Category: Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Is Right-wing Opposition to Modi Rising in India?

    Is Right-wing Opposition to Modi Rising in India?

    India’s Prime Minister and leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Narendra Modi, is frequently depicted as a far-right figure in the media. Modi reinforces this perception with his comments on Hindu nationalism and remarks targeting Muslims. He is carrying out several Hindu nationalist agendas, including building the Ayodhya temple, renaming places, granting citizenship to Hindu refugees from neighboring Islamist countries, and scrapping Sharia laws in Kashmir, among others.

    Modi receives a lot of criticism for these actions from the opposition, and he is already heavily disliked by communist and Islamist populations. He is receiving substantial criticism for his actions that disrupt conventional center-left politics in the country. But as he enters his third term, he faces unexpected opposition from the far-right. They are slowly targeting Modi for not doing enough to establish a Hindu nation, even though he has held an absolute majority for the last ten years. A lot of protests and meetings by the country’s far-right supporters are demanding that the Modi government establish a Hindu nation. Many accuse Modi of diluting Hindutva, even though he is portrayed as an authoritarian far-right symbol by left-leaning and neutral media.

    In the Indian social media space, especially on X, there is a surge in content portraying Modi as a centrist leader and a business-oriented man rather than a true Hindu leader. Hindu nationalists online argue that Modi is betraying Hindu nationalism and call for him to return to his early 2000s stance when he was accused of inciting the Gujarat riots. These individuals do not like Modi diluting his stance and becoming another centrist prime minister.

    But it is clear they don’t have a political party and a leader like BJP and Modi, who can mobilize common people at the grassroots level. In reality, there are not many other parties with Hindu nationalism or even engaging in similar politics. In India’s complex political landscape, political parties are often formed based on the interests of reputed families. Even political parties initially founded on political ideologies eventually turn into vehicles for the interests of the leaders families. There are many examples of this phenomenon. The Indian National Congress, founded on anti-imperialism and socialist ideology, has now shrunk to a party serving the interests of the Nehru family. Janata Dal, a political party that once provided  prime ministers and was the second biggest party, split into many factions due to the interests of various families. The only reputed political party not driven by family interests and that carries a political ideology is the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which advocates for Hindu nationalism. That’s why people choose BJP and Modi.

    But many election experts believe the reduction in numbers BJP obtained in the last parliamentary election is due to discontent among supporters of Hindu nationalism. There is criticism from Hindu organizations that Modi is becoming an idol and is getting away from the core ideology of the BJP. Several Hindu organizations have already expressed their discontent in how Modi is projected more than the Hindu ideology he represents. Narendra Modi presented himself as the chief priest in the Ayodhya temple inauguration and made statements that he represents God, with his fans often worshiping him with chants usually reserved for Hindu gods. All of this is enough to consider whether he is straying from the founding principles of the BJP. 

    Besides this, while Modi secured a majority in both houses of Parliament last time, he has not pushed for the long-term dream of Hindu organizations: the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which would dismantle the Muslim right to follow Sharia law in India. He is also not ready to abandon the changes introduced by Indira Gandhi, which included words like “Secularism” in the preamble and some articles. Some Hindu nationalists, often Muslim haters, criticize Modi for not working towards a hijab ban, madrassa ban, population control bill, etc.

    There are also long-standing demands, such as removing illegal immigrants, mostly Muslims from Bangladesh, which change the demographics of many places in India, making them Muslim-majority areas. Additionally, Modi has not worked towards recapturing Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, among other issues. Many believe Modi will not be able to address these concerns in his third term, as he is now at the mercy of alliance parties that do not carry Hindu nationalist agendas. Therefore, they are angry that Modi has wasted ten years.

    The third term will be challenging for Modi, as he needs to appease Hindu nationalists. However, he faces limitations in a coalition government. The far-right factions are not ready to settle, and their demands will likely intensify. Staying in power without satisfying them could lead to a rise in far-right movements in India. Currently, India has only two Hindu nationalist parties, BJP and Shiv Sena. Both are part of the alliances and cannot significantly push the Hindu nationalist agenda. This creates a space with high potential, waiting for a leader.

  • Why is Modi’s trip to Russia significant?

    Why is Modi’s trip to Russia significant?

    Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy, has chosen Russia for his first bilateral meeting after securing a third term in last month’s general election. The two-day visit, which included informal discussions, photo sessions, dinners, diplomatic talks, and the awarding of the highest civilian honor to the Prime Minister, holds considerable geopolitical importance. This visit sends important signals to the West, particularly as Western countries stand united in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, albeit with less attention to the situation in Palestine.

    India has never aligned with any major power bloc since becoming a republic, its leaders, irrespective of their political affiliations, have always maintained a warm relationship with Russia. Narendra Modi, who has been in power for the past 10 years, continues this policy. Over the last decade, the United States and Western countries have attempted to draw India away from its traditional alliances and towards a grand democratic alliance in Asia, including the West and Japan. However, Modi’s recent actions demonstrate India’s steadfast stance despite the evolving Asian political landscape. Modi also stated that the visit, his first since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the pandemic, aimed to cement the “Bonds of Friendship” between the two countries. He later enthusiastically described Russia as India’s “All-weather friend and trusted ally”. 

    At Tuesday’s formal summit, Modi stated that he and Putin had covered everything from establishing new Indian embassies in Russia to enhancing trade cooperation. India’s significant imports of Russian oil, minerals, and arms, in exchange for Indian agricultural products, are crucial for sustaining the Russian economy amid stringent Western sanctions, alongside China. However, reports indicate that during informal discussions, Modi called for Russia’s withdrawal from the war and called for an end to the conflict.

    India and Russia anticipate enhanced cooperation as the North-South corridor becomes fully operational. India, with a market of 1.4 billion people and one of the world’s largest economies, presents significant opportunities for Russian businesses. Conversely, Russia offers a large and cost-effective option for Indian businesses seeking natural resources, fostering a mutually beneficial relationship. However, ethical concerns remain, as Modi’s visit was condemned by Ukraine, citing ongoing war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. Just hours before Modi arrived in Moscow, Russian airstrikes targeted Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital and other civilian sites, causing numerous casualties and prompting global condemnation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy described it as “A devastating blow to peace efforts to see the leader of the world’s largest democracy embracing the world’s most notorious criminal in Moscow on such a day”.

    But the situation extends beyond Ukraine. Asia is undergoing polarization, and two blocs are  formed. The superpowers are already teamed up. One side includes Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States. The other side consists of Russia, China, Iran, Kazakhstan, and North Korea. The stances of India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are crucial but not yet clearly defined. With significant investments and diplomatic talks, these blocs are aligning more countries with them. Vietnam will likely join the United States bloc, and Indonesia is expected to lean towards the Russian bloc. According to reports, India is also moving towards an alliance with Russia, which will be a significant blow to the U.S. bloc.

    The U.S. recognizes the importance of India and has not criticized it, instead praising India for directly calling on Putin to stop the war, which indicates the U.S. still has hope in India. Historically, the U.S. was aligned with Pakistan, while India was connected to the Soviet Union and Russia from its formation. However, over the last decade, as Pakistan was ousted from the U.S. plan, the U.S. began to consider India more seriously. During Trump’s tenure, the relationship flourished, and there were reports that India leaned toward the U.S. side while Pakistan moved toward an alliance with China and Russia.

    After Trump, due to poor handling of foreign relations, India began returning to Russia’s side again. This shift will not be easy for India, as India and China now have serious disputes and appear to be enemy countries, both of which are important to Russia. If any issue arises between India and China, Russia’s stance will be crucial, as both countries are important to Russia. If Russia favors China, it won’t take long for India to switch sides to the U.S., given India’s existing relationships with U.S. allies Japan and Israel.

    The importance Modi places on Putin and the significance Russia attributes to India is the message conveyed by the recent meeting of both leaders. However, the U.S. will not abandon its mission with India. For its plan in Asia, the U.S. cannot rely on the U.K. and France anymore, so it needs superpowers from Asia. India is valuable for the control of Asia, particularly for security against China. If the Republicans return to the U.S. presidency, they will likely attempt to revive the relationship with India. From Russia’s side, even though they may prefer China, they will remain connected to India and ensure India stays neutral.

  • What is the Future of Shanghai Cooperation?

    What is the Future of Shanghai Cooperation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Is Vietnam Truly Reliable for the West?

