Author: Caracal

  • What is the Future of Shanghai Cooperation?

    What is the Future of Shanghai Cooperation?

    Asia is undergoing accelerated bipolarization, with one pole represented by the United States and Japan, and the other shaped by Russia and China. Both teams are actively seeking to expand their influence. While the United States ramps up its efforts in the Asia-Pacific region, leaders from China, Russia, and countries in the global south are gathering in Kazakhstan for the annual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), often referred to as the “Asian NATO”. This summit is widely seen as part of China’s efforts to establish a “Multilateral” world order that challenges US dominance while aligning with the authoritarian regimes of China and Russia. The forum will test the “strategic partnership” between China and Russia as they compete for influence in Central Asia, amidst efforts by other countries to reduce Russian and Chinese hegemony in the region. Questions persist about the SCO’s ability to maintain its relevance amid ongoing conflicts of interest among its member states.

    The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), formed under the leadership of Russia and China in 2001, strives to promote cooperation in politics, economics, defense, and security among its member nations in the Eurasian region. SCO is recognized as the world’s largest regional organization by geographical area and population, encompassing approximately 80% of Eurasia’s land area and 40% of the global population. As of 2021, its combined GDP represented around 20% of the global GDP, featuring the second and fifth largest economies globally, making it a significant market and a resource-rich entity. Currently, there are 10 full members of the SCO, including Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Belarus. Additionally, there are numerous observer states, dialogue partners, and guest attendees, together encompassing a significant portion of Asia. 

    In its early years, between 2001 and 2008, the SCO thrived in what could be considered its golden age, experiencing rapid development and establishing permanent bodies and ad hoc initiatives focused on economic and security issues. During this period, many anticipated that the organization would grow akin to the EU or NATO, posing a significant challenge to United States interests and global dominance. The annual meetings of the Council of Heads of State, the SCO’s principal decision-making body, often garnered attention in global newspapers, depicting the organization as a burgeoning bloc. The SCO operated efficiently, akin to the operational models of the European Union or NATO. Based in Beijing, China, the SCO Secretariat acts as the organization’s central executive body. It oversees the implementation of organizational decisions, prepares documents like declarations and agendas, manages the organization’s records, coordinates activities within the SCO’s framework, and disseminates information about SCO activities. 

    However, after a challenging period began, the weaknesses in decision-making within the SCO became apparent, especially in choosing both India and Pakistan, longstanding adversaries, as full members. This decision highlighted the contradictions in decision-making between China and Russia. These divergent interests led some parties to use the forum as a platform to criticize others. Tensions between India and Pakistan, as well as between India and China, became evident. The consistent neglect of annual SCO meetings by the Indian Prime Minister, including the latest one, underscored India’s waning interest in the organization. Pakistan, unlike the previous Imran Khan government, attempted to realign with the West, which may challenge the organization’s stability. Central Asia, historically and geographically bound to Russia and China, is also exploring economic interests with the United States and its satellite countries like South Korea.

    The 24th annual meeting is being held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, starting from Tuesday. China’s President Xi Jinping arrived in Astana on Tuesday for the meeting and will also undertake state visits to Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. More announcements are expected from Xi aimed at maintaining China’s control over mineral-rich Central Asia and preventing Western access to these countries. Xi and his Russian counterpart, President  Vladimir Putin, will convene for a crucial face-to-face meeting. However, a notable downside of the occasion is the absence of the Indian Prime Minister, while the Pakistani Prime Minister is in attendance.

    As India cherishes its relationship with Russia and aims to strengthen it further, they avoid working against cooperation and aligning with the West. However, India does not agree with China’s increased decision-making influence within organizations and their mutual conflicts over other interests. China prefers Pakistan, and both have adversarial relations with India. Currently, Russia cannot afford to conflict with China’s interests, making the SCO a challenging environment for India. As a result, the dreams of NATO and the EU seem distant now, and SCO’s relevance may not necessarily increase. It is likely that it will remain another formal organization with regular meetings, potentially failing to address its foundational interests and principles.

  • Why Does Cambodia Target Their Environmentalists?

    Why Does Cambodia Target Their Environmentalists?

    Environmentalists don’t hold the same old reputation or importance as far-right groups, which have captured the public sphere. They are often targeted as anti-nationalists or individuals opposed to national progress. This phenomenon is visible worldwide, and in authoritarian countries, they are undoubtedly one of the prime targets of the rulers. Cambodia, a Southeast Asian country with the worst phase of democracy, is seeking infrastructure development with Chinese funds and is among those countries.

    Even though the state is a constitutional monarchy, elections are highly manipulated, and opposition parties are severely weakened. Last year, former military general, Prime Minister, and ongoing President Hun Sen, who had tightly controlled the country for decades from different positions, handed power to his son Hun Manet. Hun Manet was named Prime Minister after an election in which the only major opposition party was banned from contesting, and independent media outlets and criticisms were closed down or blocked online. This is the reality of Cambodian democracy, and now they have found a new opposition in environmentalists, whom they have also begun to target.

