Category: Asia

  • How Does India-China Tension Benefit Nepal?

    How Does India-China Tension Benefit Nepal?

    Geopolitical tensions between superpowers always cause damage to their smaller neighbors. In the world wars and during the cold war era, the small neighbors of superpowers suffered greatly; often, they were dragged in without any direct interest in the conflicts. The domestic politics of these countries are always influenced by their neighbors. Any attempt to change puppet governments often leads to severe punishments for the people. While there are many adverse effects of this power struggle, there are also some benefits to consider. We can see this in the flow of funds from super powers to strategically located poor countries. For example, the Maldives is receiving a large sum of money from China, Taiwan is receiving considerable aid from the United States, and some countries are benefiting from both sides due to their strategic location. Nepal, the landlocked Himalayan country sandwiched between the heavyweights of India and China, is one such country. The country, home to Mount Everest, is dragged into India-China tensions, and these countries are investing in infrastructure projects, politicians, and even cultural organizations.

    Nepal has seen a significant influx of foreign investment in recent years. Most recently, during a two-day investment summit in Kathmandu, which concluded on Monday, representatives from India and China actively announced investments seeking to forge closer ties with Nepal and enhance their countries’ economic presence in South Asia. At the summit, potential investors pledged to inject up to US$68.3 million into the country. It is huge for a politically unstable country. Nepal is currently undergoing a transition from a centralized monarchy to a federal democratic republic under its 2015’s Constitution. Additionally, it aims to shift from reliance on international aid towards becoming a hub for global investments. Nepal Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal emphasizes that liberal economic policies lay the foundation for a vibrant and investor-friendly business environment. Although India’s and China’s interests were evident in the resulting deals announced.

    Delegates from India and China constituted the largest contingent among the 2,400 representatives from various countries attending the summit. While India dispatched around 150 participants, China’s delegation was twice as large. During the summit’s opening on Sunday, Beijing announced the exemption of visa fees for Nepali travelers starting May 1. This initiative coincides with the commencement of commercial flights from two international airports in Nepali cities Pokhara and Lumbini. Previously, the Himalayan route to China was inaccessible to Nepalis due to the government’s support for Tibetans, and the open border between India and Nepal caused concerns for China. However, recent developments suggest cooperation between Nepal and China to establish more routes through these challenging terrains. Progress is evident in air and road links, as well as border checkpoints. Feasibility studies for cross-border railways and transmission lines are also advancing.

    The airports, funded by China in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have been completed. In contrast, India has been cautious about opening air routes to Nepal, partly due to concerns over these airports’ connection to Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. While additional projects are planned, there are concerns that they may further facilitate China’s access not only to Nepal but also directly to India’s northern regions. Despite Nepal’s naturally open border with India, infrastructure development appears to be more pronounced and effective on the Chinese side. Additionally, China’s funding of hydropower projects raises concerns for India. If India-China tensions escalate, the rivers originating in Nepal could become contentious, as they supply water to populous and fertile plains in India. Recognizing the importance of the situation, India is now actively addressing these issues. Piyush Goyal, India’s Federal Minister for Commerce and Industry, emphasized in a speech at the event via video call: “We will continue to expand our trading and business relationship. I urge Indian investors worldwide to invest in Nepal, seize the opportunity, and contribute to Nepal’s emerging development”.

    The impoverished South Asian country, boasting some of the world’s largest mountain peaks, holds potential across various sectors but has unfortunately been overlooked by investors. However, the current India-China tensions are instilling hope. The country’s hydro power generation sector, already one of its biggest exports and poised for further expansion, is expected to benefit from these investments. Presently, Nepal generates 3,200MW of hydropower, with numerous large-scale projects totaling 5,568MW in the pipeline. While India heavily invests in Nepal’s hydropower initiatives, China aims to establish a foothold in the sector. Infrastructure development from both ends will also improve the tourism sector. Hindu and Buddhist pilgrimages to Nepal already promise significant economic benefits for the tourism industry. As railroads are completed, Nepal expects an influx of Chinese tourists too. Hence, the India-China tensions offer hope for Nepal, recognizing that its transition from a low-income to a middle-income nation hinges on support from India and China.

  • How Does The COVID-19 Vaccination Affect Indian Politics Anew?

    How Does The COVID-19 Vaccination Affect Indian Politics Anew?

    In a country with a significant conservative and religious population, the world’s largest and most successful COVID-19 vaccination drive was conducted. Despite doubts within religious communities about the unknown liquid being injected as a population control measure, and within the scientific community regarding the vaccine’s insufficient testing, nearly 95% of India’s eligible population received vaccinations. This drive was a huge success because people believed in Narendra Modi, who led the campaign. Narendra Modi conducted extensive campaigns, publishing images of himself receiving vaccines and urging everyone to get vaccinated. He touted this massive vaccination drive as one of his biggest achievements and issued certificates for vaccine recipients with his own prominent image on them. In the subsequent state elections, Narendra Modi benefited from the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. However, during the crucial time of the Lok Sabha elections, after only two phases out of seven had been completed, the COVID-19 vaccination drive gained mainstream again, but not in Modi’s favor.

