Author: Caracal

  • What Does the Influx of Western Investments in Malaysia Mean?

    What Does the Influx of Western Investments in Malaysia Mean?

    In Asian politics, two major alliances are emerging: one led by the United States, with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and Singapore, and the other led by China, including Russia, North Korea, and Iran. However, there are still players in the region that have not joined either side but whose moves can shift the power balance. These countries skillfully open up to both parties, using the rivalry as an opportunity. Malaysia can be counted among these.

    Malaysia is a country that always keeps close ties with the US; it has strong military and economic relationships with the US and is a place where many Western companies Asian businesses operate. However, unlike other United States allies in the region, Malaysia does not distance itself from China, economically or politically. Malaysia maintains a warm relationship with China and is part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Even though Malaysia receives significant investments from the United States, China is now Malaysia’s biggest trade partner. There are many doubters who believe that Malaysia’s Islamic identity and increasing authoritarian nature in administration could lead it to side with China or remain neutral. Being strategically located, Malaysia’s neutrality would be a setback for the USA.

    However, the influx of investments, including in the semiconductor industry, is flowing to Malaysia from the West. These investments are not only meant for economic growth but also serve as a political strategy. This substantial amount of investment could help Malaysia join the list of developed countries and ultimately become part of the Asian NATO.

    The semiconductor industry is increasingly important in the digital era, and the world seeks alternatives beyond Taiwan. Malaysia understands this opportunity and is setting up infrastructure to capitalize on it. However, it’s not just about business; investing in such an important sector also requires considering the country’s political and economic policies. Investments will flow into the country only if it is politically stable and aligns with Western interests. It is important to note that Malaysia has successfully attracted Western companies in this sector. Prominent companies like Intel and Infineon have invested $7 billion, NVIDIA is preparing to invest $4.3 billion in an AI data center, and Texas Instruments has allocated $3.1 billion for two new semiconductor assembly facilities. Other significant investors include Bosch, AT&S, Ericsson, and Simtech. This aligns perfectly with Malaysia’s aim to become a high-tech economy.

    It needs to be considered that the U.S. is giving a green light to investments because they want to keep Malaysia aligned with them. Malaysia holds an important geopolitical position, connecting the South China Sea to the world. Supporting Malaysia and facilitating its semiconductor ambitions is part of the United States’ strategy. Although Malaysia is already involved in the semiconductor industry with local firms like Tera and Upstar, which handle high-end technologies such as wafer fabrication and IC designs, Malaysia is expecting $107 billion in investments to position itself as the next Taiwan. The “Kuala Lumpur 2030” initiative aims to establish the country as a global hub for semiconductor manufacturing. All this is possible with foreign investments, and the influx of money from the West will help achieve this dream. Through these investments, Malaysia will become increasingly dependent on the United States, paving the way for its inclusion in the emerging Asian NATO. The investment pattern, which includes not only Western countries but also South Korea and Japan, highlights the broad scope of collaboration among these nations and supports the United States Asian NATO initiative.

  • China and the Philippines to Ease Tensions in the South China Sea

    China and the Philippines to Ease Tensions in the South China Sea

    After escalating tensions to a highly inflammable level in the waters, including humiliations, passing highly volatile laws, and fueling the conflict in every way, it now seems that China is downplaying the situation and seeking to de-escalate tensions with the Philippines. It appears that China now aims only to maintain its claim to the sea and realizes that further inflaming the region would be detrimental. Consequently, they are preparing to compromise with the Philippines, spreading hope for peace in the region.

    According to reports, China and the Philippines have reached an understanding regarding resupply missions to a beached Filipino naval ship, a key flashpoint between the two countries in the South China Sea. In 1999, Manila intentionally beached the naval ship Sierra Madre on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal to assert its claims over the surrounding waters. Since then, a small group of sailors has remained on the vessel to support the Philippines interests, which has led to resupply missions that China has been accused of repeatedly attempting to obstruct. China asserts sovereignty over the South China Sea and is uninterested in the Philippines claims to the islands within it. China has accused the Philippines of using these supply missions to further its interests on the islands, while the Philippines has leveled similar accusations against China.

    The Chinese foreign ministry confirmed a temporary arrangement between the two sides to jointly manage maritime differences and de-escalate the situation in the South China Sea. The ministry reiterated China’s demand that the Philippines tow away the ship and restore Second Thomas Shoal to its original state, as if it were unmanned and without facilities. The ministry also stated that China is willing to allow the Philippines to provide supplies to the ship’s occupants on humanitarian grounds before the beached warship is removed. However, they warned that if the Philippines attempts to transport large amounts of building materials to the ship and construct fixed facilities or permanent outposts, China will not accept it and will resolutely block such actions to protect its sovereignty. It seems like China is indicating that it does not want to fight but is ready to engage in dialogue.