    On Tuesday, Ten activists from a prominent environmental group named Mother Nature in Cambodia were sentenced to between six and eight years in jail. Four of the defendants were arrested outside the court in the capital city, Phnom Penh, after the verdict was delivered on Tuesday morning. Others were sentenced in absentia. In a place where people are arrested for protests, an absentia court does not block sentencing. The charges in the case are intriguing; they were found guilty of plotting against the government, while three were also convicted of insulting the king (Lèse-majesté). 

    Among those sentenced on Tuesday were Thun Ratha, Long Kunthea, Phuon Keoraksmey, Binh Piseth, and Pork Khoeuy, who received six years in prison for plotting, according to Amnesty International. Three others, Gonzalez-Davidson, Sun Ratha, and Yim Leanghy, were sentenced to eight years for both plotting and insulting the king, and also face a fine of KHR 10,000,000 (£1,900). The convicted individuals denied the charges.

    Mother Nature, one of the few remaining environmental groups in Cambodia, has gained a presence among youth through its use of viral videos and training programs to engage young Cambodians. As freedom of expression has become increasingly restricted, many Mother Nature activists have faced imprisonment and intimidation. Despite this, the group’s activities have garnered global support and recognition. In 2023, Mother Nature earned the Right Livelihood Award from the Swedish charity, the Right Livelihood Award Foundation, for its fearless and engaging activism. This recognition alone is enough to provoke discontent from the authorities.

    The group recently gained acclaim for successfully campaigning against the Chinese-led construction of a hydroelectric dam in Areng Valley, southwestern Cambodia, which posed threats to an indigenous community and rare species. They also played a crucial role in ending the environmentally damaging and often corrupt practice of sand export from the coastal estuaries of Koh Kong. These actions have led to the group being marked as opposing the country’s ambitious projects and progress and being labeled as anti-national. Regarding the accusations, Alejandro Gonzalez-Davidson, the group’s founder and a Spanish national deported from Cambodia in 2015, told Reuters that the claims of plotting against the state were never clarified in court. 

    It looks like Cambodia doesn’t mind its reputation, even though it has an interest in tourism. The country is notorious for corruption, with Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2021) ranking Cambodia 157th out of 180 countries, one of the worst in the continent. Yet, in the July 2023 election, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) easily won by a landslide in a flawed election. Following the election, Hun Manet, son of Hun Sen, was sworn in as the new Cambodian prime minister. However, this change in leadership does not signify any real change in governance. The recent crackdown on environmentalists deals a severe blow to Cambodia’s civil society, as the government opts to imprison dissenters rather than heed the voices of young environmental leaders. It’s clear that Cambodia’s leadership is not only targeting environmentalists but also any opposition.

  • How the North – South Corridor is Saving Russia?

    How the North – South Corridor is Saving Russia?

    While Russia lost its major markets in Europe and the United States following the Ukraine war, everyone predicted that Russia would suffer; at least, Biden believed so. But after two years of war, the Russian economy has not suffered as predicted and is not ready to cease its war in Ukraine. Even though the Russian economy has been blocked from the international financial system, it is slowly getting back on track despite the sanctions remaining in place.

    How is this possible? The two big markets, China and India, the second and fifth largest economies respectively, with more than a billion people each, along with satellite countries, including Iran, are keeping the Russian economy relatively unaffected by US sanctions. As the war shows no signs of ending soon, Russia is strengthening its relationships with these countries. The trade routes between China and India are becoming more streamlined thanks to government efforts to ensure a smooth flow of goods and link their economies.

    With China, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also known as the Silk Road, provides good connectivity and facilitates smooth trade. However, with India, which is not part of the BRI and does not have a good relationship with China, there are issues with trade due to infrastructure limitations. To address this issue, Russia and India are working on improving infrastructure. The International North–South Transport Corridor, a 7,200-km-long multi-mode network of ship, rail, and road routes for transporting freight stretching between India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Central Asia, is integral to these efforts. Russia and India are making significant investments to link up with each other and these countries to facilitate smoother trade, and these efforts are starting to show promising results.

    Trade along the North-South corridor is off to a strong start in 2024, a boon and relief for the Kremlin. The route received a significant boost from a jump in Russian trade turnover with Iran. During the first quarter of this year, trade turnover between Russia and Iran grew by 48 percent compared to the same period in 2023, a year in which overall commerce between the two countries lagged. While trade increased between Russia and Iran, it decreased by 6 percent year-on-year between Russia and Azerbaijan during the first four months of 2024. Meanwhile, turnover between Russia and India, the countries at each end of the network of road, rail, and sea links, set a new quarterly value record during the first three months of this year, totaling about $17.5 billion, Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency reported.

    As the total trade balance with export country China is not beneficial for the Russian economy in the long term, the trade balance with Iran and India is expected to be more advantageous for Russia in the long run. The North South transport corridor avoids the conventional route that passes through many countries with U.S. involvement and is expected to grow as infrastructure development flourishes. The route, passing through Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and India, connects major cities such as Mumbai, Moscow, Tehran, Baku, Bandar Abbas, Astrakhan, and Bandar Anzali, which is expected to boost the economies of these cities as well. This new route is anticipated to significantly reduce costs in terms of time and money compared to the traditional route currently being used.

