Author: Caracal

  • Can Turkey Mend Its Fractured Ties with the Kurds?

    Can Turkey Mend Its Fractured Ties with the Kurds?

    Turkey played a key role in ousting the Assad regime from Damascus, earning international praise for its support of HTS and its involvement in ending Syria’s 13-year civil war. This victory marked Turkey’s return to regional politics, an arena once dominated by Israel, Iran, and the Gulf states. For Erdoğan, whose aspirations have long aligned with neo-Ottoman ideals, this achievement was a significant triumph. However, at home, Erdoğan has faced increasing challenges, particularly after setbacks in the recent local elections. Eager to restore his standing, he seeks to present a major accomplishment. As military operations in Syria bolster his narrative, Erdoğan now focuses on resolving Turkey’s long-standing Kurdish conflict, which, if addressed, could strengthen Erdoğan’s domestic position.

    Turkey is actively working to improve relations with its Kurdish population. Three months ago, Erdoğan’s coalition partner, Devlet Bahceli, leader of the ultranationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), launched a reconciliation process between the Turkish government and the Kurds. The MHP has long been linked to violent paramilitaries and organized crime, earning a reputation as neo-fascist. In October, Bahceli showed a significant political shift when he reached out to politicians from the People’s Equality and Democracy Party (DEM), a group he had previously condemned as an extension of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and called for its ban. This move signals a significant shift,  suggesting that Erdoğan plans to resolve long standing issues by bridging two previously opposing forces. Reflecting on his government’s future agenda, President Erdoğan emphasized that decisive steps would be taken to achieve a vision of a terror-free Turkey and region.

    For decades, Turkey and the Kurds have been locked in a violent history marked by bloodshed, with both sides accusing each other of terrorism. At the heart of the conflict lies the PKK, the Kurdish Workers’ Party, which initially sought independence from Turkey before turning to violent resistance. The PKK, designated a terrorist organization by multiple Western countries, including the EU and the US, has been in armed conflict with the Turkish state since 1984. The conflict has claimed around 40,000 lives between 1984 and 2009. Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK founder, has been serving a life sentence on Imrali Island near Istanbul since 1999. In a surprising twist, Bahceli, known for his tough stance, recently suggested that Öcalan could be released in exchange for renouncing violence and dissolving the PKK. This came as a shock, given that Bahceli’s party had previously called for reinstating the death penalty, particularly to execute Öcalan.

    Shortly afterward, Bahceli publicly addressed the “Millennial Brotherhood” between Turks and Kurds, clarifying that Turkey’s issue was not with the Kurdish people, but with their separatist terrorist organization. Öcalan responded, asserting that he had the competence and determination to contribute positively to the new paradigm. On December 28, two representatives from the pro-Kurdish DEM visited Öcalan at Imrali prison and expressed optimism about the future. Currently, DEM politicians are engaged in discussions with both Erdoğan’s government and the opposition. Significant developments are unfolding that could potentially bring an end to the decade-long hatred and violence.

    At the same time, across the border in Syria, Turkish-backed militias continue to battle Kurdish YPG fighters, whom Turkey sees as a threat to its territorial integrity. While Turkey regards the YPG as a Syrian offshoot of the PKK, the US supports the Kurdish YPG fighters in Syria, further complicating the region’s balance of power. Meanwhile, Turkey demands that Syria’s transitional government disband the YPG militia, which controls significant parts of northern Syria. However, achieving this is not easy. After years of conflict, the YPG has established itself as a powerful force in northeastern Syria. Regardless of potential agreements with Turkey, it remains highly unlikely that the YPG will disarm. Turkey now fears that Kurdish extremists from its territory could gain a permanent foothold in northeastern Syria under YPG control and continue their operations against Turkey. Many experts believe that Erdoğan’s efforts to bring peace aim to integrate the Kurds within Turkey’s borders while seeking to avoid the rise of pan-Kurdish nationalism.

    While many in Turkey remain hopeful about the possibility of building stronger ties between Turks and Kurds, some view this as little more than election-driven politics rather than a genuine shift in public sentiment. Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) can no longer win elections without the Kurdish vote, which represents 15% to 20% of Turkey’s population. The Erdoğan administration faces a significant political and economic crisis, as evidenced by the spring 2023 local elections. In the current climate, Kurdish voters tend to lean toward opposition candidates, forcing Erdoğan and his party to secure their support to remain in power. Politics can sometimes be a catalyst for peace.

  • Curtains for Imran Khan? Inside Pakistan’s Bid to End His Career

    Curtains for Imran Khan? Inside Pakistan’s Bid to End His Career

    Pakistan’s government, military, and other authorities are actively sidelining the populist former Prime Minister Imran Khan, aiming to remove him from mainstream politics, even as he continues to command significant public support. His popularity exposes the stark contrast between him and the entrenched nepotistic political elite that has long dominated Pakistan’s power structures. Supporters rallying behind Khan and his banned party are disrupting the alliance of the military, political leaders, and elites. In response, the authorities have inundated him with charges and systematically closed all avenues for his return to mainstream politics.