    The Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) did not provide specifics about the provisional arrangement agreed upon Sunday for the resupply missions to the Sierra Madre. However, they noted that the arrangement followed frank and constructive discussions between the two sides earlier this month. The DFA emphasized that both parties continue to acknowledge the need to de-escalate the situation in the South China Sea and manage differences through dialogue and consultation, agreeing that the arrangement will not affect each other’s positions in the South China Sea. Philippine foreign ministry spokesperson Teresita Daza also stated that they will not retreat from their claims on the South China Sea islands and affirmed that Manila will continue to assert its rights and jurisdiction in its maritime zones, including Second Thomas Shoal.

    The United States is bound to the Philippines by several defense agreements and pacts, including the well-known Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951. Additionally, the U.S. is working to increase cooperation with its allies in the East, such as Japan, Taiwan, and Australia, to build a military cooperation structure similar to NATO. This means that if tensions between China and the Philippines escalate further, it could develop into a regional conflict or even a third world war. However, the United States has no doubts about its commitment to the Philippines, and White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated that they will take all necessary measures to support the Philippines resupply mission to Second Thomas Shoal. Interestingly, Sullivan’s counterpart in the Philippines, Eduardo Año, sought to prevent further escalation of tensions by stating that they do not need direct American military engagement in the resupply mission at this point.

    Both China and the Philippines have maintained firm positions on their territorial claims in the disputed waters. Tensions in the area have escalated into violence over the past year, including a recent incident where a Filipino soldier lost a finger in what Manila described as an intentional high-speed ramming by the Chinese Coast Guard. Numerous reports of similar incidents, mostly from the Chinese side, have involved attempts to humiliate opponents. Such provocations have raised fears of a conflict that could have global repercussions. However, recent developments and a mutual desire for dialogue offer the best solution for both China and the Philippines, as well as for the entire region.

  • China, the New Global Mediator, Unites Palestinian Factions

    China, the New Global Mediator, Unites Palestinian Factions

    Even though it has reasons, Gaza is facing one of the worst humanitarian crises. So-called modern valued countries in the West have failed to address the issue, or they fear Israel. Arab countries are found ineffective, and Islamists exploit the situation to cultivate hatred and boost the revival of notorious Islamist organizations. Though everyone, including Arab countries, now knows that a two-state solution is the most feasible solution, the West can’t even suggest it to Israel, as Israel plans to annex Gaza and the West Bank and eliminate all threats.

    At the same time, The Palestinian Authority  is split, with different factions focusing on personal interests rather than addressing the basic needs of their people. However, an interesting development has emerged: China has decided to unite these divided factions. China has effectively mediated talks and meetings to consolidate the Palestinian factions, advancing their two-state demand with greater assertiveness and authority.

    For the Palestinian cause and the movement towards a two-state solution, this is a major development. On Tuesday, leaders from Notorious Hamas, the West Bank’s main party Fatah, and other Palestinian factions reached an agreement after three days of talks in Beijing. They have pledged to enhance collaboration, continue discussions, and establish a national unity government at an unspecified future date. This agreement between Fatah and Hamas represents a significant advancement from previous agreements since their 2007 conflict, which led to Hamas ousting Fatah from the Gaza Strip. The “Beijing Declaration,” signed by 14 Palestinian factions, is a notable step forward in negotiations, though it lacks specific details on how to achieve Palestinian unification. Notably, the agreement emphasizes that the factions should work together to unify Palestinian institutions in the West Bank and Gaza and prepare for national elections.

    This move is a significant diplomatic win for China, who are seeking global leadership status. They have achieved what Western countries and Arab states, despite having closer relationships with the factions, could not. Bringing long-fighting factions to the negotiating table and proposing more practical plans has bolstered China’s status as a global mediator and increased its influence in the Middle East.

    However, there are many criticisms. Some argue that this move does not affect Israel’s actions in Gaza and that without including Israel in the negotiations, it is a waste of time. The involvement of Hamas, responsible for the brutal attack last October, which killed, raped, and kidnapped many and caused chaos in Israel, is unacceptable to both Israel and the US. Any collaboration with Hamas is unlikely to be accepted by Israel, as evidenced by the collapse of previous peace plans pushed by the United States. Israel’s politics are also now linked to actions against Hamas. On Tuesday, Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz reacted angrily to the inclusion of Hamas in the Beijing Declaration. In a post on X, Katz stated that the agreement for joint control of Gaza after the war “won’t happen because Hamas’s rule will be crushed.”