    In early June, Russian leader Vladimir Putin praised the North-South trade network as a more efficient international trade route compared to the Suez Canal. Intent on maintaining growth momentum, Putin recently approved an agreement on free trade between members of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union and Iran. Beyond laying the groundwork for new infrastructure and improved logistics, the TASS news service reported that the pact could save Russian exporters up to $300 million in export duties and other costs. On June 16, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran announced the creation of a working group to improve logistics arrangements along the North-South route, TASS also reported.

    India, a populous country and one of the fastest-growing economies, which has high demand for Russian oil and natural gas, is also looking to invest in speeding up the linking process. Last year, Indian Foreign Minister Subramanyam Jaishankar stated that the North-South corridor is one of India’s top priorities. During a state visit to Turkmenistan, Prime Minister Modi, recognizing Turkmenistan’s natural gas wealth, formally invited the country to become a member of the project. He proposed that Turkmenistan become a member of the International North-South Transport Corridor. The interest of India is clearly visible. The North-South corridor project is of interest to everyone.

    While the United States is doing its best to reduce Central Asia’s dependence on Russian dominance by offering trade benefits to these countries, Russia knows that it must invest more to maintain its influence in the region. They also work towards fostering more cooperation between China and India. Russia is well aware of the importance of China and India for its future and understands how the US can exploit disputes between these countries.  Russia and Iran, along with their allies, are highly capable of challenging the sanctions imposed by the US. If these countries further unite to form an effective trade bloc, it would deal a significant blow to the West.

  • How Thailand is Helping Myanmar’s Junta Hold on to Power

    How Thailand is Helping Myanmar’s Junta Hold on to Power

    It has been three years since Myanmar witnessed a coup d’état that overthrew the democratically elected government. We all remember the viral video of a girl dancing while military vehicles approached the presidential palace to take control of the state. After three years, the military rule is still in power despite many democratic protests and military opposition. Major democracies around the world expressed concern and introduced tough sanctions in solidarity with democracy. Interestingly, despite Western sanctions, Myanmar, unlike resource-rich Russia, has managed to sustain itself. This has raised doubts about neighboring countries helping the junta by staying neutral. These suspicions were cemented by a recent United Nations-sponsored investigation revealing that Thailand has emerged as the leading source of banking services for Myanmar’s military junta and a key financial conduit for procuring arms and other military equipment.

    Tom Andrews, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, authored a report detailing the military junta’s adaptive strategies amidst sanctions from foreign governments. It describes how the State Administration Council (SAC), Myanmar’s military leadership, has altered financial and military suppliers to sustain arms procurement and its opposition campaign. The report identifies that despite international sanctions, SAC maintains crucial banking ties, with 16 banks across seven countries processing military transactions, and 25 banks providing correspondent services to Myanmar’s state-owned banks since the coup. Andrews highlights a significant shift in arms procurement, noting a decline in formal banking system transactions to $253 million in 2023 from $377 million the previous year, particularly citing decreased Chinese arms transfers from $140 million to $80 million. An interesting part of the report is how Thailand, which remains neutral and has not condemned the military takeover of the regime, has emerged as the major source for military supplies, surpassing Singapore, historically a major partner in trade and finance with Myanmar’s military and associated entities.

    As per the report published by Andrews, last year documented that despite Singaporean government opposition to arms transfers to Myanmar, entities based in Singapore had become the military junta’s third-largest source of weapons materials, following Russia and China. There are many reports that there are companies linked to military junta working in Singapore.  In 2022, the advocacy group Justice for Myanmar identified 38 Singapore-based companies involved in supplying weapons to the military, both pre and post the 2021 coup. Following a subsequent investigation by Singaporean authorities, Andrews reported in the document that the flow of weapons and related materials to Myanmar from Singapore-registered companies plummeted by nearly 90%, from $110 million to just $10 million. Total payments processed by Singaporean banks also declined sharply, from $260 million to approximately $40 million.

    However, the decline in business with Singapore led to an increase in transactions with Thailand, where business shifted due to easier administration and a junta-friendly government. In Thailand, the numbers moved in the opposite direction to Singapore, with transfers of weapons and related materials from companies registered in Thailand doubling from over $60 million in 2022 to nearly $130 million last year. These transfers included the purchase of spare parts for Mi-17 and Mi-35 helicopters and K-8W light attack aircraft, which were previously sourced via Singapore-based entities and used to conduct airstrikes on civilian targets. Thai banks have been pivotal in facilitating this shift. For example, Siam Commercial Bank facilitated just over $5 million in transactions related to the Myanmar military in the fiscal year ending March 2023, but the figure jumped to more than $100 million the following year.

    While the report demonstrates the junta’s ability to adapt to increasing financial restrictions, it also suggests that the campaign of Western sanctions is beginning to have an impact. Andrews notes that after the U.S. imposed sanctions on two state-owned banks last year, the Myanma Foreign Trade Bank (MFTB) and the Myanma Investment and Commercial Bank, the junta shifted most of its banking functions to Myanma Economic Bank (MEB), a state-owned bank that remains unsanctioned. Since then, MEB has processed tens of millions in payments for military procurement, receipt of international taxes and fees, and repatriation of foreign revenues from state-owned enterprises. Although Australia and Canada have also imposed sanctions on the first two banks, no foreign government has yet targeted MEB. The report emphasizes the need for the international community to shut down MEB’s international banking access through coordinated sanctions.