    Imran Khan’s story is fascinating, tracing his journey from a celebrated cricket star to one of the most hunted figures in Pakistan. Once the poster boy of the nation, Khan excelled first as a cricket legend, leading Pakistan to its first World Cup victory as captain, and later as a politician who defied traditional party lines to become Pakistan’s Prime Minister. He led his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), to victory, governing from 2018 to 2022. However, Khan’s tenure ended abruptly after he lost the support of the powerful military and was ousted through a no-confidence vote backed by dynastic and corrupt political rivals.

    Since his removal, authorities have relentlessly pursued him, though his supporters argue that while he is not entirely free from allegations of corruption, the current rulers—embroiled in far greater scandals—are spared such scrutiny. Speculation persists that Khan’s ouster stemmed not only from political reasons but also from tensions with the military, which some allege has ties to Britain and the West. Reports suggest military leaders were displeased with Khan’s deepening relationship with China, fueling friction. Khan publicly accused the army leadership of plotting his assassination, a claim that escalated tensions further.

    As Pakistan, often described as a military-dominated state, grappled with these power struggles, the establishment appeared determined to remove Khan from the political arena altogether, cementing his fall from grace.

    In a significant escalation against Imran Khan, the court sentenced the former prime minister to 14 years in prison on corruption charges on January 17, further compounding his legal troubles. Authorities have already detained Khan for more than 18 months while pursuing over 100 cases against him. The court found Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, guilty of illegally acquiring valuable plots of land worth billions of rupees through a corrupt deal with a property tycoon. In addition to the prison sentence, Khan received a fine of 1 million Pakistani rupees, while Bibi was handed a seven-year sentence.

    The accountability court, specially convened inside Rawalpindi’s Adiala Prison where Khan has been held since his arrest in August 2023, delivered the verdict. Bibi was arrested in the courtroom immediately after the ruling. Khan has consistently claimed that the cases against him are part of a broader “political witch hunt” designed to prevent his return to power.

    Since his arrest, Imran Khan has faced an increasing number of charges, including murder, terrorism, and breaching national security. He was convicted in three cases, including for selling state secrets and an illegal marriage, but those convictions were later overturned or suspended last year. Despite this, Khan has remained in prison.

    On Friday, following the verdict of 14 years in prison, reports emerged that senior PTI members had met with military leadership to discuss a possible compromise. However, speaking outside the court after his conviction, Khan emphasized that he would not engage in any backdoor deals to secure his freedom. He made it clear that he would neither make any deal nor seek any relief, asserting that those who oppose dictatorship are punished.

    Khan seems to be embracing the role of a martyr, gaining considerable support from the public who see him as a symbol of resistance against a failing system. As a result, many people have been rallying in large-scale demonstrations to show their solidarity with him.

    There is no doubt about the widespread corruption in Pakistan, with Imran Khan also being a part of it. However, as he faces punishment, the outcome isn’t sending a clear message against corruption. Instead, it fuels public sympathy for him, underscoring the growing disillusionment with the system. This deep-seated corruption has played a significant role in Pakistan’s struggles as a failed state, with many living in extreme poverty. It seems that the public increasingly views Imran Khan as a symbol of resistance. 

    Once heralded as the heir to the prosperous Mughal Empire, Pakistan now finds itself grappling with a severe crisis caused by its broken system. In this context, Imran Khan has become a symbol of the people’s hatred toward the political establishment. The authorities, fearing the growing public support for Khan, are determined to stop him at any cost.

  • At Last, a Ceasefire—Will it Last?

    At Last, a Ceasefire—Will it Last?

    After much uncertainty, Israel and Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire, offering hope to the people of Gaza, the relatives of hostages taken by Hamas, advocates of peace and humanity, and the incoming U.S. President, Donald Trump. Weeks of rumors about efforts to broker a truce, primarily driven by Trump’s team, culminated in Qatar’s prime minister announcing on Thursday that the parties had reached an agreement. However, Israel’s delayed announcement caused confusion, raising fears of a breakdown reminiscent of past failures. Finally, Israel ratified the ceasefire deal to exchange dozens of hostages held by Hamas for Palestinians imprisoned in Israel and to pause the 15-month war in Gaza for an initial six weeks. Approved in a cabinet meeting early Saturday morning, the agreement specifies that the ceasefire will take effect on Sunday. Despite this progress, doubts persist about the durability of the ceasefire.

    Israel’s military actions in Gaza, following Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack, have claimed nearly 50,000 lives. This figure remains uncertain due to the absence of unbiased sources, but the devastating impact is clear. Hamas launched a brutal assault, and Israel responded with fierce retaliation that left Gaza in ruins. Now, the conflict appears to be nearing a pause. Israel’s security cabinet approved a ceasefire agreement despite an unexpected delay on Friday. Far-right members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government threatened to oppose the agreement or resign, risking months of efforts to halt the violence. After a six-hour cabinet meeting extending well past the start of the Jewish sabbath, the government announced the agreement’s approval just after 1 a.m. Jerusalem time on Saturday, underscoring the critical importance of this moment.