    With the approval of several vaccines in India, the Covishield vaccine, initially developed by Oxford–AstraZeneca and manufactured under license by the Serum Institute of India, emerged as the preferred choice for most individuals. At a time when the world was gripped by fear of the deadly COVID-19 virus, the Serum Institute stepped up production, delivering a significant number of vaccine doses. Modi faced pressure from international media and opposition parties, who criticized the Indian government for inaccurate death counts. Consequently, when the WHO authorized the vaccine, the Modi government swiftly introduced it to the people, leading to a massive COVID-19 vaccination drive that astounded the world. Modi consistently stressed the significance of vaccinations and initiated programs to encourage people to participate in the COVID-19 vaccination drive. Modi and the managing director of the Pune Serum Institute, Cyrus Poonawalla, became stars and sensations in Indian newspapers. Modi’s image was displayed on certificates, vaccination centers, and wherever possible. Modi further condemned political parties and leaders who expressed doubts about vaccines, including his strong criticism of the Samajwadi Party and its leader Akhilesh Yadav, who raised concerns about large-scale vaccination drives without thoroughly examining potential side effects. The principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress, faced humiliation as Modi vaccinated the majority of the population, dismissing any reservations they voiced. Those who questioned the vaccine were branded as anti-national. In the eyes of the Indian populace, Modi emerged as a superhero, revered as the savior who safeguarded them from the deadly Coronavirus.

    But as the COVID virus receded from the news headlines, people started to question the side effects of the virus. They began to doubt the increased cases of heart attacks and brain damage, even among youths. Conspiracy theories emerged, while the government and government-linked medical associations denied them all. However, during a crucial time, on the occasion of the General election in which Modi sought a continuous third term, the situation took a turn. As the vaccine developer, AstraZeneca admitted in a British court that the vaccine had some side effects that could cause hemorrhage in rare cases, prompting almost 52 people to join a petition in the British court. The opposition parties and social media erupted in rage against Modi, dealing a setback to his aspirations for a third term as Prime Minister. The Indian National Congress hit Narendra Modi hard because the government had not addressed the issue yet, despite having information about the side effects. The government failed to take actions to study and address the issue. The Samajwadi Party, which had questioned vaccines during the vaccination drive, was now mocking Modi and the BJP. Cyberspace attacked Modi more furiously, with Twitter hashtags like #ArrestModi trending, and many people expressing concerns. This is likely to influence Indian voters, who are highly emotional. Interestingly, neither Modi nor the government has made any statements in response, They are neglecting it  and viewing it as an attempt to alter the election scenario.

    The doubts surrounding the COVID virus, such as its origin, original impact, and whether it is a biological weapon, as well as concerns about vaccines, remain entrenched in conspiracy theories. In India, the COVID-19 vaccine has become a political tool, with numerous accusations directed at both the vaccine and its manufacturer, the Serum Institute. The Institute is accused of providing funds to the BJP through the election bond scheme, highlighting systemic corruption issues. However, government supporters affirm that the COVID-19 virus saves lives and provides immunity for people, with side effects being very rare compared to the number of people who have received the vaccines. Despite this, people, especially in cyberspace, continue to share their fears. This is an issue the government must acknowledge and will likely impact future vaccination drives. As petitions are filed in Indian courts, any comments from the court will undoubtedly affect the Indian populace and, consequently, Indian General election.

  • Does The LDP’s Loss In Elections Signal For Kishida’s Future?

    Does The LDP’s Loss In Elections Signal For Kishida’s Future?

    As he assumed office in late 2021, Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan and president of the country’s ruling conservative party, the LDP, made promises of a “New Capitalism” and a stronger Japan abroad. He pledged solutions to the country’s demographic crisis and was widely welcomed on international stages as a strong leader from Japan following Shinzo Abe. However, now he finds himself navigating a sea of struggles, with no visible improvement in the economic and social situation, and the LDP experiencing a significant loss in crucial by-elections within their party strongholds. The main opposition party, the CDP, has won three seats formerly held by the LDP. The result is widely interpreted as voter anger and punishment for the LDP’s involvement in a years-long corruption saga. These losses coincide with Kishida’s struggle to rebuild support for his cabinet amidst voter discontent over inflation and the scandal. The defeats may dissuade him from calling a general election prior to the party leadership vote in September, where there’s a risk of him being replaced.