    Is Vietnam Truly Reliable for the West?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • How the Hostage Deal Splits the Israeli Government

    How the Hostage Deal Splits the Israeli Government

    The prolonged war and failure to save hostages are troubling Israeli politics. The ongoing conflict in Gaza, which began as a retaliation against Hamas’ terrorist attack on October 7, is not seeing an end in the near future, and the hostages taken by Hamas are still in their custody. Israel’s mission in Gaza aims to eliminate future threats and rescue the hostages. However, many months have passed, and Israel is not any closer to achieving its objectives. The death toll in Gaza has risen, and international pressure for a ceasefire is mounting, with protests emerging against the prolonged war within the border. Consequently, the war-time cabinet, formed after the Hamas attack, is showing signs of division. For Israel, rescuing the hostages held by Hamas is paramount. The pressure to release them might lead Israel to propose the current hostage deal, a deal with terrorists, which Hamas has yet to agree to. Even though the people of Gaza suffer under harsh conditions and Hamas shows no willingness to cooperate, the mounting death toll adds to the global criticism faced by the Israeli government. 

    As the war drags on, the government’s unity is fracturing, leading to expected splits and resignations. In the latest incident, the far-right Israeli war cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich, upon whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now relies to maintain the government after the resignations of more moderate ministers who actively sought a post-war Gaza plan, declared his opposition to the proposed hostage deal over the weekend. Smotrich’s remarks, made during a Knesset (Parliament) committee meeting, came amid the fallout from the resignation of former army chief of staff, critical of Netanyahu, Benny Gantz, from the war cabinet. Gantz’s departure, as the leader of the center-right National Unity party, leaves Netanyahu with enough seats in his coalition but makes him even more dependent on the support of Far-right allies, such as Smotrich, serving as the finance minister, and Itamar Ben-Gvir, holding the position of national security minister. These allies have repeatedly threatened to withdraw support over any ceasefire deal that involves hostage negotiations. Relying on these far-right, war-demanding factions will also disturb the United States and other Western countries.

    Smotrich’s concern reflects a common concern among Israel’s right wings: Hamas demanding the release of hundreds of murderers and terrorists in Israeli custody in exchange for freeing the hostages. He labeled the negotiated deal as “Collective Suicide”, fearing it would result in the murder of Jews. According to Smotrich, when Hamas seeks to end the war while still thriving in Gaza, it indicates the group is arming itself, digging tunnels, and acquiring rockets, posing a threat to Jewish lives. 

    The rescue of hostages happened on the same weekend as Gantz’s departure, giving Netanyahu some advantage. However, Smotrich’s remarks further cast doubts on the government. It was hoped that the rescue, where Israel freed four Israeli hostages held in Gaza in an operation that resulted in the deaths of over 270 Palestinians and the injury of hundreds more according to Gaza’s health ministry, would calm down protests from others. But his remarks highlight Netanyahu’s diminishing political maneuverability just 24 hours after the Israeli media’s celebratory headlines about the hostages’ rescue. Netanyahu, initially celebrated for the operation’s success, met each hostage as cameras rolled. While there was a threat from the allies, in circumstances for freeing hostages, recent opinion polls had shown some progress in rehabilitating his image, which was previously low before the Hamas attack.

    While Hamas continues to negotiate while holding 120 hostages, the Right wing demands replicating such an operation for the remaining hostages instead of a hostage deal. Columnists in the Israeli press have cast doubt on the idea that the hostage rescue operation eliminates the need for a hostage deal. But it is expected that captives will be guarded more closely, making a negotiated deal even more crucial. Netanyahu appears to be moving to consolidate his grip on the government amid reports that he is considering scrapping the emergency war cabinet in which Gantz served. Gantz was well-regarded by some Western diplomats, particularly in the US, where he was perceived by the Biden administration as a voice of reason. The United States is also apprehensive about the growing influence wielded by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Besides the hostage deal issue, in further signs of tensions within the coalition, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced his intention to defy Netanyahu and Oppose a contentious bill aimed at conscripting a limited number of ultra-Orthodox men into the military.

    The split in the case of the Israel-Gaza conflict is not only within Israel but also throughout the world. The global left and liberals are calling for an end to the Gaza attack, while the right expresses concerns about negotiating with a terrorist organization and setting a dangerous precedent. Although Israel’s proposed hostage deal is a possible solution in the current situation in Gaza, the chance of carrying it out is diminishing due to political splits in Israel’s government. Linked to the political moves in Israel is how Hamas will interpret recent events, including the hostage rescue mission. Some have speculated that the raid and the high number of casualties may be a blow to the morale of Hamas, while others have suggested that Hamas leaders may be more interested in the splits in Israel’s political establishment. And these events will possibly bring blame on Israel. Israel now can’t live peacefully with Hamas-supported Gaza, and Israel’s action in Gaza will bring more global blame to Israel. Hence, Netanyahu’s optimal course forward lies in a well-structured Gaza plan complemented by a hostage deal, even in the face of opposition from his own government.

