Tag: United States

  • Is Trump Pushing for a Gaza Ceasefire?

    Is Trump Pushing for a Gaza Ceasefire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • How Afghanistan Still Impacts U.S. Presidential Campaigns

    How Afghanistan Still Impacts U.S. Presidential Campaigns

    Afghanistan is indeed considered one of the biggest blunders in United States foreign policy. This state, with a distinct identity deeply influenced by Persian and Indian cultures, often seen as a mix of both, was infused with extremist Islamic ideology by the United States, with the help of Pakistan, once their biggest ally in the region, to counter the Soviet Union. The notorious Islamic extremist organization, the Taliban, was nurtured with U.S.-supported funds, but they eventually became foes, leading to the famous U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which overthrew the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate that had become a threat to humanity. After the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban’s reestablishment of the Islamic Emirate in 2021, strict Islamic Sharia law was reimplemented, women were banned from public life and schools, ancient cruel punishments became common, and Islam permeated all aspects of the state.

    The United States chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to enormous spending and the loss of American lives. The U.S. allowed the Taliban to take over the country, orchestrating meetings in Qatar, the Taliban’s biggest ally, and even releasing Taliban terrorists to facilitate the coup. Afghanistan is now under Taliban control, and though the U.S. has been absent for three years, the situation still impacts American politics. It remains a significant talking point in the ongoing presidential clash between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris.

    The United States’ operation in Afghanistan spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations, making both parties equally responsible for the war and the resulting deaths of U.S. soldiers and Afghan civilians. Although the issue had nearly faded from American consciousness, it has resurfaced in the mainstream as former President Donald Trump on Monday linked Vice President Kamala Harris to the chaotic Afghanistan War withdrawal. This occurred on the third anniversary of the suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members, an event Trump called a humiliation. Trump also laid wreaths at Arlington National Cemetery to honor Sgt. Nicole Gee, Staff Sgt. Darin Hoover, and Staff Sgt. Ryan Knauss, who were killed, along with more than 100 Afghans, in the suicide bombing at Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 26, 2021.

    President Joe Biden’s administration was actually following a withdrawal commitment and timeline that the Trump administration had negotiated with the Taliban and Qatar in 2020. A 2022 review by a government-appointed special investigator concluded that decisions made by both Trump and Biden were key factors leading to the rapid collapse of Afghanistan’s military and the Taliban takeover. However, Trump accused Biden and Kamala Harris of causing the humiliation in Afghanistan, claiming it triggered the collapse of American credibility and respect worldwide. In his speech to the National Guard in Detroit, Trump stated that leaving Afghanistan was the right decision but criticized the poor execution. While the Taliban’s resurgence and the U.S. withdrawal were planned, the execution was a significant failure that severely damaged the United States’ image and cost many lives.

    Kamala Harris largely dismissed Trump’s remarks about the poor execution of the Afghanistan withdrawal. In her statement marking the anniversary of the Kabul airport attack, Harris expressed her mourning for the 13 U.S. service members who were killed, stating that her prayers were with their families and loved ones, and that her heart broke for their pain and loss. She also honored and remembered all Americans who served in Afghanistan. Harris reiterated that President Biden made the courageous and correct decision to end America’s longest war. She mentioned that over the past three years, the administration had demonstrated that they could still eliminate terrorists, including the leaders of al-Qaeda and ISIS, without deploying troops into combat zones. Harris emphasized that she would never hesitate to take whatever action was necessary to counter terrorist threats and protect the American people.

    Under Trump, the United States signed a peace agreement with the Taliban aimed at ending America’s longest war and bringing U.S. troops home. Biden later used this agreement to shift blame for the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, contending that it required him to withdraw troops and set the stage for the subsequent chaos. The Biden administration’s review acknowledged that the evacuation of Americans and allies should have started earlier, blaming delays on the Afghan government and military, as well as U.S. military and intelligence assessments. The top U.S. generals overseeing the evacuation criticized the administration for inadequate planning. Gen. Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers earlier this year that he had recommended keeping a residual force of 2,500 troops for support. Instead, Biden chose to maintain a much smaller contingent of 650 troops, solely for securing the U.S. embassy.