    Over the past two weeks, international media outlets have been celebrating Fumio Kishida for his efforts to foster collaboration among East Asian countries and his advocacy for the US’s global leadership role. Kishida may have found reassurance in the recent suggestion by US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell that he, along with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, should be considered joint recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize for their endeavors to confront their countries’ turbulent historical legacies and present a united front against nuclear-armed North Korea. Additionally, Prime Minister Kishida received acclaim for his speech to the US Congress. His address was met with cheers, marking him as only the second Japanese leader to speak before a joint session of Congress, following in the footsteps of Shinzo Abe. However, after his return to Tokyo following a productive summit with Joe Biden, Japan’s Prime Minister has encountered strong domestic political challenges. The yen’s plummet against the dollar, the persistent cost-of-living crisis, and uncertainties surrounding the funding of policies aimed at tackling Japan’s low birth rate and its most significant military buildup since the end of the war further exacerbate the situation.

    However, the most significant debate arises from a funding scandal, initially disclosed last year, which has emerged as a focal point for public outrage amid increasing doubts regarding Prime Minister Kishida’s capacity to lead the LDP to success in the upcoming lower house elections. Although the election is not scheduled for well over a year, the scandal, involving 85 LDP lawmakers who were discovered to have funneled undisclosed profits from ticket sales for party events into slush funds, has left Kishida with little room to maneuver. The party’s response to the slush fund debacle has consistently failed to convince the public, and there is scant reason to believe that planned reforms would reverse this trend. Efforts to mend the damage inflicted by the funding scandal, along with promises of reforming political funding regulations, have also proven ineffective in mitigating criticism from the media. Despite the punishment of 39 LDP lawmakers, Kishida evaded censure despite evidence indicating that his own faction had similarly underreported ticket sale, highlighting apparent double standards that risk inciting a factional power struggle, potentially leaving him politically wounded as he endeavors to secure his party’s endorsement as LDP president this autumn.

    The defeat in Shimane, along with victories for non-LDP candidates in other by-elections on Sunday, may ignite an early challenge to Kishida’s leadership as the party prepares for presidential elections in September, where the winner is automatically appointed prime minister. Despite generally positive feedback regarding his summit with Joe Biden earlier this month, three April surveys indicated that approval for Kishida’s cabinet fell well below the 30 percent threshold often considered a danger zone for Japanese premiers. Despite its robust economy, the country is experiencing turmoil within its political sphere. Now is a critical moment for Japan to confront these challenges head-on. Once the world’s second-largest economy, Japan risks being surpassed by numerous countries in the upcoming decades, which will undoubtedly impact the current trajectory of the nation. Therefore, these are valuable times for Japanese politicians to take action.

  • How Does US Foreign Aid Package Benefit Taiwan?

    How Does US Foreign Aid Package Benefit Taiwan?

    Taiwan, along with Ukraine and Israel, receives a significant amount of funds and help as part of the US-declared Foreign Aid Package. After much delay and contentious debate, and following calls from Ukraine, the foreign aid bill was signed by United States President Joe Biden last Wednesday. Three countries are  benefiting directly from the bill and receiving significant amounts of money. One is Ukraine, which is engaged in a strong war with Russia and is in high demand for money and weapons. Another country is the conventional ally, Israel, which is in conflict with Hamas and also in need of money and aid from the United States. The third is Taiwan, whose inclusion is interesting because they are not currently at war. However, it needs to be considered that the United States expects more tensions in the region, and is preparing for it.

    The foreign aid package, amounting to $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, contains provisions that have a broad impact on many parts of the Asia-Pacific region. Through the bill, House Republicans allocated $8.1 billion for the Indo-Pacific region, framing it as an effort to counter the People’s Republic of China, which claims Taiwan and the entire South China Sea. Within the foreign aid package, $2 billion is earmarked for the foreign military financing program, benefiting Taiwan and other security partners in the Indo-Pacific, all of whom are deemed crucial in confronting Chinese aggression according to the US. This financing program enables eligible partner nations to procure US defense articles, services, and training. Additionally, $1.9 billion will support defense-related expenses for Taiwan and other regional partners, while $542 million will specifically enhance US military capabilities in the region which will bolster regional deterrence.

    The primary allocation of funding within the bill is directed towards projects within the United States itself. $3.3 billion from the bill is allocated to bolster the domestic submarine-building industry. Of this amount, $1.9 billion is specifically designated for the Columbia-class submarine, the latest class of nuclear-powered submarines for the United States. An additional $200 million is allocated for a Virginia-class submarine as well. The majority of these funds will be invested domestically, benefiting over 16,000 suppliers across all 50 states. The inclusion of submarine funding was a prerequisite for congressional approval of the Aukus deal involving the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Its purpose is to ensure that the United States can fulfill Australia’s requirement for Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines without compromising its own capability needs. Therefore, this package will contribute to the US economy and US foreign relationships simultaneously.