  • Is Taiwan’s Democracy Under Threat?

    Is Taiwan’s Democracy Under Threat?

    Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is the “Model China” for the West, mainly because of two reasons: one is hatred towards communism, and the other is democracy. Even though the country was founded under the authoritarian leader Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan is included in the category of full democracy and ranked 10th globally in the Economist Democracy Index, indicating that the country has one of the best democratic systems. However, the introduction of PRC-like controversial reform bills is raising concerns about democracy in the state. Inside and outside the parliament, protests are intensifying, and experts believe that, in the name of protecting the island from mainland China’s interests, and crackdown of corruption, Taiwan is becoming increasingly authoritarian.

    Taiwan’s opposition-controlled parliament has passed a controversial reform bill despite heavy protests. The bill seeks to expand the legislature’s power to call on and question officials, military figures, and citizens, as well as demand documents. It is perceived as an attempt to establish complete control over people, reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party’s laws. After days of hostile debate and physical fights between MPs inside, and mass protests by citizens outside, the bill passed in the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s parliament. The bill passed 58 votes to 45, after a third reading on Tuesday evening in Taipei, during which there were further scuffles and members of the ruling party threw paper planes and hurled garbage bags at the opposition.

    The bills were driven by the two major opposition parties, the nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) and the populist Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which together hold a majority in parliament after gaining ground over the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in January’s elections. The KMT-TPP legislative majority coalition is seeking to introduce a set of powers for improved institutional checks and balances, legislative strengthening, and democratic consolidation. These powers include the power to investigate, the power of inquiry, contempt resolutions, a normalized presidential address to the legislature, and the power to confirm appointments.

     When the final votes were tallied, triumphant KMT and TPP legislators waved small balloons shaped like suns. Proponents say legislative reform is needed in Taiwan for greater accountability and argue that these bills are similar to some that the ruling DPP attempted to introduce when they had a legislative majority. Remnants of over a week of hostilities and late-night deliberations, such as placards, flowers, and stacks of furniture, encircled the parliamentarians, while tens of thousands of protesters gathered outside. After the bill passed, KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-chi announced that the opposition would create a special task force to investigate alleged corruption within the DPP.

    The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) told the media it would reject the new bill and the President will send it back for review, seeking a legal ruling on its constitutionality. Despite having worked on similar bills when they held a majority in parliament, Caucus Whip Ker Chien-ming stated that the bill’s content was “Absolutely Unconstitutional” and questioned the legality of the voting process. The DPP accused the opposition of using the reforms to undermine President Lai Ching-te’s administration, which was formally inaugurated last Monday. The DPP and its supporters claim that the opposition is undermining Taiwan’s democratic processes to push the bill through, Contending that the proposed law could be readily exploited to target political adversaries and disrupt the operations of Lai’s administration.

    The protests are the largest Taiwan has seen since the 2014 Sunflower Movement, a time that many protesters this week referenced and drew inspiration from. Outside the building, tens of thousands of individuals congregated to protest against the bills for the third time in a week. The protest movement was named the Bluebird Movement, a name orthographically similar to Qingdao East Road, where the main protests took place. The rallies featured a full day of speakers and musical acts. Crowds surged as work and school concluded, coinciding with the passage of the bill.

    With the president and the ruling party at odds with the opposition-majority parliament, ongoing conflicts are expected to persist, posing a significant challenge for newly inaugurated President Lai. He must navigate political adversaries in the parliament while also addressing China’s threats to annex Taiwan. However, it is evident that such bills, whether proposed by the DPP or the opposition alliance, will weaken Taiwan’s democratic system. Without a robust democracy, there will be little difference between Taiwan and Mainland China.

  • How will Xi’s visit to Hungary influence Europe?

    How will Xi’s visit to Hungary influence Europe?