    The people of Myanmar are in a dire situation, as the suppression of democracy and pro-democracy movements has led to a civil war. The military regime continues to receive business and arms support from various countries, including Russia, Singapore, and now primarily from Thailand, their neighboring country and biggest supporter. While some rebel groups have connections with Western governments, there are few reports of military aid from the West. With India and China, Myanmar’s large neighbors, showing little interest in intervening in the civil unrest, Thailand’s indirect involvement becomes a significant advantage for the regime, enabling it to prolong the war and maintain its military rule.

  • Iran Election Faces Humiliation with Record Low Turnout, Heads for Runoff

    Iran Election Faces Humiliation with Record Low Turnout, Heads for Runoff

    Due to widespread discontent with the Islamic Republic and its highly scrutinized presidential candidates, around 60% of eligible voters in Iran chose not to participate in the important presidential election. Following the unexpected death of Ebrahim Raisi, the election was conducted last Friday to meet the constitutional requirement to fill the presidential vacancy within 50 days. This tight controlled Iran election featured only candidates approved through tight monitoring, and the campaigns did not address the people’s real problems, resulting in low voter participation. None of the six candidates secured 50% of the total votes needed, leading to a runoff election in a week. In the first round, reformist lawmaker Masoud Pezeshkian secured a narrow lead over the hardline former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. Parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, initially considered the likeliest victor by Western media, finished third and was eliminated before the second round.

    Turnout ended up at 39.93%, a record low for an Iranian election since the revolution in 1979. The last time in 2021, it was 48.48%. The scale of the boycott from various sectors is a rebuff for the regime, which had repeatedly urged Iranians to show their commitment to the Islamic regime by voting. Reluctance to vote in regime-controlled elections has been visible in previous times too, but this marks the lowest. Before this, the lowest turnout was in the 2001 presidential election, which was officially recorded at 48.8% with 24.9 million voting.

    Six candidates, including five conservatives, two of whom withdrew on the eve of the poll, were approved to stand by the Guardian Council, an unelected constitutional watchdog whose members are appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, both directly and indirectly. The initial results of the first round of the Iran election showed Masoud Pezeshkian, 69, a reformist independent and former Minister of Health and Medical Education, receiving 10.45 million votes, which is 44.36% of the total votes cast. Saeed Jalili, 58, a principlist, Member of the Expediency Discernment Council, and Chief Nuclear Negotiator, contested as an independent and garnered 9.47 million votes, which is 40.35% of the total. Another conservative, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the current Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, contested under the label of the prominent Progress and Justice Population of Islamic Iran party and garnered only 3.38 million votes. A fourth candidate, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, a conservative and former Justice Minister who ran a wildcard campaign under the label of the Combatant Clergy Association, won only 206,000 votes. Out of a total of 24,735,185 votes cast, 1,056,159 ballots were deemed spoiled. A runoff on Friday seems inevitable and will offer a clear ideological choice between Pezeshkian and Jalili.

    Pezeshkian has utilized video town hall meetings to engage with students and pledged not to crack down on those who refuse to wear the hijab. However, at the core of his campaign is the belief that Iran’s economic challenges will persist unless it engages with Western economies, including through renegotiating the Iranian nuclear deal. With active support from former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, Pezeshkian has criticized hardliners for leading Iran into an ideological, cultural, and economic dead end. Unless Pezeshkian can mobilize more voters in the runoff by demonstrating a viable path to victory and promising real change for Iran, the reformist is likely to lose. Most, but not all, of Ghalibaf’s votes are expected to shift to Jalili. The rivalry between Ghalibaf and Jalili, both personal and ideological, was sufficient to prevent them from forming a pre-election alliance. Other conservative votes scattered among different candidates will also bolster Jalili’s position. Many believe that even though the second round will directly pit reformists against conservatives, it is uncertain whether those opposed to the regime will turn out to vote, potentially closing the door on Pezeshkian’s hopes.

    While about 60% of voters boycotted the Iran election, the message is clear: people don’t like these kinds of gimmick elections. The decision to allow a reformist to stand in the ongoing Iran election was seen as a concession by the regime, which needed a more competitive election to try to lure voters to the polls. The second round between Pezeshkian and Jalili will be interesting to watch, not only to see who will win but also to observe if the voter turnout will increase. A democracy or republic only succeeds if the people participate in it, and Iran cannot continue to conduct these kinds of elections without the participation of the majority. And it will be interesting to see if people in deep conflict with the regime will come to the polling booth to vote for the reformist.

  • Mongolia Chooses Ruling Party Despite Dire Economic Realities

    Mongolia Chooses Ruling Party Despite Dire Economic Realities

    Even though there are many factors against voting for the ruling party and prime minister, Mongolia allowed the ruling Mongolian People’s Party (MPP) and Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene to continue. Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene declared an early victory, but the parliamentary majority of the ruling party significantly diminished, reflecting deepening public anger over corruption and the state of the economy. An interesting aspect of the election result is that the opposition gained ground and more parties gained representation in parliament. Regardless of the outcome, it should be considered as a victory for Mongolian democracy, which conducted a democratic election while situated between highly authoritarian Russia and China. Additionally, millions of Mongolians turned out to elect 126 members of the State Great Khural, the country’s unicameral parliament.