    In a separate meeting in Cairo, negotiators from Egypt, Qatar, the U.S., and Israel finalized all necessary arrangements to implement the Gaza truce deal, as reported by Egyptian state-linked media. However, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu’s hardline national security minister, who had earlier threatened to quit the government if it ratified the ceasefire deal—potentially collapsing the ruling coalition—issued a last-minute plea for other parliamentarians to vote against it. He claimed that the terrorists would inevitably try to harm and kill again. According to Israeli media, Ben-Gvir and far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich opposed the deal, while other ministers voted in favor. David Amsalem, a minister not part of the security cabinet’s voting plenary, also expressed opposition during the vote.

    Under the first phase of the agreement, which will last 42 days, Hamas will release 33 hostages, including children, women , and men over the age of 50, who were captured during their October 7th raid that killed around 1,200 Israelis. In exchange, Israel will release hundreds of Palestinians linked to Hamas currently held in Israeli jails. About 100 of the Palestinians scheduled for release are serving life sentences for violent attacks on Israelis, including a minor detained for a 2023 shooting attack in Jerusalem that injured an Israeli soldier. The agreement also includes an exchange of bodies of deceased hostages and Hamas members and outlines the launch of a reconstruction plan for Gaza.

    The future governance of Gaza remains an unsettled and fraught question. The Biden administration, along with much of the international community, has championed the idea of reinstating the Palestinian Authority—based in the semi-autonomous West Bank, and ousted from Gaza by Hamas during a brief civil war in 2007—as the governing entity for the strip. This proposal, however, faces staunch opposition from Israel, which has consistently dismissed the suggestion. The result is a murky outlook for Gaza’s political trajectory, emblematic of the broader challenges in untangling the region’s layered crises.

    As both parties frequently reach and break ceasefire agreements, the longevity of the current truce remains uncertain. It is evident that peaceful coexistence is unlikely, as Hamas, rooted in an ideology that considers the destruction of the Jewish state an Islamic duty, fuels hostility among the population in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli politics revolve around security concerns, making future ceasefire violations almost inevitable.

    Much of the situation depends on Netanyahu’s leadership. While the ceasefire may enhance his standing internationally and among the families of released hostages, it has left others deeply dissatisfied. This tension threatens to destabilize Netanyahu’s administration and pave the way for an even more hardline government, aligned with global trends toward the far right, which could adopt harsher measures in Gaza.

    Currently, neither Hamas nor its primary backer, Iran, can effectively escalate their campaigns against Israel. Both have been severely weakened by the ongoing conflict, and their former levels of international support, aside from some backing from staunch Islamist factions and liberal voices, have waned. As a result, any attacks for Palestine risk further marginalization in the global arena.

    The most significant hope for a lasting ceasefire may rest with Donald Trump, who has interests in the region and has previously succeeded in fostering alliances between Israel and several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. His efforts to strengthen ties with Gulf nations and apply greater pressure on Iran could potentially reshape the region’s dynamics, enhancing Israel’s security and providing relatively safer borders. Israel already maintains strong relationships with its neighboring countries—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. While Syria under Bashar al-Assad once posed challenges, the current Turkey-aligned government in charge appears less hostile toward Israel. Meanwhile, Lebanon now features a pro-Western president who aims to curtail Hezbollah’s influence. As a result, Israel’s primary security concern has been largely reduced to Gaza.

    Though its endurance remains uncertain, the agreement has briefly interrupted the persistent violence, providing a fleeting but hopeful prospect for lasting peace in a region long plagued by conflict. For now, Israel, Qatar, and the United States deserve credit for facilitating an accord that prevents further bloodshed in Gaza—though, as with all previous truces, its durability remains a matter of considerable doubt

  • Armenia Deepens Its Ties with the West

    Armenia Deepens Its Ties with the West

    Amid the complex geopolitical tensions in the Caucasus, Armenia, traditionally aligned with both Russia and Iran, is shifting its focus firmly toward the West. As the world’s oldest Christian nation, Armenia is now resolute in its efforts to sever long-standing ties with Moscow and navigate the hurdles of Turkish blockades to move closer to Europe and Western powers.

    In recent days, Armenia has taken important steps to strengthen its growing relationship with the United States and the European Union. On January 14, US and Armenian diplomats signed a strategic partnership agreement, laying the foundation for deeper trade, political, and strategic ties. A few days earlier, Armenia passed key legislation aimed at advancing its bid for European Union membership. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan called the EU Integration Act, adopted on January 9, a historic milestone but emphasized that the path to EU membership would be long and challenging, requiring sustained political will and broad public support. He later clarified that the adoption of the law does not automatically mean Armenia is joining the EU, as that decision can only be made through a referendum, not by legislation or a government decree.

    On January 13, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan held talks with European Council President António Costa, focusing on the fragile peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Efforts toward a long-term resolution to their protracted conflict faced a setback when Baku revived its demand for extraterritorial rights, seeking a land corridor to connect Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave. This renewed demand poses a risk of further territorial losses and humiliation for Armenia, already struggling with significant setbacks, and is escalating hostilities toward Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Russia. In a social media post, Costa reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to strengthening its partnership with Armenia, highlighting their shared values and outlining initiatives to deepen cooperation in areas such as security, economic growth, democratic governance, and people-to-people ties.