    Hungary, the central European state, which frequently criticizes Europe and maintains warm relations with Russia, was said to be a Trojan horse to Europe by international media. The country, with a conservative government under the leadership of Viktor Orban, has kept a closer relationship with Putin than with any other western leaders. Many expect this country will join the pole under the leadership of China and Russia. Both Chinese and Russian governments are keen to maintain their relationship with Hungary, their sole ally in the European Union. China, who is losing the European market gradually, is investing a lot of money in Hungary to keep their business in the European market through Hungary. Many officials from both countries are flying in both directions to advance this objective. Recently, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Hungary, and it is considered to further bolster the relationship between China and Hungary, strengthening their economic collaboration, which leaves many doubts in the European union.

    Xi’s visit to Hungary is part of the recently concluded Eurotrip, which was his first European tour in five years. Xi arrived in Hungary late on Wednesday after stops in Serbia and France, and he was given a ceremonial welcome by Hungary’s president, Tamás Sulyok, at Buda Castle in Budapest. Xi was also met by the controversial Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the airport. The Hungarian prime minister, the EU’s longest-serving leader, has sought to deepen ties with Beijing and Moscow and blocked EU motions criticizing China’s human rights abuses. After their meeting, the Chinese state media agency Xinhua reported that China and Hungary had decided to elevate their ties to an “All-weather comprehensive strategic partnership in the new era”. Orbán mentioned that the two countries were planning to broaden their collaboration across all aspects, including the nuclear industry. In a major departure from the European mainstream, the Hungarian prime minister said he supported China’s “Peace Plan” for Ukraine. While Western leaders have criticized the Chinese peace plan, known as the 12-point plan, published in 2023, because it does not call on Russia to withdraw its forces or return territory, the biggest demand of Ukraine and Europe.

    The rapport between Europe and China has significantly worsened in recent years. In 2019, the EU labeled China as “A Systemic Rival,” and just last year, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, emphasized the necessity for Europe to “De-risk” its ties with Beijing. This involves, in part, reducing reliance on Chinese supply chains. It’s visible that the trends of European countries withdrawing from Chinese investment, and Europe is said to be working to shift the global manufacturing hub from China. The increasing calls for “Make in Europe” were disrupted by China and their “Unfair” market strategies, including subsidies. European agencies are conducting investigations against Chinese businesses, and the relationship between Europe and China is at an all-time low in the 21st century. However, Hungary, which is marking 75 years of diplomatic relations with Beijing, has distanced itself from the EU strategy. They continue their warm relationship with China and keep their doors open for Chinese business. In return, the central European country has received billions in Chinese investment and hosts Huawei’s largest base outside China. BYD, a prominent Chinese automaker, is preparing to inaugurate its first production line for battery-powered cars in Europe, located in Szeged, Hungary. This initiative presents a considerable challenge for European companies operating at the core of Europe. Interestingly, one of the main causes for dispute between China and Europe is China’s interest in the European EV market, which can be dominated by the cheap EV cars of China. According to statements reported by China’s state news agency, Xinhua, Xi declared that the relationship between China and Hungary is now at its strongest point in history.

    The countries chosen for Xi’s Eurotrip are interesting. France has a neutral relationship with China, while Serbia and Hungary, two European countries, have strong relationships with China. This proves the political importance of the trip. Serbia has long supported China’s claim on Taiwan and has Beijing’s support for its claim to Kosovo. Although Serbia is not a member of the European Union and doesn’t have much influence in the European market, the agreements with the European Union’s member, Hungary, will impact European politics and the European market. Hungary’s foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, has stated that 16-18 cooperation agreements would be signed during Xi’s visit, one of which could be a large-scale infrastructure scheme within China’s vast Belt and Road project. These agreements will further strengthen the relationship and maintain China’s ties with Europe and their foothold in the European market.

  • China’s Efforts for Palestine and Its Effects in the Middle East

    China’s Efforts for Palestine and Its Effects in the Middle East

    As over six months have passed since Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s ongoing retaliation, we understand some important trends. Firstly, neither Israel nor Hamas currently wishes for a ceasefire. Secondly, the US doesn’t hold much power over Israel. Indeed, Biden has asked several times for a ceasefire in Gaza, though Israel doesn’t seem to obey it. In the latest development, the US has warned that they will stop providing weapons, but Israel seems unfazed. If the United States can’t take action, Europe remains merely an observer. Saudi Arabia and Iran have demonstrated their weakness in international politics. Russia, engaged in another unending war, likely won’t be inclined to talk peace. India appears to be leaning heavily towards Israel. Qatar, the usual Muslim intermediary, has failed in its efforts. So, who is left to conduct mediation talks on the world stage? We’ve overlooked one significant player: China, rising super power.