    While Harris emphasizes American lives and Trump focuses on American pride, the plight of Afghan citizens, who have suffered under the Taliban’s medieval rule, is largely overlooked by U.S. presidential candidates. There has been little offered in terms of help for the suffering Afghans, a situation also exacerbated by the United States. The success of the Taliban has aided many extremist organizations in spreading their vision across various countries, which could eventually pose a significant threat to the U.S. Meanwhile, without addressing these core issues, presidential candidates are focusing on the emotions of American citizens.

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

    What Does the Influx of Western Investments in Malaysia Mean?

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

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

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

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

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

  • Russia Seems Unhappy with the US Flirting with Armenia

    Russia Seems Unhappy with the US Flirting with Armenia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Has an Asian NATO Already Evolved?

    Has an Asian NATO Already Evolved?

    NATO, one of the most successful international military collaborations, has helped Europe and the United States defend against communism and the Soviet Union, maintaining a stalemate in Europe and avoiding a possible third world war. Its importance in bringing peace to Europe is undeniable, even though the left and anti-war groups may disagree. While the Soviet Union ended, the might of Russia has kept NATO alive. However, Russia has proven not to be a significant threat to NATO, and the United States now sees the primary threat coming from Asia. The continent is on a journey back to prominence, with Communist China, the world’s second-biggest economy, along with its communist allies and Russia, deciding to challenge the United States and its influence. The United States recognizes these risks and is shifting its focus from the Atlantic to East Asia, strengthening military relationships with Asian countries. 

    The bilateral military relationships that the United States maintains with countries in the region are slowly evolving into regional ones. Although no official multilateral military organization like NATO has been created, political scientists believe such a coalition is already in effect in East Asia. North Korea, a communist ally of China, has no doubts about this development. North Korean state media have connected it to a recent joint military exercise by South Korea, Japan, and the US, claiming that these drills demonstrate that the relationship among the three countries has evolved into “The Asian version of NATO”.

    The three countries recently launched large-scale joint military drills near China, called “Freedom Edge”, involving navy destroyers, fighter jets, and the nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt. These exercises aim to enhance defenses against missiles, submarines, and air attacks. Conceived at the three-way summit at Camp David last year, the exercise is designed to strengthen military cooperation amid rising tensions on the Korean peninsula due to North Korea’s weapons testing and increasing military ties among Russia, North Korea, and China. Thus, the joint exercise’s mission extends beyond North Korea to include China and Russia.

    North Korea’s foreign ministry declared that Pyongyang would not overlook the strengthening of a US-led military bloc and would safeguard regional peace with an aggressive and overwhelming response, according to the KCNA news agency, on Sunday. It is certain that the Chinese government will take note of this development, especially given the increasing number of joint military exercises in the water near China and the disputed South China Sea, which China considers crucial.

    According to political analysts, beyond merely connecting allied countries in the region to NATO, the US has cultivated a group of nations capable of forming an inter-military collaboration in Asia similar to NATO. The United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, and Singapore all fall under US military security in the region, effectively countering China’s influence. For more effective cooperation, a NATO-like body with a secretariat and other administrative structures could be established by the US soon. However, cost remains a significant issue, as there is already criticism from US citizens regarding US spending on NATO, while other member countries contribute less. It is clear that if the Soviet Union was the primary threat last century, China is seen as the primary threat to the United States in this century. Taming China will likely be a priority for the US despite spending issues in the coming decades.

    So, it’s not only North Korea’s comments; the United States is likely to move in this direction to prevent potential aggression from China and North Korea in the region. The rapid movements from the US side, including numerous diplomatic talks, military exercises, and weapons trade agreements, all indicate this. Given the failure of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization), a US initiative modeled after NATO in Asia, due to disagreements among members, adding new members will likely involve close scrutiny and consideration of their importance.

    It will be interesting to see how this process progresses, especially since Chinese investments are significant in Asian countries, and the United States is expected to engage with them. Many Asian countries, which lean toward authoritarianism, may not prefer to align with the US if it means cutting ties with the Russia-China alliance. Only if an aggressive China emerges will a NATO-level multinational inter-military collaboration spanning vast regions be smoothly established.