    Throughout the post-Soviet era, Armenia had heavily relied on Russia for economic and strategic support. Traditionally, it was considered firmly within Moscow’s orbit as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). However, after suffering a decisive defeat in Karabakh, Pashinyan’s government began reassessing the value of its relationship with Russia. For Armenia, it became evident that Russia preferred Azerbaijan, largely due to shared economic activities and mutual interests, which proved deeply unsettling. This alignment comes at a time when Armenia is already uneasy about the growing influence of the Turkic world, with Turkey to its west and Azerbaijan to its east promoting a unified Islamic Turkic identity that makes Armenia feel isolated. With Russia aligning itself more closely with this bloc, Armenia finds itself cornered, prompting what appears to be a tentative outreach to Europe.

    Armenia’s geopolitical challenges are compounded by its lack of direct geographical connectivity to Europe. Unlike Georgia, which enjoys access to the Black Sea, Armenia is landlocked, making its path to stronger ties with Europe particularly difficult. Georgia’s political gridlock, with its government leaning toward Russia, further isolates Armenia from Europe, creating significant logistical and security hurdles for both Armenia and the EU. Despite these challenges, Armenians appear confident in addressing these obstacles. Some observers suggest that Europe may have broader strategic motives for fostering closer ties with Armenia. By strengthening its relationship with Yerevan, Europe could be positioning itself to exert influence on neighboring Iran, where discontent with the Islamic regime persists among segments of the population who take pride in their rich Persian heritage. For Europe, Iran’s cultural and historical legacy remains appealing, making such a shift strategically enticing.

    The Kremlin has responded to Armenia’s recent moves with a mix of irritation and indifference. On January 14, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reiterated that Russia continues to view Armenia as a close partner. At the same time, he criticized the United States for allegedly instigating instability in the Caucasus, claiming that Washington seeks to undermine emerging nations and has never contributed to stability in the region.

    Armenia’s adoption of the EU Integration Act has raised immediate questions about its future in the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). While Armenian officials have suspended the country’s membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), they insist there are no plans to leave the EAEU. Russian officials, however, have firmly stated that dual alignment with both the EAEU and the European Union is untenable. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk clarified that the two unions are fundamentally incompatible because both demand the elimination of customs barriers and the unrestricted movement of goods, services, capital, and labor. He described EAEU membership as a privilege and likened EU membership to a doomed endeavor, drawing a comparison to boarding the Titanic because of the economic and social challenges within the EU. Overchuk further predicted that Armenians would face substantially higher costs for consumer goods and energy if the country were to leave the EAEU. Which is a decent threat targeting common people. 

    The EU Integration Act represents a milestone for Yerevan, marking what feels like the conclusion of the opening chapter in its long and complex journey toward full membership. Yet, this moment is less a victory than a harbinger of the monumental challenges that lie ahead. Beyond the Herculean task of aligning Armenian legislation with the rigorous standards of the European Union, the nation faces the equally daunting imperative of brokering peace with Azerbaijan—a prerequisite for any substantive progress.

    In recent months, the prospects of a durable peace agreement have grown increasingly tenuous. However, the dynamics of the Caucasus have long been characterized by their mercurial nature, where stasis can suddenly give way to opportunity. Take, for instance, the undercurrent of tension between Azerbaijan and Russia, fueled by the Kremlin’s refusal to assume responsibility for the downing of an Azerbaijani airliner by its air defenses in Chechnya. Should this rift deepen, Baku might find itself recalibrating its hardline stance toward Armenia, offering a glimmer of hope for the peace process to regain momentum.

  • Yoon Suk Yeol Finally Arrested: What Happens Next?

    Yoon Suk Yeol Finally Arrested: What Happens Next?

    After weeks of high drama, authorities arrested Yoon Suk Yeol, making him the first sitting president in the country’s history to face arrest. His detention, carried out by the Corruption Investigation Office, came after weeks of legal maneuvers and logistical challenges. Yoon was accused of insurrection linked to his brief declaration of martial law in early December. The standoff between the police and the president’s security service heightened the intensity of the saga. In early January, Yoon’s security team confronted police and prosecutors attempting to execute an initial arrest warrant, forcing them to retreat and secure a second warrant. Undeterred by this setback, police returned on Wednesday with an estimated 3,000 officers and successfully executed the second warrant, taking Yoon into custody. Public protests further fueled the tension, with demonstrators both supporting and opposing Yoon. Notably, opposition voices outweighed those of his supporters.

    Yoon Suk Yeol can be held for up to 48 hours for questioning under the existing arrest warrant, according to media reports. After this period, authorities must decide whether to release him or seek a fresh warrant, allowing for an additional 20 days of detention. While serious allegations have been made against Yoon, he has not yet been formally charged. Inciting insurrection is one of the few crimes for which South Korean presidents have no immunity. If convicted, he could face a heavy fine, imprisonment, or even the death penalty, though South Korea has had a moratorium on executions for years. Unsurprisingly, His legal team has condemned his detention as illegal.