    Although there are doubts about whether the meetings of Palestinian factions – due to their lack of popular support, corrupt leaders, and luxurious lifestyles abroad – can bring real change in Palestinian lives or unity, China’s emergence as a global mediator and key power broker in the Middle East is nonetheless significant. China has shown increasing interest in the Middle East in recent years and is trying to assert more influence in the region. Last year, Beijing successfully mediated a detente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, raising concerns in Washington about the diminishing influence of the US in the region. Therefore, China’s involvement in this situation appears less focused on resolving the crisis itself and more on Beijing’s effort to establish itself as an alternative global leader to the US.

  • Russia Seems Unhappy with the US Flirting with Armenia

    Russia Seems Unhappy with the US Flirting with Armenia

    Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia continued to control the politics of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe. They cultivated and protected many authoritarian leaders in these regions and propagated anti-Western views. However, over the last decade, it has become evident that a new generation in these countries, free from Soviet nostalgia, desires better living standards and opportunities similar to those in the West. Consequently, the politics of many of these countries have shifted accordingly.

    Recognizing this change in sentiment, other parties began to seize the opportunity. The European Union has integrated parts of the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe and is now extending its influence into the Caucasus. Meanwhile, Turkey is growing its presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus, all contributing to the weakening of Russia’s sphere of influence. The United States has played a significant role in altering the mindset of politicians through diplomatic talks, investment plans, and various other initiatives aimed at shaping public sentiment. Together, they have slowly begun to lift the Iron Curtain. 

    Armenia, a long-term ally of Russia with deep religious and political ties, also joined the race and is now looking towards the West. Despite its Russian-linked politics, the public mood in Armenia has shifted considerably, particularly after the loss of the war with Azerbaijan, which resulted in the loss of a significant Armenian territory tied to their heritage. This defeat has fueled anger within the country, with many believing that Russia, which was supposed to protect them, contributed to Azerbaijan’s victory. There is a widespread belief that a wealthier Azerbaijan received more preferential treatment from Russia, and some suspect that Russia betrayed them.

    As a result, Armenia has started cooperating with the United States. The US, a country with a large Armenian diaspora, is making efforts to align Armenia with Western and European partners. This time, the United States does not want to repeat the mistakes made in Ukraine, and as a first step, they are discussing military collaboration.

    A joint military exercise involving a small number of American and Armenian troops is taking place at a base in the suburbs of Yerevan. Naturally, this has sparked a paroxysm of rage in Moscow. The 11-day exercise, dubbed Eagle Partner, began on July 15 and aims to boost interoperability between the US and Armenia during peacekeeping and stability operations. It’s not the number of troops involved that’s drawing attention; It’s the timing and symbolism of the joint exercise. This exercise is a tangible measure of Armenia’s progress in its geopolitical pivot away from Russia.

    According to US Ambassador to Armenia Kristina Kvien, the US and Armenian troops are at the forefront of a crucial and rapidly growing relationship and partnership. Simultaneously, the Armenian media outlet Hetq reported that a resident adviser from the Pentagon will be attached to Armenia’s Ministry of Defense. The adviser’s specific duties and responsibilities have not been publicly disclosed. Additionally, the US and Armenia are actively exploring cooperation on constructing a new nuclear power plant in Armenia. These fascinating and significant developments from both sides highlight a promising and dynamic relationship.

    Regarding Armenia’s rapid embrace of the West, exemplified by the Eagle Partner exercise, the vitriol expressed by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was notable. She characterized the presence of American forces in the Caucasus in alarming terms, alleging that the United States and NATO aimed to disrupt the fragile balance in the region and provoke conflict. She also asserted that Western countries are obsessively involving Armenia in various interactions in Transcaucasia.

    Zakharova’s comments indicate that the Kremlin is alarmed by the rapid erosion of its influence in Armenia and is concerned that an expanding US strategic presence in the region could impede the development of the North-South corridor, a developing trade network connecting Russia, Iran, and India. This corridor has been crucial in supporting the Kremlin’s efforts to evade sanctions and its military operations in Ukraine. Moscow may also worry that the US presence in the region will influence other countries and restive regions within Russia, such as Chechnya. Furthermore, if Armenia fully aligns with the West, Russia would face a significant power check from NATO.