  • How Bad Is the India-Canada Relationship Now?

    How Bad Is the India-Canada Relationship Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    It is indeed true that under the leadership of Mohammed bin Salman, there have been some advancements in women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Women are now allowed to drive vehicles independently, and they can enter public spaces without wearing head coverings. However, despite these seemingly progressive decisions, the irony remains glaring. Saudi Arabia, notorious for its oppressive anti-women laws, has been chosen to lead the UN Commission on the Status of Women uncontested. This decision has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations due to the kingdom’s abysmal track record on women’s rights.

    Abdulaziz Alwasil, the Saudi ambassador to the UN, was unanimously elected as the chair of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) during its annual meeting in New York. With no opposing candidates and no dissent among the attendees, Alwasil’s appointment was met with approval from the group of Asia-Pacific states on the commission. When Antonio Manuel Lagdameo, the outgoing chair and Filipino envoy to the UN, sought objections from the 45 members present, the chamber remained silent, prompting Lagdameo to declare, “I hear no objection. It is so decided”.

    Traditionally, a country holds the chairmanship for two years; however, pressure from other members of the Asia group led the Philippines to split its tenure and pass the position to another country after just one year. While Bangladesh was initially expected to assume the role, Saudi Arabia intervened late in the process and lobbied for the chairmanship, widely interpreted as an effort to enhance the kingdom’s reputation.

    However, human rights advocates, who do not receive funding from Arab sources, were quick to highlight the irony of the Commission on the Status of Women being led by a country where the disparity between men’s and women’s rights, even on paper, is so pronounced.

    In Saudi Arabia, women are still obligated to seek approval from a male guardian before marrying, and wives are anticipated to adhere to their husbands’ directives in a “Reasonable Manner”. The provision of financial assistance from husbands is conditional upon the wife’s adherence, and neglecting certain obligations, such as declining sexual relations or not residing in the marital home without a “Legitimate Excuse”, may lead to the cessation of support.

    These laws provide insight into the restrictive nature of Saudi Arabia’s legal system, which is grounded in Sharia law and often viewed as detrimental to women’s rights in more progressive societies. While some Muslim women may assert that Sharia law ensures their safety and satisfaction, those who challenge its tenets may face severe consequences from authorities. Indeed, there have been numerous cases of women seeking asylum simply for expressing dissenting views on social media platforms.

    Last year, UN Women, the UN’s agency for gender equality, reported a worsening of gender disparities worldwide, citing examples from Afghanistan, China, Poland, the United States, and beyond. The organization projected that it could require 286 years to eliminate the global gender gaps in legal protections for women and girls. Moreover, many are concerned about the increasing trend of rolling back women’s rights, even in developing countries, which adds to the discomfort surrounding the decision to appoint Saudi Arabia.

    Sherine Tadros, the head of Amnesty International’s New York office, emphasized that Saudi Arabia will assume the chair next year, coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration, a significant framework for advancing women’s rights globally. “Whoever holds the chair, which is currently Saudi Arabia, holds a pivotal position to shape the planning, decisions, assessments, and forward-looking initiatives in a crucial year for the commission”, Tadros stated. “While Saudi Arabia is now leading, its own track record on women’s rights falls far short of the commission’s mandate”.

    Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) UN director, Louis Charbonneau, criticized the choice as well, saying, “A nation that jails its women for standing up for their rights has no business heading the UN’s main platform for gender equality and women’s rights. The Saudi authorities ought to show that this classification was not wholly unjustified by freeing all incarcerated advocates for women’s rights, doing away with male guardianship, and guaranteeing women’s total equality with men”. 

    Despite the ineffectiveness of these UN-based organizations and forums, it is alarming that nations have not expressed concern or opposition to Saudi Arabia’s bid. This lack of action is not limited to the UN; even in highly prominent events such as the bidding for the 2034 FIFA World Cup, there has been no challenge to Saudi Arabia’s bid, despite criticism of the country’s mistreatment of labor rights. Logic of some selections is very illogical, and will lead to many doubts, like Qatar’s selection for running the World cup football. Money decides the winner, as always. And that brings the Hope Taliban Ruling Afghanistan will not be assigned in the future.