    While Yoon undergoes questioning in the criminal case, South Korea’s constitutional court is reviewing whether to uphold the mid-December parliamentary vote to impeach him or dismiss it, allowing him to return to office and complete his five-year term. The court has 180 days from December 14 to make a decision, and analysts do not expect the eight justices to reach a quick conclusion, given the gravity of the political crisis South Korea has faced over the past five weeks. The court’s decision must be unanimous; otherwise, it will save Yoon’s presidency.

    The dual political and criminal cases against Yoon will unfold in the coming weeks and months, though the ultimate outcome remains uncertain. In the worst-case scenario for Yoon, he could face a criminal trial on insurrection charges and be ousted from office by the constitutional court.

    Yoon Suk Yeol’s arrest doesn’t mark the end of the turbulent period in South Korean politics that began with his declaration of martial law; rather, it elevates the political feud in the country. Despite his controversial actions, the president who declared martial law still retains support from his party and a segment of the population, highlighting the deep divisions within South Korean politics. They believe that Yoon is being targeted by left-wing politicians, with North Korea supposedly behind the move, and numerous conspiracy theories have emerged. On the other hand, the opposition believes Yoon is playing dangerous politics that could severely harm the country’s already divided political landscape.

    Nevertheless, the arrest, after numerous hurdles, signals the conclusion of a pivotal phase in efforts to hold the authoritarian-leaning president accountable. It can be seen as a success for the country’s democracy, as it is spared from further disgrace. It also marks a victory for the opposition, who pushed for the arrest. When Yoon ordered armed troops to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly, MPs, led by the main opposition Democratic Party, confronted the troops and voted to overturn the decree, forcing Yoon to rescind it just six hours later. And definitely, This is a win for the people who protested in large numbers in the streets, even amid harsh winter conditions.

  • Malaysia and Singapore Reunite After 60 Years with New Economic Zone

    Malaysia and Singapore Reunite After 60 Years with New Economic Zone

    On the 60th anniversary of Singapore gaining independence from Malaysia, or Malaysia expelling Singapore, the two nations are uniting once again by launching a bold initiative that brings them together. Last week, Malaysia and Singapore signed an agreement to establish the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) in Malaysia’s southern Johor state, just north of Singapore. The project is more than a symbol of reconciliation decades after their split; it aims to transform their bilateral relationship by fostering cross-border investment, facilitating the movement of goods and people, and leveraging each country’s unique strengths to deepen economic integration.

    As Asia’s business significance grows for Western nations, Singapore emerges as the most viable option, particularly with Hong Kong now fully under China’s control. Meanwhile, both China and India have risen as global powerhouses but remain entangled in unresolved political disputes. Businesses from both countries may view Singapore as a neutral venue for collaboration. These factors create a favorable investment climate for both Singapore and Malaysia. While Singapore faces challenges with limited space and rising costs, Malaysia offers its land and infrastructure to complement Singapore’s global appeal. Together, the two nations are poised to achieve a significant economic boost through the new special economic zone. Proposals for the JS-SEZ include a passport-free immigration clearance system, collaboration on renewable energy, and streamlined business approvals.

    Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong emphasized that the JS-SEZ will create high-quality jobs for citizens of both nations and attract significant international investment. He highlighted that both governments have worked closely with stakeholders to establish conditions that support long-term business growth, underscoring the value of collaboration in securing global investments. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim described the initiative as a groundbreaking effort that enables both countries to leverage their strengths and deepen ties in a world increasingly divided by geopolitical tensions. Johor’s Chief Minister, Onn Hafiz Ghazi, stressed the importance of capitalizing on the opportunities provided by the agreement, noting that the benefits of the JS-SEZ would extend beyond Johor Bahru, driving economic growth and boosting tourism across the state.

    In the long run, the zone is expected to attract diverse investments, with developed nations and China continuing as key sources of FDI in ASEAN. In the short term, Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, has gained from the “China Plus One” strategies employed by global companies, which shift some production from China to other emerging markets. However, the long-term viability of these advantages depends on major powers maintaining a cooperative stance toward smaller and middle powers engaging with their rivals. If this cooperation declines, FDI may face notable setbacks, particularly in the short to medium term.

    Singapore and Malaysia appear poised for closer cooperation with ambitious projects in the future. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar have invited proposals for a high-speed rail connection between the two countries. Anwar emphasized that the project should be led by the private sector with minimal government involvement, a stark contrast to the earlier plan that was scrapped in 2021 due to disagreements. It is ironic that, 60 years after their separation, both nations are now taking significant steps to strengthen their relationship.

    This collaboration reflects a forward-thinking vision for the region. As China and India reestablish themselves as global economic powerhouses in the 21st century, both are poised to compete for soft power and investment opportunities in Southeast Asia, a region historically tied to their influence. Malaysia and Singapore, with their strategic location and strong relationships with both superpowers, are well-positioned to draw Western investments. By offering a streamlined and business-friendly environment, they present an appealing alternative to the complexities businesses often encounter in China and India.