    The delay in passing the bill sparked significant criticism against the government both inside and outside the US. A significant outcry arose from Ukraine, which is currently in urgent need of financial assistance. However, it wasn’t easy for the United States; there were protests against spending US taxpayers’ money on Ukraine and war, with arguments advocating for peace talks with Russia. Additionally, Israel being another beneficiary led to further delays, as Israel’s aggressive stance resulted in numerous civilian deaths in Gaza, demanding the US to intervene and halt the conflict. Protests are mounting in the US, with participation from many students, human rights activists, and Islamic communities. Additionally, there are many people who are against funding Taiwan. They fear that increased financial support and weapon systems provided to the Asia-Pacific region will escalate tensions. However, such actions are deemed necessary by the US to stimulate its economy, given the need for government spending and pressure from businesses.

    Taiwan considers the aid package essential for its defense and expresses concerns about China’s potential future aggression. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen applauded the foreign aid package. According to Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office, the aid gravely breaches  US obligations to China and sends the wrong message to separatists seeking Taiwan’s independence. China is concerned about this development since the US is expected to gain more influence in the region as a result of the Foreign Aid Package for Taiwan, which would draw other nations closer to the US. The political environment in Asia Pacific will change as a result of these measures. China, which considers Taiwan its own territory, has consistently urged a halt to arms supplies, while the United States continues to be Taiwan’s most significant international supporter and arms supplier despite the lack of formal diplomatic ties. Thus, it is certain that the foreign aid package will impact the balance of power in the area.

  • How Are Trade Barrier Reforms Progressing In Central Asian States?

    How Are Trade Barrier Reforms Progressing In Central Asian States?

    The economy of the United States is its greatest asset. Instead of relying solely on its military, it utilizes the hegemony of the dollar and its economic might to forge partnerships with other countries. The United States’ financial contributions led to a West-leaning, communist-averse Europe after World War II. Similarly, it spurred the resurgence of East Asia by injecting capital and ensuring the market. The United States’ economic interests have played a significant role in mitigating full-scale conflicts in the Middle East. This strategy, centered on leveraging financial resources and markets to build alliances, is now expanding to encompass Central Asia. Central Asia, once hindered by the dominant influence of the Soviet Union and Russia, is now becoming more accessible to the United States. The US initiative in the region seeks to foster a market conducive to the prosperity of Central Asian states and to attract American investment, thereby strengthening ties with the United States. 

    Central Asian states have long been characterized by trade barriers, bureaucratic hurdles, and regulatory complexities, greatly impeding economic progress. However, steps are currently being taken to tackle these challenges, representing a significant advancement towards creating a unified regional market similar to the streamlined documentation and policy frameworks found in Europe. Promoting the establishment of such a unified Central Asian market and facilitating smooth trade and service flow are fundamental elements of a regional economic strategy championed by the United States, known as the B5+1 initiative. Amidst a flurry of diplomatic engagements in mid-April, Central Asian leaders are actively exploring the potential of the B5+1 initiative. Launched in March, the B5+1 initiative assigns the five Central Asian nations, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, with the responsibility of spearheading efforts to promote regional free trade and enhance export opportunities.

    In recent times, geopolitical analysts have turned their attention to the growing interactions among Central Asian countries, spurred by the diminishing influence of Russia and the stagnating economic growth of  China . Notably, a multitude of discussions and agreements have unfolded in the region, often without the presence of Russia. A significant event occurred on April 18, when Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Tajik President Emomali Rahmon signed 28 interstate agreements spanning political, economic, and social realms. Noteworthy among these were two agreements aimed at bolstering trade between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, with a focus on simplifying customs procedures at border checkpoints and safeguarding industrial property rights. Preceding Mirziyoyev’s visit, a joint investment forum in Dushanbe drew around 600 officials and business leaders from both nations. They expressed keen interest in collaborative ventures, particularly within the mining and renewable energy sectors, and sought to expand trade. Initiatives such as establishing a free trade zone at the Oybek-Fotekhobod border crossing and developing a logistics hub at Andarkhan were emphasized. Additionally, plans were unveiled to streamline permit requirements for freight-carrying trucks crossing the Tajik-Uzbek border. Despite bilateral trade reaching $505 million in 2023, officials aspire to elevate it to $2 billion in the near future. This ambition was echoed by Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev during his agreements signing with Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov, underscoring the significance of facilitating cross-border movement and enhancing the exchange of manufactured goods. Subsequent to discussions with Japarov, Tokayev engaged in talks with Uzbekistan’s Mirziyoyev, likely focusing on regional trade dynamics. While details of these discussions were scarce, it was apparent that bilateral relations and regional cooperation were prioritized. However, challenges persist, notably between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, where trade turnover declined significantly due to ongoing border disputes and unmarked border areas. Additionally, Turkmenistan poses a significant obstacle to efforts aimed at promoting connectivity, with issues such as a severe shortage of qualified personnel hindering international cooperation within contractual frameworks. Nonetheless, Ashgabat’s interest in expanding regional trade appears substantial, as evidenced by the sizable delegation it dispatched to the inaugural B5+1 conference in Almaty.