    According to the latest reports from the Mongolia’s General Election Commission, the Mongolian People’s Party (MPP) has secured a majority with 68 seats, four more than needed, and garnered 35.01% of the votes. This marks a significant drop from their 45% in the 2020 election, where they held 62 out of 76 seats. The main opposition Democratic Party, led by Luvsannyamyn Gantömör, won 42 seats and 30% of the votes, a notable increase from their 11 seats and 24% previously. This represents a win for the opposition as well. The minor anti-corruption HUN party secured eight seats and 10% of the votes, while smaller parties collectively won eight seats. These results, the first under a new electoral system where Mongolians vote for both proportional lists and individual representatives in large districts, mean that the MPP will govern with a significantly reduced majority. The new parliament will see the MPP holding 54% of the seats, compared to around 80% in 2020.

    The MPP, successor to Mongolia’s communist party that held power for almost 70 years, remains popular, especially among rural, conservative, and older voters, maintaining a vast, nationwide campaign infrastructure. Many critics liken the country to other post-Soviet Union nations in the region with authoritarian tendencies influenced by Russia and China. Therefore, they believe the authorities will try to consolidate power to maintain control. Analysts had anticipated the MPP to maintain the majority it has held since 2016 and govern for another four years. They attribute much of the party’s success to a coal mining boom that fueled double-digit growth, improved standards of living, and a formidable party machine. However, the campaign was overshadowed by widespread public frustration over endemic corruption, high living costs, and limited opportunities for the young majority. There is also a prevalent belief that profits from the coal mining boom are hoarded by a wealthy elite, leading to frequent protests. The election results reflect these sentiments.

    According to Bayarlkhagva Munkhnaran, an analyst and former official with the National Security Council of Mongolia, “This election result definitely represents a rebuke to the MPP and its leadership”. He added that winning 68 seats is “Barely a face-saver, and any subsequent government will be weak but much more democratic”. Despite the MPP’s victory in the election, many consider it a loss for the party within the framework of Mongolian politics. This sentiment was noted by Democratic Party leader Gantumur Luvsannyam, who stated, “Through this election, people have evaluated the past policy mistakes of the ruling party”.

    It was the first election following an important constitutional change and new electoral law. On Friday, people across the vast, sparsely populated nation of 3.4 million voted. Regardless of the outcome, the election is a win for democracy, especially considering the challenges it faces due to its location between authoritarian countries. The streets of Ulaanbaatar, home to almost half of Mongolia’s population, were adorned with colorful campaign posters featuring candidates across the political spectrum, including populist businessmen, nationalists, environmentalists, and socialists, a rarity in the region. The Prime Minister upheld democracy, thanking even those who did not vote for his party. He remarked that for the first time, five to six parties had been elected to parliament, marking a “New page” in Mongolian democracy. He added, “The essence of democracy lies in having diverse and contrasting opinions. Your criticisms will influence our actions”.

  • How Bad Is the India-Canada Relationship Now?

    How Bad Is the India-Canada Relationship Now?

    India, the most populous country in the world, is experiencing an era of emigration. Many people from India are moving to different countries for various reasons, including a lack of opportunities, poor wages, and substandard living conditions. Canada, an English-speaking country in need of manpower, has become one of the preferred destinations for many Indians seeking a new life. The two countries had a good relationship, given that both are former British colonies, advocates of democracy, and have a history of Indian Prime Ministers being invited to participate in the Canadian Parliament. Immigration processes have been smooth, as Canada needed workers, and India provided them. Over time, technically skilled Indians and wealthy individuals chose Canada as their second home, and they were welcomed there, unlike many from the Middle East and Africa, whose impact on the economy was perceived differently.

    However, later migrations included individuals with anti-Indian sentiments, Islamists, extremist Sikhs, and those who had committed crimes in India. These groups found a home in Canada and became a major problem for India, ultimately straining relations between the two countries to their lowest point. Extremist Sikhs can be said to be the focal point of recent tensions between India and Canada. Sikhism, an independent religion that can be considered influenced by both Hinduism and Islam, has a significant presence in the Indian state of Punjab, Delhi, and the Pakistani part of Punjab. There is also a considerable Sikh population in the UK and Canada dating back to the 19th century.

    Sikhs have been demanding a separate country in the Indian subcontinent since Muslims garnered a separate nation, Pakistan, in the region. This movement gained momentum in Punjab, driven by various Sikh groups that began demanding the creation of a state called Khalistan, which the Indian Union opposed. This led to numerous deadly conflicts between the Indian Union and these groups, with some turning into highly dangerous terrorist organizations. These groups conducted various terrorist activities in Punjab, including the assassination of India’s Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.

    The West was also part of this issue. The Sikh population in Canada and the UK were strong supporters of the separatist Khalistan movement and heavily funded these organizations. Western countries, not favoring a potential superpower in Asia that might support the Soviet Union, were keen to destabilize the Indian Union. They supported separatist organizations in Pakistan, Kashmir, and even Portuguese continuation in India. These countries also played a role in fostering Sikh sentiments in their regions, contributing to the tensions surrounding the Khalistan issue.