    Russia still maintains some levers of influence in Armenia. Yerevan is economically dependent on Russian trade and natural gas supplies, and the Kremlin also maintains a military base in Gyumri that hosts a Russian brigade. However, Armenia recognizes that this is an opportune moment to explore other opportunities, as it doubts Russia’s willingness to support them in the event of a conflict with Azerbaijan or Turkey. Consequently, Armenia is increasingly turning towards the United States, even as it retains ties with Russia. Interestingly, just before Eagle Partner commenced, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced that Yerevan would withdraw from the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization. This suggests that the United States is winning Armenia’s heart as Russia becomes increasingly unattractive.

  • Is the Israel-Houthi Conflict Intensifying?

    Is the Israel-Houthi Conflict Intensifying?

    Israel was stunned last week by a drone attack on its second-largest city, Tel Aviv. The drone, launched by the notorious Houthi militia, an Islamist organization operating from Yemen, penetrated Israel’s renowned surveillance radars and missile defense system, hit its target, and caused the death of an Israeli citizen while injuring multiple others. This incident was a significant embarrassment for Israel, which prides itself on its defense technologies. Although Israel conducted powerful airstrikes the day after officials vowed revenge, devastating the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah, an important location for the Houthi-led government in Yemen, Israelis now realize these militias can strike them by breaching defense systems. While the Houthis and other Islamists are celebrating their attack on Israel, there is global concern that Yemen, along with Lebanon and Syria, might escalate into a war with Israel. However, this will not be an easy task for Israel.

    The Houthis, an Islamic insurgent group linked with Iran, control a significant area in Yemen along its Red Sea coastal region, a vital trade route. They have long supported Palestine and Gaza, pledging to eliminate Israel. They have allied with Hamas and Hezbollah, two Islamist organizations with the same goal of establishing a Palestinian Muslim state from the river to the sea. The Houthi militia has targeted ships in the Gulf of Aden and disrupted maritime activity in the Red Sea for months in response to Israeli attacks in Gaza, garnering support from the Islamic world as they advocate for Islam more than the so-called wealthy Islamic kingdoms.

    Although numerous strikes against Israel and Western-linked ships have severely disrupted business at key Israeli ports, the recent strike on Tel Aviv was the first direct hit on Israel since Houthi rebels began targeting the country with missiles and drones last year. All previous attacks had been intercepted until Friday’s strike. The Houthis immediately claimed responsibility and boasted that they had used a new type of drone undetectable by radar and air defense systems.

    Israeli officials downplayed the Houthis’ claim, attributing it to “Human Error” rather than the Houthis capability to conduct a long-range attack that skillfully evaded Israel’s technology. Chief military spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari stated that the drone had been detected by air defenses, but an “Error” prevented its interception.

    On Saturday, the very next day, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced that its fighter jets had struck military targets in Hodeidah Port in Yemen “In response to the hundreds of attacks carried out against the state of Israel in recent months”. The airstrikes targeted a refinery and electricity infrastructure, igniting a massive blaze. Reports indicate that three people were killed and 87 wounded in the strikes on the oil facilities, though this has not been confirmed. Later in the evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the attack, stating that the port was targeted because it was being used for military purposes. He added that the strike sends a clear message to their enemies that there is no place beyond the reach of Israel’s long arm.

    The score is now 1 to 1, and it will likely end this way, just like the Israel-Iran conflict. However, political experts have other opinions. The increase in the number of missile attacks from the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Syrian Islamist militants proves they are intensifying their actions against Israel. They are aware that Western support for Israel is diminishing while support from the Muslim world for these groups is increasing, which is certainly advantageous for them. The Houthis vowed to “Plague” Israel with further attacks in response to the strikes on their port city, an approach that must be viewed within the context of the shifting global sentiment regarding the Israel-Gaza war.

    Israel is also unlikely to escalate the situation further because they know it isn’t as easy as dealing with Lebanon or Syria. The geographical distance, diminishing global support, and potential disruptions to global logistics will influence Israel’s decisions. The situation resembles Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia, despite having modern weapons, failed in their costly intervention in Yemen. The U.S. and U.K. also experienced setbacks with direct proxy wars there. Therefore, Israel is unlikely to engage in a full-scale war against the Houthis or Yemen right now. The drone and missile attacks will likely continue, as both sides seek to showcase their strength. However, since they are targeting populated cities, human losses are to be expected. Missiles are for killing people, not for finding solutions.