  • Uneasy Allies: The Quiet Growth of India’s Ties with Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan

    Uneasy Allies: The Quiet Growth of India’s Ties with Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan

    Afghanistan has always been immensely important to Indian rulers, serving as a gateway to the Persian-Turkic world. After gaining independence in 1947, India recognized Afghanistan’s strategic value as a counterweight to Pakistan’s hostility. India invested heavily in Afghanistan’s development and actively participated in its social, economic, and cultural spheres. During Afghanistan’s short-lived democratic period, following the United States overthrow of the first Taliban emirate, India and Afghanistan forged their strongest ties, with Indian investments and relations reaching unprecedented heights.

    However, the Taliban, an Islamic extremist organization, has consistently opposed India and its involvement in Afghanistan. When the Taliban first seized control in 1996 and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with support from Pakistan and the United States, they pushed India to the margins. Their rigid Islamic ideology, including calls for the Islamization of India, directly threatened Indian interests too. The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 raised immediate concerns about India’s diminishing influence in Afghanistan, jeopardizing its strategic presence in the region.

    Though In recent years, a significant shift has unfolded. The current Taliban leadership has grown increasingly at odds with its longtime ally, Pakistan, leading to escalating tensions that risk boiling over into open conflict. This rift presents an unexpected opportunity for India, under a Hindu nationalist government, to pursue strategic engagement with the Taliban despite the stark ideological differences. What once seemed an improbable partnership has begun to take shape, with recent developments pointing to a surprising and growing rapprochement between India and the Taliban.

    As much of the international community maintains its distance from the Taliban’s repressive rule, India has quietly intensified its outreach. On Wednesday, in Dubai, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri sat down with Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Taliban’s acting foreign minister, marking the highest-level official meeting between India and the Taliban since the latter’s takeover of Kabul in August 2021.

    The discussions, as outlined by Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, touched upon a range of pressing issues: the evolving security situation within Afghanistan, India’s role in supporting humanitarian efforts and development initiatives, and the use of Iran’s Chabahar Port to open trade routes to the beleaguered nation. The Taliban’s statement, framed within the context of what it termed a “Balanced” foreign policy focused on economic priorities, pointed to its aim of deepening political and economic ties with India—an acknowledgment of India’s growing importance as both a regional and economic player in this complicated geopolitical landscape.

    India has also expressed its support for the burgeoning relationship. After the meeting, India’s Foreign Office stated that in response to a request from the Afghan side, India would provide additional material assistance, initially focusing on the health sector and refugee rehabilitation. The two sides also discussed strengthening cooperation in sports, particularly in cricket.

    The Taliban, for its part, is in desperate need of financial support. The United States has fully disengaged from Afghanistan, the Gulf countries have limited capacity without U.S. backing, and Russia is now weak, leaving China and India as the primary players. Afghanistan, rich in minerals and strategically located, makes it a target for both countries. India, driven by its desire to not only challenge Pakistan but also compete with China, seeks to reassert itself in a key regional theater.

    The recent meeting between India’s Foreign Secretary and Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister is part of a series of ongoing talks between the two countries. In November, senior Indian Foreign Ministry official JP Singh held multiple meetings with Taliban representatives, including a notable discussion with Acting Defense Minister Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob. Earlier, in June 2022, India sent a “Technical Team” to Kabul to oversee the delivery of humanitarian aid and assess how New Delhi could further assist the Afghan people. Since the opening of the technical mission, the Taliban has repeatedly sought to station its own representative in Delhi. In response, India has allowed a Taliban representative, Ikramuddin Kamil, to work at the Afghan consulate in Mumbai.

    No nation has yet reached the point of formally recognizing the Taliban regime, especially given its ongoing brutal suppression of women. This meeting, however, will likely be seen as highly favorable by the Taliban, which is currently facing military pressure and additional stress from Pakistan. As an old Indian proverb goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Despite the stark ideological differences between the two countries, Afghanistan has effectively become a de facto ally for India.

  • With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    With the New President, Can Lebanon Chart a Course Toward the West?

    Lebanon, grappling with political, economic, and social unrest, seems to be shifting away from Iran’s influence by electing a new president who is supported by the West and advocates for a stronger Lebanon. The country’s parliament has chosen Army Commander Joseph Aoun as the new president, ending a two-year vacancy and raising hopes for the long-term stability of a ceasefire with Israel. Aoun received 99 out of 128 votes in the parliament’s 13th attempt to select a new head of state, succeeding former President Michel Aoun—who is unrelated to Joseph Aoun—after his departure in October 2022.

    Lebanon’s political system often undermines democratic principles, with a convoluted structure built around a confessionalist framework that allocates key political positions to religious communities through quotas. The system requires the president to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister to come from the Sunni branch of Islam, and the speaker of Parliament to be from the Shia branch of Islam—reflecting a fragile power-sharing arrangement. Political appointments, from the presidency to parliamentary seats, strictly follow sectarian divisions. The parliament elects the president for a single six-year term, and the president works with lawmakers to appoint the prime minister, adhering to the same quota system. Sectarian interests dominate political parties, complicating governance and eroding democratic values. This flawed structure has led to Lebanon’s mismanagement, resulting in one of the most severe economic and sociological crises in modern history. According to the United Nations, over 80%—or four out of five—of Lebanon’s population now lives in poverty.