    The tensions between Canada and India began to escalate around the same time the Khalistan issue emerged in the mainstream, with India frequently accusing Canada of allowing its soil to be used for conducting terrorist activities in India. On June 23, 1985, a terrorist attack occurred on Air India Flight 182, a passenger flight from Toronto bound for London, UK, over the Atlantic Ocean. The explosion resulted in the deaths of approximately 329 people, including 268 Canadian nationals, most of whom were of Indian origin, and 82 children. Even though it was one of the deadliest terrorist acts Canada has ever seen, the tragedy did not receive the serious attention it needed, and only one person was found guilty. India is still not happy with the way the case was handled. Over time, the issue faded from the Canadian mainstream, as India believes Canada did not want to label Khalistani supporters as terrorists.

    The longstanding tensions between Canada and India reached a critical point after Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist, gained power in India, and Justin Trudeau, actively seeking support from Sikhs, became Prime Minister of Canada. Trudeau has been actively involved in Indian internal matters, such as the farmers protests, which involved many Sikhs, and has not shied away from criticizing India. Additionally, videos from Canadian Sikhs calling for attacks on India have exacerbated the situation. Along with that, Trudeau raised allegations of Indian government involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh separatist leader labeled as a terrorist in India. Trudeau made a speech  in the House of Commons about “Credible allegations of a potential link” between the Indian government and Nijjar’s killing, despite no evidence having been produced to date.

    These incidents led to a deterioration in diplomatic relations between the two nations, resulting in the expulsion of top diplomats from each side. India dismissed the charges as “Absurd” and motivated. On September 20, India issued warnings to its citizens in Canada, advising them to exercise caution due to increasing anti-India activities. The following day, India suspended visa applications from Canadians until further notice. Canada also took similar action and updated its travel advisory, warning its citizens about potential anti-Canada protests and anti-Canadian sentiments, and placed India in the high-risk country category, citing not only potential protests but also high levels of terrorism in India. India’s concerns were further heightened when Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a key leader of the Khalistan movement and spokesperson for Sikhs for Justice, advised Indo-Canadian Hindus to leave Canada.

    India asked Canada to withdraw approximately 40 of its diplomats in October, and Canadian officials confirmed that 41 diplomats and their dependents had left India, leaving 21 remaining. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly further confirmed that India’s revocation of diplomatic privileges was unilateral and that Canada would not issue a similar mandate for Indian diplomats. As the diplomatic row deepens, a new video of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, the spokesperson of Sikhs for Justice, surfaced in which he issued a threat to people planning to travel via Air India on November 19, the day of the cricket World Cup final, a major sporting event in Ahmedabad, stating that their “Lives would be in danger.” Despite this, the Canadian government has not taken significant actions against extremists and continues to comment on Indian internal matters, including India’s stance on minorities. This situation has led to serious mistrust between the two countries, bringing their relationship to its lowest point.

    Now, the issue is not as hot as the previous year, but the relationship remains in a bad condition, with neither side willing to withdraw from their stance and further exacerbating it. Canada and India are two countries that can help each other in various fields. India’s human resources, technological capabilities, and tremendous markets can be beneficial for Canada. Conversely, Canada is a dream destination for many Indians, and the two countries can cooperate in various sectors. However, the failed immigration policies of Canadian politicians have opened a route for some of India’s problematic elements to enter Canada. This has led to increasing xenophobia towards Indians, which is clearly visible on social media. This unregulated migration from India to Canada is also negatively affecting India. Previously, India’s best talent moved abroad, but now more people who pose a threat to India’s reputation are migrating. Leaders of both countries need to address this issue. With Narendra Modi having secured a third term, it is certain that Canada will need to work with him. If these matters are handled with a focus on temporary political gains, both countries will likely suffer.

  • Tokyo Election Set Up with Women Candidates in the Spotlight

    Tokyo Election Set Up with Women Candidates in the Spotlight

    Tokyo, the capital of Japan, is not just another Asian city; it’s the most populous city in the world, with numerous institutes that influence the entire Asian economy. The city extends into a vast metropolis or prefecture, comprising around 40 million people who live densely, making it a city with a high cost of living and high rental rates, but a GDP that almost rivals that of the Netherlands. Tokyo is setting off the governor election on July 7, and campaigns kicked off last week. Interestingly, two women are the leading candidates in the upcoming Tokyo election, representing major parties in a highly male-dominated political landscape. The Tokyo election of 2024 is led by the incumbent Yuriko Koike, who has been in charge since 2016 and represents the governing conservative but named Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP), has presented Renho Murata as the challenger. The Tokyo election is expected to be a proxy war between the country’s two main political parties.

    Koike, 71, has an impressive record in administration, guiding the city through the most challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic. The city, severely hit by the pandemic, implemented lockdowns that included tight controls. Interestingly, she conducted the Summer Olympics during this challenging time. The prestigious Tokyo Olympics 2021 was a great success, even though she faced a lot of opposition to conducting the Olympics under such challenging conditions. Considering the obstacles faced, the Tokyo Olympics was one of the most successful events in recent years. These achievements make Koike, a former TV anchor first elected to the lower house of parliament in 1993, the frontrunner in the upcoming Tokyo election. She now owns her party, Tomin First, though receives strong support from the LDP, as well as from parties like Komeito and the Democratic Party for the People. There are no major allegations against her, despite a funding scandal involving her party and a dispute over her academic qualifications.