  • UN Court Orders Against Annexation of Palestinian Territories

    UN Court Orders Against Annexation of Palestinian Territories

    The hilly land known as Samaria to Israel and the West Bank to the rest of the world is a center of complex geopolitical tension. This land, reclaimed by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 war, is considered part of the territory designated for an independent Palestine, alongside Gaza. However, both Israel and Palestine remain unwilling to compromise on their stances, failing to reach an agreement on a widely accepted two-state solution. Consequently, Israel has unilaterally begun annexing the West Bank, often involving the forcible removal of the local population and the facilitation of Israeli migration, thereby undermining the prospects for a Palestinian state.

    Although Western countries permitted Israel to proceed and Arab nations showed little interest, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) disagrees with Israel’s actions. The ICJ has now ordered Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories as swiftly as possible and to provide full reparations for its internationally wrongful acts. Alongside the ICJ’s moves to charge against Netanyahu in light of war crimes in Gaza, it appears that the ICJ is taking a tougher stance against Israel, though Israel is likely to disregard its orders.

    Nawaf Salam, President of the ICJ, stated that the court views Israel’s violations of the prohibition on acquiring territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination as directly affecting the legality of Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory. He emphasized that Israel’s persistent abuse of its position as an occupying power, through annexation, asserting permanent control over the territory, and continually obstructing the Palestinian right to self-determination, breaches fundamental principles of international law and makes Israel’s presence in the occupied territory unlawful.

    The court identified several breaches of international law by the government of Israel, including forcible evictions, widespread house demolitions, and restrictions on residence and movement. It also noted severe violations such as the transfer of Israeli settlers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem with excessive government support. Additionally, the court highlighted Israel’s failure to prevent or address settler attacks on Palestinians, restrictions on Palestinian access to water, and the exploitation of natural resources in the West Bank. Furthermore, the court observed the extension of Israeli state law to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Hague court also found that Israel was in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

    Palestine welcomed the court’s order. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, ruling from the West Bank, described the decision as historic and a victory for justice, urging that Israel be compelled to implement it, fearing Israel might neglect the order. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki called it a “watershed moment”. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a firm supporter of West Bank annexation, expressed discontent. In a statement, Netanyahu emphasized that the Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land and asserted their ancestral heritage in Judea and Samaria. He criticized the ICJ decision, stating, “No decision of lies in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and the legality of Israeli settlements in all parts of our homeland cannot be disputed”.

    Israel did not participate in the proceedings, which involved arguments from an unprecedented 52 states, but it submitted a written argument in July of the previous year, urging the ICJ to dismiss the request for an opinion. Israel also accused the court of prejudice and of failing to recognize Israel’s right and duty to protect its citizens, citing the October 7th attack as an additional point of contention.

    In addition to ordering an end to the occupation as soon as possible, the court, composed of 15 judges, stated that Israel must cease all unlawful acts, including halting new settlement activity and repealing legislation that maintains the occupation, particularly laws that discriminate against Palestinians or alter the demographic composition of any occupied territories. The court also mandated the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of sections of the wall constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. Furthermore, the court called for the return of all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to their original places of residence.

    UN Secretary-General António Guterres will promptly transmit the advisory opinion to the 193-member General Assembly, and it is for the General Assembly to decide how to proceed in the matter. However, the matter is likely to remain unresolved as Israel is unlikely to agree with the ICJ order due to concerns that withdrawing from the West Bank will pose severe security threats to Israel, similar to those from Gaza. Although Israel withdrew its military and settlements from Gaza in 2005, the terrorist organization Hamas strengthened its position there, leading to attacks on Israel.

    Now, Israel is taking back control of Gaza and may act rapidly in the West Bank as well. Right-wing parties are pushing for more settlements, and Israeli politicians with real estate interests have their eyes on the West Bank, further diminishing the prospects for a Palestinian state. As a result, the ICJ decision is unlikely to be accepted by Israel, and they will not work in the direction of the order. However, this decision will mark an important chapter in the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

  • Islamic Republic: What Does It Mean?

    Islamic Republic: What Does It Mean?