    Recent diplomatic initiatives seem to have drawn the Kremlin’s attention, as it expresses concern that increased trade facilitation in Central Asia could lead to the expansion of commercial networks that bypass Russia. The ongoing developments aimed at streamlining trade processes in Central Asia appear to unsettle Moscow.  Nevertheless, landlocked countries with tough terrain require substantial investments in infrastructure to connect with the global economy. They traditionally rely on Russia, and China made a lot of road and rail networks under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It is unlikely that Russia, China, and Iran will cooperate with the trade union in this context. So the US could potentially influence countries such as Pakistan and the Southern Caucasus countries, which have aligned with European interests. These will lead to huge shifts in the entire asia geopolitical landscape. So the Impact of B5+1 will grow beyond Central Asia.

  • The Debate Over Chiang Kai Shek Statues in Taiwan

    The Debate Over Chiang Kai Shek Statues in Taiwan

    There is a worldwide trend of erasing certain parts of history by removing statues and monuments. This phenomenon has been widely observed in Europe and America, where statues of slave traders have been taken down. Similarly, this trend has been evident in Eastern European states and former communist countries, where statues of communist leaders have been removed. Taiwan is poised to join this trend by accelerating the move to remove statues of former dictator Chiang Kai-shek. However, there is opposition to this initiative. Debates are raging about Chiang Kai-shek statues, who is widely regarded as the founder of Taiwan, despite his support for the One China policy.

    In 2018, when the DPP’s Tsai Ing-wen held the presidency, the government established a transitional justice committee to investigate the rule of the former generalissimo, who served as the president of the Republic of China (ROC) in both China and Taiwan until his death in 1975. Many people continue to view Chiang Kai-shek, the Kuomintang leader of China, as part of the Republic of China formed in Mainland China under Sun Yat-sen, for many, he is remembered as someone who fought for democracy against communism before being exiled to Taiwan and continuing the Republic of China from there, thereby giving Taiwan a separate identity. However, for many Taiwanese people, he is seen as a Chinese military dictator who ruled the islands for decades under strict martial law and then transferred power to his son, as like the communist regime in Korea. By the end of martial law implemented by Chiang Kai-shek in 1987, as many as 140,000 people were estimated to have been imprisoned and another 3,000 to 4,000 executed for actual or perceived opposition to his party. Many argue that the island lost its identity and became a home of the Chinese exiled government, he was advocating for a One China policy that Taiwan doesn’t agree with. Chiang Kai-shek’s legacy remains a point of contentious debate, though the Justice Committee’s recommendation was to remove thousands of Chiang Kai-shek’s statues from public spaces.

    Taiwan’s government has pledged to accelerate its efforts in response to calls for the removal of statues of Chiang Kai-shek.  This pledge was made in response to criticism that the government was not moving quickly enough.  Taiwan is adorned with statues of Chiang, and for years, the government and society have been engaged in debate over what to do with them, particularly the largest one inside Taipei’s Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. Many statues have already been relocated, often to a park in northern Taipei, which has become famous for the thousands of Chiang likenesses arranged around its grounds. Indeed, Chiang Kai-shek strengthened Taiwan and prevented it from being invaded by the People’s Republic of China or Communist China. Chiang established defense training academies in Taiwan. Some in Taiwan argue that his legacy must be considered alongside his successes, pointing out that he also spearheaded Taiwan’s path to economic prosperity, and fought against both the Communists and the Japanese. The continued presence of the KMT as a major political party is seen as evidence of the people’s forgiveness toward Chiang.

    Chiang Kai Shek’s legacy has long been a point of political contention in Taiwan. The discourse surrounding Chiang’s legacy is predominantly split along party lines, as the ruling Democratic Progressive Party advocates for discontinuing ongoing tributes, while the opposition Kuomintang Party accuses them of attempting to erase history. However, the DPP has encountered allegations of seeking to “de-sinicize” Taiwan by advocating for the cessation of Chiang’s memorialization. The party maintains a pro-Taiwan sovereignty stance, in contrast to the KMT’s ongoing embrace of Taiwan’s historical and cultural connections with China. Additionally, the KMT has voiced opposition to the transitional justice commission and its unfavorable findings against the party. The issue is now more political, and it will not be easy for the government to take actions faster. However, by removing Chiang Kai Shek statues, Taiwan is not only erasing the memories of the bad days under military rule but also severing ties with China. In the process, Taiwan will develop a distinct identity and history.