    The Soviet Union, once the second pole, was the biggest supporter of Palestine, but they don’t exist now. After three decades of a power vacuum created by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, now we have a significant contender: the dragon, China. During the time of the power vacuum, many things happened in Palestinian politics. The first was the split in administration between the West Bank and Gaza, which severely weakened Palestine. Sensing a diplomatic opening, Chinese President Xi Jinping is stepping up China’s intervention in the Middle East crisis. Beijing’s primary aim is to facilitate reconciliation between the two primary Palestinian factions: the secular Fatah and the Islamist Hamas. Last week, it hosted talks between these two groups. Palestinian unity is seen by China as the most probable and practical solution for Palestine. If Palestine becomes a recognizable country, they will gain more power, and probably China can lead them to more positions in the UN and other bodies. If China accomplishes this, there is no doubt China will be the winner in the Middle East. There has been actual improvement with China’s mediatory efforts. Musa Abu Marzouk, the head of Hamas’s international relations office, stated in a Sunday interview that he anticipates Fatah and Hamas returning to Beijing soon for a second round of talks. He also disclosed that Hamas had wanted China, Russia, and Turkey to act as co-guarantors of any peace deal between Hamas and Israel, signaling Hamas’s distrust of the US’s inability or unwillingness.

    Some analysts perceive China’s engagement as an attempt to supplant the US’s traditional role in between Israel and Palestine. However, China regards its actions as a continuation of the role it played last year in resolving the nine-year diplomatic standoff between Saudi Arabia and Iran. China’s good fortune may be its timing. There is a weak administration currently in the US, and even Japan’s president said last month that the US is in doubt on their own world leader role. In this situation, the initiative made by China is a more practical way to bring about change in Palestine and establish an authorized body as the first step in negotiations with Israel. Both Fatah and Hamas find themselves in difficult situations. Fatah has become significantly unpopular, while Hamas is actively hunted by Israel. Both parties are in need of peace and a resolution. However, there are many hurdles. Just prior to the negotiations, Hamas launched a critique against the new Fatah-led government in the West Bank, asserting that it was not consulted on its formation. Fatah hit back, saying it had not been consulted about Hamas’s attack on Israel. But if they all get into the structure of government and show some unity, they can be presented to Israel for more talks.  As China can fix the Saudi Arabia-Iran issue they can fix this also. 

    The Gaza conflict resulted in a strengthening of China’s pro-Palestinian stance in the Middle East. Within a week of the Hamas attack on 7th October, the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, described Israel’s bombardment of civilians in Gaza as actions that “have gone beyond the scope of self-defense” in a call with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud. Xi commented on the crisis after the Third Belt and Road Forum in late October. He restated China’s long-standing support for a two-state solution and pushed for the creation of a humanitarian corridor to aid the Gaza Strip. In February, Beijing pressed the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to weigh in on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories, which China deemed unlawful. It appears that China is exerting more effort compared to what is being contributed by so-called Muslim allies.

    China has been a net importer of oil since 1993, with about half coming from the Middle East. China has become reliant on a region that the US continues to dominate. But as per latest geopolitical happenings, The Middle East now feels the advantage of having an alternative to Washington’s supremacy. Gulf states are heavily investing in China, driven by their desire to free themselves from oil dependence, wean themselves off their over-dependence on the US, and embrace emerging countries, industries, and markets. The US is resisting this trend, for instance, challenging Middle Eastern countries not to invest in Huawei. One of the factors driving Washington’s desire to strike normalization deals with Saudi Arabia is the belief that it can help marginalize Chinese influence in sensitive security and energy sectors. Though, as part of the power game, China now gives hope to Palestine and peace lovers through their efforts.

  • Why Is The Pakistan-Afghanistan Relationship In Crisis?

    Why Is The Pakistan-Afghanistan Relationship In Crisis?