    Islam and Republic: Two philosophies or political systems that seem situated at opposite ends, with different views and morals, appear incompatible in the eyes of many. However, in politics, anything is possible, and some politicians have combined these ideas to form a unique system known as an Islamic Republic. This term now refers to a sovereign state that takes a compromise position between a purely Islamic caliphate and a secular, nationalist republic. The nature of this compromise can be defined by the constitution makers, so it varies from country to country, but they all claim to be Islamic republics. Every Islamic Republic administration emphasizes a stronger cultural identity rooted in Islamism, as it is neither a traditional Islamic monarchy under a king  nor a modern secular republic. Confused? So is everyone, from the constitution makers to the common people.

    Currently, three countries officially claim to be Islamic Republics: the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. All of them emphasize Islam and Sharia law but do not have a monarchy to lead them. Instead, politicians, mostly Islamists are the policy makers, prefer not to emulate Western republics and aim to preserve their cultural identity. Thus, these three crafted their constitutions under the title of Islamic Republic, each being unique and distinct. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is a unitary semi-presidential republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is a unitary theocratic republic. They have different governing systems and were formed in different situations. 

    There have been other short-lived Islamic Republics in history, such as those in Bangladesh, Comoros, Afghanistan, Gambia, and in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but all were forced out soon after their establishment. Thanks to the people of Pakistan, Mauritania, and Iran for enduring challenges and keeping their regimes alive.

    Pakistan, a country formed in response to the long-standing demands of Islamists in the Indian subcontinent, established its first Islamic Republic constitution in 1956. This move was considered revolutionary in the Islamic world. At that time, newly formed countries in the Islamic world were opting to be secular republics rather than monarchies. As a result, Pakistan gained prominence in the Islamic world for adhering to Islamic principles, unlike other new republics such as Turkey, which embraced secularism. With this move, Pakistan effectively created a new Islamic cultural identity, which it had previously lacked, skillfully differentiating itself from its Indian heritage with diverse languages and ethnicities. 

    However, many political scientists believe that Pakistan’s Islamic Republic constitution was a product of the divergence between British-educated Islamists, like the founding president Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and conservative Islamists. To solve this, they combined Sharia with modern British laws to appeal to the populace. The case of Mauritania is somewhat similar, but instead of British influence, French influence shaped its Islamic Republic constitution.

    Perhaps the Islamic Republic of Iran, which brands itself as an Islamic Republic across all sectors from the military to the media, is the most notorious example of such a state. Founded after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the unpopular Shah regime, the Islamic Republic has led to a steep economic and cultural decline for Iran, which was more developed at that time compared to Pakistan and Mauritania. With the new constitution to protect Sharia and Islamism coming into force under the Shia Supreme Leader, the country has been ruined by poor diplomacy, tough sanctions, and harsh living conditions over the past 45 years. As a result, many citizens harbor hatred towards the Islamic Republic and resent the government’s harsh actions against any demands for change or protests against Islamic law. While the Islamic Republic is not an Islamic monopoly like Saudi Arabia, it enforces a more extreme form of Islamism, resulting in significant resistance from the people.

    The Islamic Republic can be considered a failed administrative system, as evidenced by the deep economic and cultural struggles of countries. The system favors corruption and poor governance, and the lack of skilled people has led to economic and diplomatic collapse. Strict Islamic laws, without supervision as in a monarchy, lead to outdated practices like mob lynching and blasphemy incidents. The rift between hard believers and mild believers is very high, and in countries where even mild believers and non-believers are hunted, minorities have no role. Overall, people are forced to suffer under these governments because they are protecting Islam. Pathetic!

  • Why are Bangladeshi students protesting against the government?

    Why are Bangladeshi students protesting against the government?

    Bangladesh is in turmoil as student protests have escalated into riots. The country, notorious for its large population and low living standards, has been experiencing a wave of protests. In its 50 years of existence, Bangladesh has frequently experienced protests and severe government crackdowns that have hindered its development. Combined with a poor economy and high unemployment, these ongoing protests have further deepened the rift between the government and the people.

    The latest protests, which began at universities and spread across the state, were against a job quota bill that provided reservations based on the participation of one’s bloodline in the independence movement. The protests turned violent as the government and the ruling party’s student wing chose to confront the movement, which targets the government and the prime minister. The student movement is anticipated to emerge as a significant opposition force against Sheikh Hasina’s government, which has been in power continuously for nearly 15 years.

    At least 32 people were killed on Thursday, in addition to the seven killed earlier in the week, and thousands were injured after police fired tear gas into crowds of protesting students. As both government and private properties, including the state television office, were targeted, paramilitary forces were deployed across the country.