    While the presidency in Lebanon holds limited authority, the election of Joseph Aoun hints at a significant shift in the country’s political trajectory. Aoun, who has built strong ties with international powers like Saudi Arabia, France, and the United States during his time as the head of Lebanon’s armed forces, reflects a broader trend of Lebanon leaning westward and distancing itself from Iran’s influence.

    Iran’s sway has been steadily diminishing, a process notably accelerated by the 2022 parliamentary elections. In those elections, the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement and its allies lost their majority in parliament, signaling a notable decline in Tehran’s grip on the country. At the same time, Hezbollah’s Christian ally, the Free Patriotic Movement of outgoing President Michel Aoun, was overtaken as the dominant Christian faction by the Lebanese Forces, a party led by Samir Geagea, who shares close ties with Saudi Arabia.

    The evolution in Lebanon’s politics mirrors the broader regional shifts, particularly Turkey’s efforts to limit Iran’s influence in Syria. Now, with Saudi Arabia—another U.S. ally—on the scene, it seems likely that the Kingdom will play a central role in weakening Iran’s hold over Lebanon, marking a strategic recalibration in the delicate balance of power.

    International leaders, particularly from the West, expressed optimism over the election of Lebanon’s new president, Joseph Aoun. A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the election as an important step toward resolving Lebanon’s long-standing political and institutional impasse, which had persisted for over two years due to the presidential vacancy. U.S. President Joe Biden praised Aoun as a suitable leader for the current challenges facing Lebanon.

    Aoun’s primary focus will be on strengthening the Lebanese army, especially in southern Lebanon, where its authority has been challenged since the late 1970s by groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hezbollah. His efforts are expected to be bolstered by assistance from Saudi Arabia, the United States, and France, and Israel is likely to view these developments positively as they improve security along its northern border. After his election, Aoun addressed parliament, emphasizing the state’s right to control the possession of weapons and highlighting the importance of the army in safeguarding Lebanon’s borders.

    The 2004 UN resolution required all armed groups in Lebanon to disarm, but Hezbollah has refused to comply, insisting it is the only force capable of defending Lebanon from Israel. However, he has an opportunity to act as Hezbollah grapples with mounting difficulties, including Iran’s waning regional influence and reduced support from Syria. During Lebanon’s prolonged leadership vacuum, Hezbollah exploited the instability to tighten its grip on southern Lebanon and engage in skirmishes with Israel. By reinforcing the army, Aoun can directly counter Hezbollah’s dominance in the region.

    Hope is on the rise in Lebanon with the election of a new, Western-backed president and the diminishing influence of both Hezbollah and Iran. Now, the country stands at a pivotal moment to rebuild and strengthen its institutions. However, this task will not be simple, as Lebanon’s deep-rooted divisions remain a significant obstacle. Yet, with strong leadership, support from global powers, and a weakened opposition, the Lebanese president is presented with a better opportunity. Though President Aoun faces limitations due to Lebanon’s unique constitution, his six-year term gives him a critical platform to shape the nation’s future. He will also play a vital role in the 2026 parliamentary elections—or potentially in a snap election—that could break the long-standing political deadlock. This moment marks a potential shift toward the West, signaling that Lebanon is indeed charting a new course in its international orientation.

  • Is Trump Pushing for a Gaza Ceasefire?

    Is Trump Pushing for a Gaza Ceasefire?

    The Gaza war, specifically Israel’s military action against Hamas, has evolved, as expected, from a regional conflict into a global issue. People have rallied around religious solidarities across countries, deepening divisions in many societies. In retaliation for the brutal killing of 1,200 Israelis, Israel has now killed over 45,000 people in Gaza and continues its operations with the aim of preventing future terrorist attacks from the region. Though a ceasefire is essential to help those suffering in this punishing war, the Gaza ceasefire remains nothing more than a plea. Despite ongoing discussions over the past 15 months of conflict, no agreement has been reached.

    As Donald Trump prepares to begin his second term as U.S. president on January 20, there is a sense of optimism surrounding his strong relationships with Middle Eastern leaders and his bold, hero-like persona. He is positioned to prioritize the Gaza ceasefire, focusing on securing it as soon as possible. His administration is likely to build on the efforts of outgoing President Joe Biden, whose peace initiatives were thwarted by the competing demands of various stakeholders. Known for his deal-making prowess, Trump now has a significant opportunity to act swiftly in his presidency. Successfully mediating peace could satisfy global calls for resolution and cement his reputation as a decisive and effective leader.

    Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Middle East envoy appointed by President-elect Donald Trump, is leading efforts to broker a Gaza ceasefire. He met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday to push forward with negotiations for a hostage deal and a ceasefire, according to an Israeli official cited by The Guardian. Before meeting Netanyahu, Witkoff met Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on Friday to discuss recent developments and the push for a Gaza ceasefire, as outlined by the Qatari foreign ministry. Qatar plays a pivotal role as a mediator, maintaining connections with various Islamist groups, including those linked to Iran. After his visit to Qatar, Witkoff, who reassured that the U.S. remains committed to a swift resolution, flew to Israel to meet with Netanyahu and accelerate the talks. Trump’s administration aims to engage all its allies to advance peace and strengthen regional ties.

