Rise of Bangladesh as Impetus to South Asian Countries

 

Rise of Bangladesh as Impetus to South Asian Countries

PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 20, 2023

 

 SRI LANKA GUARDIAN ESSAYS

ADB HOPEFUL ON BANGLADESH’S GROWTH

According to Asian Development Bank Bangladesh is doing well. The ADB report states that exports, remittances, and domestic consumption buoyed Bangladesh’s economy in fiscal year (FY) 2022, which ended on 30 June 2022. Gross domestic product growth was at 7.1%, up from 6.9% in FY 2021. Growth, however, was dampened by the global economic slowdown caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which affected Bangladesh’s economy through a widening external balance and rising inflation.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is a key source of external assistance for Bangladesh, providing $2 billion on average every year since 2016. ADB’s assistance is aligned with the country’s Eighth Five-Year Plan, 2021–2025, and the Perspective Plan, 2021–2041. To date, ADB has committed 701 public sector loans, grants, and technical assistance totaling $28.3 billion to Bangladesh. Cumulative loan and grant disbursements to Bangladesh amount to $21.19 billion.

These were financed by regular and concessional ordinary capital resources, the Asian Development Fund, and other special funds. ADB’s ongoing sovereign portfolio in Bangladesh includes 70 loans and 4 grants worth $11.31 billion.1 ADB committed $1.6 billion in public sector loans and grants to Bangladesh in 2022. This included $250 million for social protection and $200 million in microenterprise financing for job creation to support recovery from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The report is encouraging.

DEFINITION OF POVERTY BY IZVESTOPEDIA AND ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

But then the question that arises is the definition of poverty. Laura Porter in Investopedia has defined poverty as the state or condition in which people or communities lack the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living. As such, their basic human needs cannot be met. People and families who live in poverty may go without proper housing, clean water, healthy food, and medical attention. Each nation may have its own criteria for determining the poverty line and counting how many of its people live in poverty.

Poverty is a socioeconomic condition that is the result of multiple factors—not just income. These factors include race, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and little to no access to education, among others. The countries with the highest poverty rates include South Sudan (82.30%), Equatorial Guinea (76.80%), Madagascar (70.70%), Guinea Bissau (69.30%), and Eritrea (69.00%). Among the developed countries the US is the poorest in the Western bloc. It is therefore obvious that the definition of poverty is different in South Asia and in the West.

Laura Porter goes on to define poverty as Poverty is defined as the state or condition where people and communities cannot meet a minimum standard of living because they lack, of the proper resources. These include (but aren’t limited to) financial resources, basic healthcare and education, clean drinking water, and infrastructure. Living in the socioeconomic condition of poverty is a result of multiple factors not simply including race, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and access to education, among others.

Organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank, which say that poverty will continue to grow well beyond 2030, urge nations to fight poverty by implementing policies and regulations that can drastically improve the quality of living for all communities. Encyclopedia Britannica defines poverty as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Poverty is said to exist when people lack the means to satisfy their basic needs.

In this context, the identification of poor people first requires a determination of what constitutes basic needs. These may be defined as narrowly as “those necessary for survival” or as broadly as “those reflecting the prevailing standard of living in the community.” The first criterion would cover only those people near the borderline of starvation or death from exposure; the second would extend to people whose nutrition, housing, and clothing, though adequate to preserve life, do not measure up to those of the population as a whole. The problem of definition is further compounded by the noneconomic connotations that the word poverty has acquired. This foray into the definition of poverty is needed to emphasize that poor people in the US are different from the poor people in South Asia. The next question would be the causes of growth that propels countries to bring themselves from the clutches of poverty.

Several factors are believed to contribute to the growth of an economy. Generally, it is believed that education is a prominent factor. But then since education is a broad term it has been argued that education that promotes production is a better input than one which does not promote GDP. It is also believed that foreign trade plays an important role in the growth of an economy. Greater exports provide an economy to have more money at its disposal to tend to other needs of the people as well as more money at its disposal to buy cheaper imports.