  • Assessing the Israel-Iran War Fear: Perspectives and Predictions

    Assessing the Israel-Iran War Fear: Perspectives and Predictions

    The focal point of the Middle East conflict currently lies between two nations: Israel and Iran. Egypt is no longer an Arab superpower, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia show no interest in engaging in conflict with Israel. Other countries in the region lack the capability to challenge Israel. The only remaining powerhouse opposing Israel is Iran. Interestingly, Iran also lacks good terms with the United States. As animosity between Israel and Iran escalates, along with their leaders’ cries and calls for revenge, the world fears that war will break out. These countries have been embroiled in tensions for years, targeting each other’s officials. Iran funds and supports terrorist organizations, including Hamas, posing a threat to Israel. In response, Israel targets Iran’s top leaders, heightening tensions. The attack on Iran’s embassy in Syria further escalated tensions between the two countries. Subsequently, Iran launched around 300 drones and missiles at Israel, prompting Israel to retaliate with missile strikes targeting Isfahan, an important city for Iran. The breaking news alerts that followed stirred global apprehension, with people worldwide fearing that the region had taken a step closer to full-blown conflict.

    In Reality, no one will benefit from a catastrophic war at present. These countries possess a significant amount of artillery, and Israel possesses nuclear weapons, while Iran is accused of having nuclear bombs and high-impact weaponry. The war would be disastrous for the entire region. After World War II, there haven’t been collisions between major powers; instead, there have been instances of larger countries invading smaller ones, as observed in attacks like those on Ukraine or Gaza. Israel’s attack on Gaza is driven by a desire for revenge and is highly politically motivated, and they don’t need a full-scale war. If they were to attack Iran, there would be consequences, potentially involving the intervention of Iran’s closest allies, such as Russia and China. However, Israel is under intense pressure from its closest allies to restrain any response. Leaders from Washington, Paris, and London have openly expressed deep concern over the rapid escalation of a decades-long shadow war into a precarious exchange of direct strikes. For months, US diplomats have been engaged in intensive efforts to prevent Israel’s conflict in Gaza from expanding into a wider conflict, shuttling between regional capitals.

    Though Iran and Israel initiated a drone shower against each other, it occurred on a small scale, merely considered as threats. The direct confrontation began with Israel’s attack on the embassy of Iran, resulting in the deaths of top diplomats. In retaliation, Iran struck Israel using drones. The US received information from Iran before they attacked Israel, which significantly reduced fatalities. Although the scale of the Iran attack was surprising, analysts noted that Iran exhibited some restraint by warning the US. If it deployed its weapons differently, it could cause more harm. As the conflict continues, Israel conducted an attack with missiles in the Iranian city of Isfahan. Isfahan is a historic cultural center and a military hub, hosting several important facilities, including a major airbase and factories linked to drone production and a uranium enrichment plant.

    Tehran had issued a warning that any Israeli counterattack would provoke a stronger retaliation, with President Ebrahim Raisi stating on Wednesday that even the slightest strike would elicit a “Massive and harsh” response. Within hours, the US confirmed the attack as an Israeli strike and reiterated its longstanding call for restraint. The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken said that they are committed to Israel’s security and they are also committed to de-escalation”. By Friday night, officials in Iran and Israel had merely stated that multiple drones had been shot down; neither country had admitted who had authorized the strike. However, Iran and Israel appear to have cooled down now. Some speculate that the uneasy pact of silence offered the only slim hope that the latest round of dangerous attacks might have temporarily ceased.

    Actually, these attacks between these countries are demanded by their administrations, which face protests from their people. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, they can present that they are only voicing support for Islam and Palestine. This is important because the country faces backlash from the population about stringent Islamic rules. So it is necessary for them to present a stance against Israel, although they know they are not capable of a full-scale war against Israel. If the war continues, it’s not certain that Russia and China will not cooperate with them, because Russia does not want to fight with Israel and China gives importance to its economy; they would face pressure from the China Sea if they entered into war. Therefore, the political stalemate once again spared the world. It appears that the likelihood of a full-scale war is nonexistent.

  • Who is Provoking Whom? US and Philippines Plan Military Drills in Disputed Waters

    Who is Provoking Whom? US and Philippines Plan Military Drills in Disputed Waters

    While western Asia is gripped by the fear of war, with Israel and Iran launching attacks against each other, Philippine and US forces will carry out their first-ever military exercises along the edge of South China Sea waters, outside their territorial waters. This action is poised to provoke China and deepen the crisis in the South China Sea and East Asia. Even though there is no issue with conducting military drills in international waters, and the Philippines and the US being long-time allies, it will undoubtedly represent a significant setback for China, a nation asserting claims over the South China Sea and striving to control regional politics. While it may resemble high school bullying, it underscores the imperative for countries to steer clear of further conflicts, as people suffer from the effects of ongoing wars.

    The annual military drills, known as Balikatan or “Shoulder-to-Shoulder” drills, are scheduled to take place from April 22nd to May 10th this year, with the participation of 16,700 soldiers. The program involves simulations of retaking enemy-occupied islands in areas facing Taiwan and the South China Sea, potentially sending a message to China. This year’s military drills are notable for the inclusion of the Philippine Coast Guard for the first time, reflecting their increasing involvement in confrontations with China, where they have previously faced humiliation from the Chinese navy in incidents involving water cannons.