    The main obstacle now lies in the status of the hostages taken by Hamas during the October 7th raid on Israel and their release. Israel has previously stated that it would only engage in peace talks after the release of all hostages, but Hamas has shown no willingness to comply. Following the discussions with Witkoff, Netanyahu’s office announced that the prime minister would send Mossad chief David Barnea to Qatar’s capital to continue pushing for a deal to release the hostages. It remains unclear when Barnea will travel to Doha, but the U.S. is pressing for an agreement before Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Barnea’s involvement indicates that high-level Israeli officials, who must approve any deal, are now directly involved in the process.

    Several rounds of negotiations, mediated by the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar, have failed to yield a lasting ceasefire. Despite officials’ repeated optimism that a breakthrough was imminent, talks have consistently stalled. Over the course of 15 months of war, only one brief ceasefire was achieved during the early stages of fighting, with no substantial agreement since. However, political dynamics have shifted. The initial fury over Hamas’ terrorist actions in Israel has lessened, and the focus has now shifted to the hostages. In recent weeks, the hostage issue and a potential ceasefire have dominated discussions in Israeli media. There are growing doubts that Netanyahu is using the war to prolong his political tenure while also leveraging Trump’s influence. On Hamas’ side, while initial celebrations of their actions in Gaza were widespread, the consequences are now clear, and many have grown disillusioned with the group. The Islamists and their media may still support Hamas, but the wider public recognizes its failed strategy. Hezbollah, and Iran—Hamas’ major supporter—are all reeling from significant setbacks. 

    The call for an end to the war is intensifying, with Trump positioning himself to play a crucial role in negotiations. While any ceasefire agreement he brokers is likely to favor Israel, all parties now need an end. During his previous term, the historic Abraham Accords happened, and his efforts to strengthen relations with Israel and other Middle Eastern nations are viewed as positive moves toward peace. While some of his supporters advocate for a Nobel Prize for him. If Trump succeeds in brokering a Gaza ceasefire, he will further solidify his reputation as a key peace broker, and it truly deserves the Nobel Prize.

  • How South Korea’s Political Crisis Is Troubling Its Economy

    How South Korea’s Political Crisis Is Troubling Its Economy

    Amid the growing challenges faced by Asian economic powerhouses, South Korea is mired in political unrest and ongoing protests, with its economy suffering the consequences. The political crisis has already unsettled the nation’s economic foundations—stock markets are volatile, the South Korean won continues to weaken, and foreign investors are seeking more stable markets. Deep-seated political divisions, marked by intense rivalries and a fragmented parliament without a clear majority, have stalled efforts to craft effective policies to address the economic damage. Instead of tackling these pressing concerns, South Korea’s political leaders remain absorbed in escalating tensions and deepening divisions, leaving the country vulnerable to further economic instability.

    South Korea, one of the United States’ closest allies and Asia’s fourth-largest economy, faces mounting challenges with the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency. His ‘America First’ agenda and economic policies pose significant threats to South Korea. During his previous term, Trump labeled South Korea a ‘money machine,’ suggesting demands for Seoul to pay billions more to host U.S. troops—a substantial financial burden. He also pledged sweeping tariffs as part of his agenda. These measures would heavily impact South Korean exports and potentially cause a global economic ripple effect.

    Trump’s focus on reducing U.S. bilateral trade deficits places South Korea at risk, as the country holds one of the largest trade surpluses with the U.S. Combined with domestic political instability, these external pressures contribute to an increasingly precarious economic outlook. South Korea’s currency, the won, which was already weak against the dollar, has further depreciated due to ongoing political unrest. The absence of clear leadership is creating uncertainty for businesses, making it difficult for them to plan for the year ahead and further deepening the nation’s economic challenges.

    A recent poll by the Bank of Korea found that business sentiment has hit its lowest level in four years. The Composite Business Sentiment Index fell by 4.5 points from November, marking the lowest reading since September 2020, when the economy was reeling from the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a separate report, the central bank projected that South Korea’s economic growth in 2025 will fall below 2%, driven by weak export performance and declining consumer spending. The report further cautioned that growth could worsen if global trade tensions continue to escalate.

    South Korea stands at a critical crossroads, where both politicians and economists should be working together to address the country’s faltering economy. Yet, neither side seems able to take meaningful action. Instead, the nation is mired in a deepening political crisis, leaving little room for economic solutions. President Yoon’s efforts to evade arrest following his declaration of martial law and reclaim the presidency are only likely to escalate the turmoil, stoking anger among large segments of the public. Meanwhile, his weakened position in a legislature dominated by the opposition jeopardizes even the most fundamental tasks.

    Another possible outcome is the call for a new presidential election. The main opposition party, the Democratic Party, which holds a parliamentary majority and won the last election, is pushing for this. They are likely to emerge victorious once again. Should this occur, it could bring the political stability South Korea desperately needs, aligning the presidency and parliamentary majority under the same party—a critical step in steering the country out of its current crisis. While the toxic political climate will remain, this may be the only viable path to resolving the quagmire South Korea now faces.