    Protests first erupted on university campuses across Bangladesh a fortnight ago as tens of thousands of students demanded an end to “Unreasonable and discriminatory quotas” for government jobs. The quotas, which reserve 30% of jobs for family members of veterans who fought in Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971, were abolished in 2018 but reinstated this month after a court order. The reintroduction of the quotas provoked fury among students, who argue that the job market in Bangladesh is already extremely challenging amid high unemployment, heavy inflation, and a struggling economy. With the private sector diminishing, government jobs have become the most secure and sought-after form of employment, yet are heavily restricted, with 50% already allocated through quotas.

    On Monday night, student protests turned violent when police and heavily armed members of the ruling Awami League’s student wing attacked the demonstrators. In Dhaka, police fired tear gas and charged at the protesters with batons, while pro-government groups assaulted them with machetes, bamboo rods, and hockey sticks, injuring thousands. The violence escalated on Tuesday as campuses nationwide became battlegrounds. Hundreds of protesters demanding reform of civil service hiring rules clashed with riot police, who had fired rubber bullets at them. The protesters chased the retreating officers to the headquarters of state television BTV in Dhaka. In their fury, the crowd set fire to the network’s reception building and dozens of vehicles parked outside.

    Many blocked major highways and railway lines and broke through police barriers to stage demonstrations across the overcrowded capital city of Dhaka. The new ruling on quotas was paused by the Supreme Court last week, but students have said they will continue protesting until the quotas are permanently overturned. Many political scientists believe the student movement is evolving into a significant opposition force in the country. While Hasina has suppressed Khaleda Zia and Islamist factions in the political sphere, the students now present a formidable challenge to her. Addressing this shift, Hasina has adopted a more aggressive stance. Sheikh Hasina referred to the protesting students using the slur “Razakars”, meaning those who betrayed the nation during the war of independence in 1971, which further worsened the situation.

    A job is precious in a country like Bangladesh. There are not many private sector jobs due to low investment, and overpopulation leads to an oversupply of unskilled workers, making labor cheap. Therefore, the only hope for many people is government jobs, which also carry significant social prestige. The quota system is killing this hope and is seen as favoring the ruling party’s interests, with no opposition to challenge it. Student protesters accuse Hasina of authoritarianism, and political scientists believe the current wave of protests is a direct response to prolonged repression under the authoritarian regime of Hasina and her Awami League party, who have ruled continuously since 2009. In January, Hasina won a fifth term in power after an election widely reported as rigged, with tens of thousands of her political opponents jailed. The anger against the government can be seen as opposition to favoritism, authoritarianism, and lack of opportunities.

  • How Humiliating is Syria’s Parliamentary Election?

    How Humiliating is Syria’s Parliamentary Election?

    The Syrian Arab Republic, a country under the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, is in ruins. Assad, who has been president since 2000, does not appear to be stepping down anytime soon. Despite his hunger for power having destroyed the country, split it apart, and caused people to be exiled,  he remains in control. Even though he is authoritarian, he loves elections. He always conducts elections on time, but makes sure it favors him. Last Monday, he conducted a parliamentary election for the 250 seats. Undoubtedly, the election is designed to favor Assad’s party, the Ba’ath Party, which has been in power since the 1963 coup d’état. They even hold reservations, making it easy to gain a majority. Opposition parties in parliament do not have much influence and are mostly aligned with Assad. The real opposition is at real war with the Assad regime. Election results have not come out yet, as time is needed for manipulation, because the new parliament has the duty of amending the constitution to remove the presidential term limit, favoring Assad to rule as long as he wishes.

    This time, 1,516 candidates approved by the government are competing for the 250 seats in the People’s Assembly. Approximately 8,151 polling stations were set up in 15 voting districts within government-held areas. The competitive part of the Syrian election process occurs before the polling starts, when a voted-on list of Baath Party candidates is sent to the party’s central command, allowing them to run in the election. The elections are essentially decided once the Baath Party list is finalized. Once the list is completed, we can check the results, and you will see that almost all of them will be in Parliament. To the public’s advantage, the number of incumbents who made the final list this year was relatively low, suggesting a reshuffling within the Baath Party. Western countries and Assad’s critics have no doubts that the polling in government-held areas in Syria is neither free nor fair.