    China appears to be paying close attention to this issue. Beijing continues to claim almost every inch of the South China Sea, citing historical and cultural ties to the region, despite an international tribunal’s 2016 ruling that Beijing’s expansive claims lacked legal legitimacy. Their unwavering position is supported by the strategic importance of the South China Sea to China’s political and economic hegemony. China’s aggressive actions against Philippine vessels prompted the Philippines and the US, its strongest ally, to decide to conduct the drill in the disputed waters.  The Chinese foreign ministry issued a warning, stating that the Philippines should be “Sober enough to realize” that inviting other nations to demonstrate their military  might in the South China Sea and provoke conflict will only heighten tensions and jeopardize stability in the region. China opposes the involvement of the United States and Japan in the South China Sea issue. During a scheduled press conference, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian stressed that “Attempts to enlist external forces to safeguard its purported security will only result in greater insecurity for itself”, urging both countries to refrain from provocations. Chinese official media also warned that such actions would have a “Destructive impact on regional security”.

    The foreign ministry of the Philippines asserted that China should “Reflect upon its own actions” in the South China Sea, stating that the country’s decision to strengthen ties with the US and Japan was a “Sovereign choice”. The ministry emphasized in a statement that “The source of tension in our region is well known to all”, linking the escalation of tensions in the region to China’s aggressive behavior and excessive maritime claims, including the militarization of disputed islands. China and the Philippines have had multiple clashes, thankfully avoiding direct war like those seen in West Asia, given the unstable political climate in the region. However, there are concerns that this area would be among the first to see war  if the world order continues to collapse.

    The joint military drills are commonly conducted to improve communication between militaries, and this will feature bolstered support from the United States to the Philippines. Amid growing tensions with Beijing, Joe Biden promised last week to protect the Philippines from any attacks in the South China Sea during the first-ever joint summit with Manila and Tokyo. Currently, approximately 14 countries will observe the annual practice, including Japan, India, and countries from ASEAN and the EU. The military drills are going to showcase the readiness of the team to oppose China.

  • Israel’s Mission to Remove Any Scope of Palestine

    Israel’s Mission to Remove Any Scope of Palestine

    Everyone knows that the two-state solution is the most plausible resolution generated in the longstanding conflict between Israel and Arab countries. Israel, a Jewish nation, and Palestine, a Muslim nation, encompass Israel-captured territories, namely the West Bank and Gaza. However, these plans faced rejection due to disapproval from both Arab society and Israel. Israel desires to retain all the land it currently occupies, while Palestine seeks the removal of Jews from their land. 

    Long before the establishment of a Jewish state on the British-controlled eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the notion of a State of Palestine for Muslims existed. The British Peel Commission report of 1937 initially proposed separate Jewish and Arab states within the territory. Subsequently, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a partition plan for Palestine, though Arabs resisted partition. Since the 1982 Arab Summit, the leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a prominent organization of Palestine, has, in principle, accepted the idea of a two-state solution. Despite momentum from the Oslo Accord towards mutual recognition, it ultimately collapsed. Other organizations for Palestine like Hamas did not agree with the PLO.

    Right-wing governments of Israel, including Netanyahu’s, proceeded to establish large settlements in the West Bank, an area designated for Palestine by the international community. Netanyahu employed a strategy of expansion into East Jerusalem and the West Bank to gain an advantage in elections, a plan reportedly continuing according to the latest reports. Nevertheless, most international countries recognize the West Bank and Gaza as part of Palestine. Many political experts argue that Israel’s mission to expand into these territories is undermining the prospects for Palestine in recent years, contravening international law, which prohibits the permanent settlement of territories occupied militarily.

    Amidst the ongoing conflict between Hamas in Gaza, Israel is not slowing down but extending its construction efforts and building more Jewish settlements in the West Bank. This exacerbates the complexity of border division between Muslims and Jews. As more land falls into the hands of Jews, the Islamic character of the region is also diminishing. These actions, conducted without regard for international agreements, are perceived as part of Israel’s mission to control more Palestinian land, with Hamas attacks providing justification for such moves.

    According to a report by The Guardian, Israel’s government has significantly increased the construction of settlements across East Jerusalem. Planning documents as part of Israel’s mission on the West bank, reveal that over 20 projects, totaling thousands of housing units, have been approved or advanced since the onset of the conflict in Gaza six months ago. Ministries and government offices, often in collaboration with right-wing nationalist groups known for attempting to displace Palestinians from their homes, are spearheading the largest and most contentious projects. Israeli planning authorities have sanctioned two new settlements since the conflict began, marking the first approvals in East Jerusalem in over a decade. Additionally, the expansion of a high-security settlement named Kidmat Zion, situated in the heart of the Palestinian neighborhood Ras al-Amud on the city’s eastern fringe, is pending public feedback. Israel’s mission on the Westbank detailed in the report.