    Renho, the main challenger of Koike, represents center-left politics and, with the support of the opposition party, the CDP, is expected to give a tough fight to Koike in the Tokyo election. Renho, born to a Japanese mother and Taiwanese father, was also a television personality like Koike and a former swimsuit model. She entered politics as an upper house member in 2004 and became the first female leader of Japan’s biggest opposition party, the CDP, in 2016. She contested the presidential election as an independent, though with the support of the CDP and the Japanese Communist Party. Renho sparked a minor controversy when she became opposition leader in 2016 by revealing that she still held dual Japanese and Taiwanese nationality, despite earlier insisting that she had become a naturalized Japanese citizen in her teens. Japanese law requires individuals with dual nationality to choose one before they turn 22. Renho later renounced her Taiwanese citizenship.

    The demographic crisis is the biggest topic in the Tokyo election as well as in Japanese politics. Lowering fertility rates and connected issues, ranging from work-life balance to economic decline, have become heated topics in the Tokyo election. Nationwide, the fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime, stands at 1.2 – significantly below the 2.07 needed to maintain a stable population. The situation in Tokyo is even more urgent, with its birth rate at 0.99, the lowest among Japan’s 47 prefectures. The frontrunners have clashed over their plans to raise the birth rate, with Koike promising lower rents for families and free daycare for married couples first children. Renho has said she would pressure companies to improve their employees work-life balance. She aims to make life in Tokyo more appealing and turn it into a destination for Japan’s young people seeking their ideal lifestyle. However, many people are demanding a clear blueprint for tackling these challenges before the July 7 vote.

    The 2024 Tokyo gubernatorial election will feature a total of 56 candidates from across the political spectrum. The previous election, held on July 5, 2020, resulted in the incumbent Yuriko Koike being re-elected for a second term in a landslide, increasing her share of the vote to 59.7%. This result was widely viewed as an endorsement of her handling of Tokyo’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many believe that the 2020 election result was influenced by the pandemic situation and that Koike may not be able to repeat her victory this time. Additionally, the current political climate in the country is not favorable for the LDP. However, The 2024 election, led by two female candidates, is expected to draw significant interest not only from Japan but also from around the world.

  • Is Vietnam Truly Reliable for the West?

    Is Vietnam Truly Reliable for the West?

    Vietnam, the Southeast Asian communist country and birthplace of communist legend Ho Chi Minh, is known for its complex foreign relationships. Despite its communist single-party system and historical ties with the Soviet Union, Vietnam joined the non-aligned movement in 1976. Today, Vietnam is considered a friendly country in Asia by both Europe and the United States, who view it as a potential counterbalance to China in South China Sea disputes. Vietnam skillfully maintains good relations with other communist nations while being seen as a potential ally of the West in the region, engaging in significant diplomatic discussions and attracting European investments. However, Vietnam’s policy of non-alignment still causes confusion, especially following recent receptions of Western pariah Vladimir Putin and its ongoing ties with Russia.

    Vladimir Putin’s visit to Hanoi is aimed at reaffirming Russia’s importance in the region and maintaining its relationship with the country. The Russian president landed at Hanoi airport on Thursday following a significant visit to North Korea. President Putin was greeted on the red carpet by Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Tran Hong Ha and top party diplomat Le Hoai Trung. Russia and Vietnam pledged to enhance their relationship. However, there are no reports that important military trade and aid agreements will be signed as they were in Pyongyang. Speaking to the press in Vietnam after his two-day visit to North Korea, Putin mentioned the possibility of providing high-precision weapons to North Korea and criticized NATO for posing a security threat to Russia in Asia. The increasing U.S. presence in Asia has become a significant concern for Russia. Meanwhile, the United States is forging more relationships in Asia, leading to shifts among traditionally Russian-aligned countries like India and Vietnam toward the West.

    The Vietnamese president, To Lam, had earlier stated that his country and Russia aimed to enhance cooperation in defense and security, addressing non-traditional security challenges based on international law, for Regional and global peace and security. Lam and Putin signed 11 memorandums for cooperation in areas including civil nuclear projects, energy and petroleum cooperation, education, and disease prevention. Putin informed reporters that the talks were constructive and that both sides held “Identical or very close” positions on key international issues. In an opinion piece published in Vietnam’s Communist Party newspaper Nhan Dan to coincide with his visit, Putin listed progress on payments, energy, and trade between the countries, and commended Vietnam for supporting “A pragmatic way to solve the crisis” in Ukraine. 

    The outcoming statements and warm relationships with these two countries cast doubt on recent reports about Vietnam’s shift to the West. When U.S. President Biden visited the country, reports emerged suggesting that Vietnam, facing several disputes with China, was getting closer to the West and would join the bloc of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Australia in opposing China’s dominance in the region. Visits by Vietnamese Communist Party leaders to Western countries and policy changes favoring business and investment have supported this view. However, Vietnam has repeatedly abstained from UN General Assembly votes relating to Russia’s war in Ukraine, despite its strong relationship with Europe. This suggests that while Vietnam may need the economic support of the West, the communist country cannot fully align with the West, positioning itself as a smaller version of China.