    While Syria faces many war-driven issues, the economy is the main topic of discussion among the public during the election. The poll took place as Syria’s economy continues to deteriorate after years of conflict, Western-led sanctions, and dwindling aid due to donor fatigue. The value of the national currency against the dollar has reached new lows, sparking food and fuel inflation and making the country one of the toughest places to live on earth. Almost a year ago, the government partially rolled back its subsidy program to save the economy, while the government doubled public sector and pension wages to keep officials and influential civil servants on their side. In the Druze-majority southern province of Sweida, anti-government protests have occurred regularly for nearly a year due to economic misery, leading many to call for a boycott of the polls. Nevertheless, candidates primarily emphasized general slogans such as national unity and prosperity.

    After casting his ballot in Damascus, Assad spoke to reporters about the vote and how parliament could serve as a platform for national dialogue in the country. This remark could be marked as one of the most ironic comments of the year. This vote marks the fourth in Syria since mass anti-government protests in 2011, originally a call for democracy that escalated into an ongoing civil war. Syria’s 2024 parliamentary election excludes rebel-held northwest Syria and the country’s northeast, which is under the control of the U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. Notably, unlike presidential elections, millions of diaspora Syrians, whose numbers have significantly increased since the civil war, are not eligible to vote for legislators, ensuring that only those favorable to the regime will cast votes. Therefore, it’s an election merely for the sake of having one. Congratulations, Assad; we don’t even need the results to be published.

  • North Korean Diplomats Escape to the South, Continuing After an Interval

    North Korean Diplomats Escape to the South, Continuing After an Interval

    North Korea has been reported as a tough place for its officials to live, with many reports and rumors about missing officials who may be imprisoned or executed. If it is difficult for officials, it is even harder for common people. It is common for people from North Korea to escape the regime and flee to South Korea, even though transportation and information exchange between the two Koreas seem almost impossible. North Korea has tried everything to fortify its borders, with tight control over anything going in or out. The country’s athletes and diplomats are under strict surveillance when traveling abroad. But interestingly, Reports of officials refusing to return and attempting to escape have been reported many times. Diplomats stationed in various countries often disconnect from the regime’s radar and flee to South Korea, this was a common occurrence until almost six years ago. However, tighter scrutiny in the selection of diplomats and the closing of loopholes have restricted such defections. But at a time when South and North Korea’s relationship has worsened due to the notorious “Balloon War”,  news has emerged of a senior North Korean diplomat escaping to South Korea. A tool can be used by the South to humiliate North Korea.

    According to reports, a senior North Korean diplomat based in Cuba defected to South Korea in November, becoming the highest-ranking North Korean diplomat to escape to the South since 2016. The diplomat, Ri Il-kyu, who was on a critical foreign mission for Pyongyang, joined North Korea’s foreign ministry in 1999 and received a commendation from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un for successfully negotiating the release of a North Korean ship detained in Panama for carrying arms from Cuba in 2013. Without providing further details, South Korea’s National Intelligence Service confirmed an earlier report by the Chosun Ilbo newspaper. One of Ri Il-kyu’s roles at the embassy was to prevent North Korea’s rival South Korea and old ally Cuba from establishing diplomatic ties, the newspaper reported. In February, the two countries did establish diplomatic relations, which was a significant blow to North Korea.

    Details on North Korean defections often take months to come to light, as defectors need to be cleared by authorities and undergo a course of education about South Korean society and systems. He shared with the newspaper that his decision to defect stemmed from disillusionment with the regime and unfair evaluations of his work. He noted that every North Korean contemplates living in South Korea at least once, driven by disillusionment with the regime and a bleak outlook. He also expressed that North Koreans desire reunification more than South Koreans, believing it to be the only path for their children to have a better future. He mentioned that he flew out of Cuba with his family but did not elaborate further on how he managed the high-risk escape. 

    The difference between South Korea and North Korea is widening. South Korea boasts a large economy, ranked 14th worldwide, with a GDP per capita around $35,000, one of the highest in Asia. Its job market offers many opportunities, and its soft power, through K-pop and K-dramas, is expanding globally. In contrast, North Korea has a nominal GDP per capita of only $900, forty times lower than South Korea, making it one of the poorest countries on the continent. Living conditions, freedom of expression, and other aspects of life are tightly restricted under its communist regime. These factors contribute to North Koreans fleeing to the South. In 2023, 196 North Korean defectors came to Seoul, according to South Korean government data. Most recent defectors, like diplomat Ri, had long lived overseas, human rights activists say.

    South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said they are committed to providing increased financial support for North Korean defectors and offering tax incentives to companies that employ them at the inaugural North Korean Defectors’ Day ceremony. This commitment is expected to unsettle North Korea, prompting tighter control over its diplomats. However, it is evident that North Korea cannot conceal these changes indefinitely.