    Pakistan, a country troubled with borders, is facing a deep existential crisis. The multi-ethnic, multilingual nation continues to exist due to its strong adherence to Islamism and animosity towards India. However, the state has already faltered due to poor governance, recurrent military rule, escalating separatist movements, and rampant terrorist activities. Challenges also emanate from neighboring countries. India, the primary adversary, is increasingly assertive in its demand for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Additionally, relations with Iran have soured over Balochistan, while territorial disputes strain ties with Afghanistan. Afghanistan has never acknowledged the Durand Line, the border line between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which traverses the heartland of the Pashtun. Nevertheless, the relationship with Afghanistan, Pakistan’s Islamic brother, is crucial for Pakistan due to unique geographical challenges and the potential threat posed by India. But as like the twists in Bollywood movies Afghanistan is now the biggest concern of Pakistan.

    Pakistan, once accused of nurturing terrorism, reaped benefits from it. Serious blasts in Indian economic centers and Jammu Kashmir served to stun India, portraying it as lacking security in international media. Terrorism also served strategic purposes in Iran and Afghanistan. The Taliban, current rulers of Afghanistan, emerged from Pakistan’s terrorist nurturing programs. However, terrorism eventually turned against itself as terrorist organizations aimed at Islamizing the Indian subcontinent began to target Pakistan primarily. These groups, like the Pakistan Taliban, began attacking officials, tourists, and mostly Chinese foreign workers, earning Pakistan the label of a serious terrorist state. And severely worsened the economy of Pakistan. Accusations against Afghanistan grew as they seemingly adopted strategies of Pakistan used against India to now target Pakistan.

    Recently, Pakistan’s military revealed that a suicide bombing in March, which killed five Chinese engineers and a Pakistani driver, was orchestrated from neighboring Afghanistan by an Afghan citizen. Four suspects linked to the attack were apprehended. This is only one incident that grabs headlines of newspapers, due to the deaths of Chinese nationals, but there are a lot of similar incidents reported. The Pakistani Taliban, with sanctuaries in Afghanistan, intensified attacks within Pakistan since January, resulting in the deaths of 62 security forces. Evidence strongly implicates their involvement in the escalating violence. Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, witnessed numerous militant attacks in recent years, including a recent suicide blast targeting a van carrying five Japanese workers. The Pakistani Taliban, although distinct from but closely aligned with the Afghan Taliban, bore responsibility for such attacks. Consequently, animosity toward Afghans in Pakistan has surged. Nearly 563,639 Afghan migrants returned to Afghanistan following Islamabad’s crackdown on illegal migration, drawing criticism from international and domestic human rights groups.

    Pakistan and Afghanistan, as part of the Indian kingdoms, historically maintained a good relationship. There was a time when discussions leaned toward uniting Pakistan and Afghanistan to form a strong Islamic country in the Indian subcontinent. Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, a seasoned diplomat who held the position of Pakistan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, recalled significant efforts made at the governmental level to establish an Pakistan-Afghanistan Confederation. According to Kasuri, the United States also endorsed this concept. President Zia-ul-Haq expanded on the notion of a Pakistan-Afghanistan Confederation, envisioning unrestricted movement for both Pakistanis and Afghans without the need for passports.. General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, considered Zia’s right-hand man and the Director-General of the ISI, himself a Pashtun, shared Zia’s vision of a post-Soviet “Islamic Confederation” comprising Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and even the states of Soviet Central Asia. Despite its abandonment, Pakistan’s relationship with Afghanistan remained warm. The Taliban received significant financial and logistical support from Pakistan, facilitated by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, which provided funding, training, and weaponry. After the Taliban’s removal in 2001, many found refuge in Pakistan. However, following the Taliban’s return to Afghanistan in 2021, the situation changed drastically. There is now a considerable amount of anti-Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan, while negative feelings toward Afghan refugees are widespread in Pakistan. Issues such as calls for Pashtun land in Pakistan, the refugee crisis, and terrorism have strained the relationship to its lowest point.

    Foreign relationships are essential in modern times, as they create more opportunities for every state. Building relationships with neighbors is particularly crucial. However, Pakistan currently lacks both. Its relationship with Afghanistan is in a volatile state, and any further developments will likely exacerbate the situation. Both the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, though they are Islamic, their views, directions, and agendas differ. Pakistan’s new government favors the military and the West but does not support Islamic extremism like the Taliban’s Afghanistan. The Taliban government, on the other hand, will strive to benefit from Pashtun support by claiming Pashtun areas. Consequently, the Western-oriented Pakistani government may soon clash with the Taliban government, and as a result, the chances of improving relationships are diminishing.