course is low. His successor remains uncertain, and the Politburo offers little clarity, as most recent additions have military backgrounds and are likely to be more obedient with fewer disputes. It is expected that there will be no clash in the succession. However, tough years lie ahead for Vietnam, and the Vietnam-China and Vietnam-US relationships will be tested as tensions rise in the region.