    Israel has initiated a plan for Gaza as well. There are influential business-politicians who recognize the strategic value of the seafront area. They have already devised a plan envisioning a future phase where Hamas no longer controls Gaza, ensuring security for Israeli citizens. Instead, other Palestinian entities would assume governance of the territory. Israel would retain the right to operate within Gaza, akin to the current arrangements in the occupied West Bank. This move underscores Israel’s mission to annex more areas in the West Bank and Gaza, thereby diminishing the scope for Palestine. International bodies that fail to broker a ceasefire in Gaza find themselves limited in their ability to intervene. Arab leaders who reject the two-state solution are facing repercussions for their stance. Ironically, the expectation held by former Arab leaders that Palestine would be established by driving out Jews and Israel from the country is being reversed. Israel is increasingly being established by driving out Arabs.

  • Is Iran’s Attack On Israel A Well-Staged Political Drama?

    Is Iran’s Attack On Israel A Well-Staged Political Drama?

    Iran wants to do anything to secure its image. They were humiliated by the attack conducted by Israel on their consulate in Syria. An attack on their embassy is a big humiliation and a violation of international laws, in which Israel doesn’t have an interest. The Iranian government said they will seek vengeance. Though no country in the Middle East is ready or capable of fighting with Israel, Iran knows it. But Iran did it. They flew almost 300 drones and missiles to Israel on April 14th. Iran’s attack on Israel was obstructed by the US, UK, and Israel. But the following events make Iran’s attacks dubious as well-planned political drama. There is news coming that the attack was carried out after informing neighboring countries and Turkey. Iran said they are stopping further attacks after, and they said they balanced the humiliation they got from the consulate attack. For Israel, they gained something to present to the world after experiencing the huge negative impact of the continuing attack on Gaza. For the US and UK, they can say they protected Israel, which is important for the elections coming in these countries. So Iran’s attack on Israel is a win for all.

    Since the formation of Modern Israel, tensions have existed between Israel and its Muslim neighbors, leading to a lot of wars. Though there was a brief period of peace in the last decade, which led to relations between Israel and prominent Arab countries reaching an all-time high. Credit for this goes to Donald Trump, who worked out these relationships. However, the Hamas attack on October 7th turned all scenarios upside down. When Israeli people’s anger flared up due to failures in governance and safety, as well as Hamas’ capture of Israeli citizens as hostages, Israel started an attack on Gaza. When this attack on Gaza continues after several months, it seems that the situation in the Middle East is becoming less volatile, which is interesting, considering the suffering of people in Gaza. Hamas leaders may find refuge in Qatar, and Hezbollah is reluctant to intervene. Neighboring countries are not ready to participate, and Islamic leaders like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not overly interested in these issues. However, attacking a consulate and killing officials severely damaged Israel’s reputation, and the killing of aid workers probably set Israel back. On this occasion, Iran’s drone missiles were flown to Israel. Everyone, including the US, was aware of Iran’s attack on Israel. Iran actually seized the opportunity to make a counter-attack on Israel, becoming a Muslim country still capable of fighting against Israel. Israel can use this to show the world that there is a threat to them. Though Israel easing restrictions and Iran stating they will not fight further, all seems settled.

    While Israel’s top general, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, provided the clearest confirmation yet since the attack that Israel would retaliate, the likelihood of a full-scale war appears to be diminishing. There will be targeted attacks from Israel to Iran or its allies. As two countries, Israel and Iran do not share a land border, but Iran’s closest allies, Syria and Lebanon, are neighbors of Israel. However, attacking these neighbors is not a good idea for Israel now. There is doubt that the US or UK will not stand with this idea, and there is discontent against Netanyahu in Israel, a prolonged war will only escalate this. Attacking Syria will draw Russia and the US directly into the warfare, leading to a devastating situation. Iran is sure that airstrikes against Israel will not work out; they are well prepared for it. Moreover, Iraq will not always cooperate with Iran to use their sky as a pathway for missiles. Attacking through the sea is almost impossible, but they can intercept Israel-linked ships from the Persian shore or Arabian sea with the help of Houthis. Iran is already holding an Israel-linked ship for violating the rules.

    The war on social media and targeted killings will continue. Israel, the US, and the UK will support the campaign against Iran, while Iran will aid terrorist organizations fighting against Israel. This pattern is likely to persist, as per analysis of a new world order. In modern times, starting a war is easy, but ending it is incredibly difficult. A possible deadlock and a perpetual war will be the result of modern war. The Ukraine war serves as a good example of this. Russia cannot progress further, even though they have been severely impacted economically and politically, despite their experience in warfare and possession of high artillery. Economic setbacks are not tolerable in modern politics, which are highly intertwined with business interests. Therefore, the likelihood of further escalating tensions into a full-scale war between Israel and Iran is low.Yet, the drama, Iran’s attack on Israel was well-staged and appealing.