    Vietnam’s leadership favors a so-called “Bamboo Diplomacy”, which sways with the winds and avoids picking sides in international disputes, including those involving Ukraine and the rivalry between the US and China. There is no doubt that Russia has a longstanding friendship with Vietnam, as many still remember the support the Soviet Union provided during past wars against the French and the US. The former Soviet Union was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnamese government.

    However, the economy is the most potent weapon in the 21st century. Russia is not a major trade partner for Vietnam, and international sanctions have weakened Russia. The US, UK, and the European Union all announced new sanctions over the past week. Therefore, for the sake of its economy, Vietnam needs to make decisions in favor of the West. Trade between Vietnam and Russia amounted to just $3.5 billion in 2022, compared to Vietnam’s $175 billion trade with China and $123 billion with the US. More than Russia and China, the US is now crucial for Vietnam. A spokesperson for the US embassy in Hanoi warned before Putin’s visit that “No country should give Putin a platform to promote his war of aggression and otherwise allow him to normalize his atrocities”, and highlighted Putin’s international crimes. Although the likelihood of the US taking strong actions against Vietnam is low, given Vietnam’s importance in potential tensions with China, Vietnam, now mimicking China in the early 2000s, will need the economic support of Western countries. However, its communist government may struggle to maintain these relationships in the long term.

  • Is Kazakhstan Imitating Russia by Targeting Critics

    Is Kazakhstan Imitating Russia by Targeting Critics

    Kazakhstan, often referred to as “Junior Russia”, is the second largest republic in the former Soviet Union and remains closely aligned with Russia. Kazakhstan politics are deeply intertwined with Russian politics. While the European  Russosphere countries are increasingly shifting towards the West and adopting an anti-Putin stance, Kazakhstan is not yet ready to feel this wind of change. Until now, Kazakhstan’s politics have been considered flawed, potentially placing it among a list of countries with poor democratic practices. This flawed democracy could also be seen as a binding factor between Russia and Kazakhstan. Politicians of both countries need each other to cover their undemocratic democracies. None of Kazakhstan’s elections have met Western standards for fairness; issues include ballot tampering, multiple voting, harassment of opposition candidates, and press censorship. Similar to Russia, political party winners can often be predicted early, and genuine opposition voices are not tolerated in the country. Wait, it’s all about Kazakhstan, not Russia; the similarities may indeed be genuine.

    Kazakhstan is also known for targeting critics of the regime, similar to Russia. Numerous incidents have been reported, including the recent attempted killing of Aydos Sadykov, a Kazakh opposition figure and prominent blogger with over 1 million subscribers on YouTube. Sadykov, who operates the YouTube channel named “ Base” and was granted asylum in Ukraine in 2014, was shot near his home. He has been wanted in Kazakhstan since last year. Sadykov and his wife jointly run the popular opposition social media channel in Kazakhstan, known for its strong criticism of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.

    According to Natalya Sadykov, while driving into their apartment building’s courtyard on June 18 afternoon, her husband Sadykov was shot by a man wielding a pistol while seated in the driver’s seat of their car. Ukrainian police released a photo of a dark-colored vehicle with a shattered driver’s side window, stating that the search for the attacker was ongoing. Kyiv officials announced the initiation of an investigation, stating: “Preliminary information suggests that an unidentified individual approached the car containing the victim and his wife, fired a gunshot at the man, and then escaped”. Sadykov is currently in hospital in bad condition. They added that law enforcement is taking steps to identify the assailant. Sadykova later mentioned that her husband underwent surgery and remains in serious condition. She requested prayers for his recovery. She also accused President Tokayev of orchestrating the assassination.

    Sadykov was targeted by the Kazakhstani government, akin to Russia’s pursuit of Alexey Navalny. Last October, Kazakh authorities placed the Sadykovs on a wanted list, accusing them of engaging in criminally unlawful conduct by “Inciting Social Hatred”, a charge often expected from such regimes. Kazakhstan’s President Tokayev condemned the attack on June 19, describing it as a “Serious Incident”. He emphasized that all societal conflicts and disagreements should be resolved lawfully and in accordance with international norms. Tokayev also expressed Kazakhstan’s readiness to assist Ukraine in identifying the perpetrators.

    Political analysts in Kazakhstan have offered differing views on the motives and consequences of the attempted murder. Dimash Alzhanov, a political scientist known for his critical stance against the government, suggested that news of the attack sends a significant signal to Kazakhstani society. He warned that such actions could backfire, exacerbating societal anger and deepening divisions. Alzhanov emphasized the importance of constructive dialogue over destructive tactics.

    Kazakhstan is actively working to improve its image in international communities and position itself as a hub for business, while also enhancing relationships with various countries. However, repeated incidents like these could tarnish its image and potentially lead to sanctions similar to those imposed on Russia. Despite recent efforts to open up internationally, Kazakhstan’s domestic politics have seen little change. These inconsistencies may hinder cooperation with the West.