“CHINESE DEBT TRAP” WARNS MIKE PENCE

The example of the rise of China, baring its muscle flexing for a seat at the high table to set the rules for the world to abide by would be appropriate in this context. Coming back to Bangladesh, despite the Russian invasion of Ukraine that has introduced a twist in global politics for the first time since the Second World War coupled with the Chinese claim of Sino-Russian entente with a friendship having “ no limits” and superiority of autocratic regime over the democratic system in reaching essential goods to the needy faster than democrats the warning of Donald Trump’s Vice President Mike Pence’s warning of ‘Chinese Debt Trap” can be ignored at one’s peril.

Bangladesh has become a close partner of China’s Belt and Road Initiative because Bangladesh does not have the resources to finance its infrastructure which is badly needed. In this context, Bangladesh has to consider Indian sensitivity resulting from the Sino-Indian border dispute coupled with the eternal enmity that Pakistan poses towards India since the partition of British India into two countries. South Asia is the region that is made up of India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Maldives.

SAARC AND ROLE OF SOUTH ASIAN COUNTRIES

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is the primary economic bloc covering the region that was established in 1985. All eight countries of the region are members. According to the global competitiveness report 2016-2017, most countries in South Asia have significantly improved their competitiveness in the last few years in the region and is now the fastest-growing part in the world. Over the last few years, the region has aimed on improving the overall health and education levels besides upgrading their infrastructure.

According to World Bank GDP per capita (current US dollars) in Bangladesh in 2022 $2688.3; in Bhutan 2021 $3266.4; India 2022 $ 2388.6; in Maldives 2022 $ 11817.5; Nepal 2022 $ 1336.5; Pakistan 2022 $ 1596.7; and Sri Lanka 2022 $ 3354.4. One hopes that given the information cited above Bangladesh would remain a beacon light for other South Asian countries to forge ahead in a complicated world.

Where is the Tipping Point?

 

Where is the Tipping Point?

PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 22, 2023

 

 SRI LANKA GUARDIAN ESSAYS

CHINA DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND WORLD WARS

It is generally believed that the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ignited the First World War. Narratives on the Causes of the War differ. WIKIPEDIA’S narrative on the identification of the causes of World War I remains a debated issue. It claims that World War I began in the Balkans on July 28, 1914, and hostilities ended on November 11, 1918. Moreover, the Russian Civil War can in many ways be considered a continuation of World War I, as can various other conflicts in the direct aftermath of 1918. Scholars looking at the long term seek to explain why two rival sets of powers (the German Empire and Austria-Hungary against the Russian Empire, France, the British Empire, and later the United States) came into conflict by 1915.

They look at such factors as political, territorial, and economic competition; militarism, a complex web of alliances and alignments; imperialism, the growth of nationalism; and the power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Other important long-term or structural factors that are often studied include unresolved territorial disputes, the perceived breakdown of the European balance of power, convoluted and fragmented governance, arms race, and security dilemmas, among other factors.   

Scholars seeking short-term analysis focus on the summer of 1914 and ask whether the conflict could have been stopped, or instead, whether deeper causes made it inevitable. The assassination referred to earlier escalated as the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was joined by their allies Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and the United Kingdom. Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis leading up to the war included misperceptions of intent (such as the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), the fatalistic belief that war was inevitable, and the speed with which the crisis escalated, partly due to delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications.

The crisis followed a series of diplomatic clashes among the Great Powers (Italy, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Austria-Hungary, and Russia) over European and colonial issues in the decades before 1914 that had left tensions high. And the cause of the public clashes can be traced to changes in the balance of power in Europe that had been taking place since 1867. Consensus on the origins of the war remains elusive since historians disagree on key factors and place differing emphasis on a variety of factors. That is compounded by as classified historical archives become available, and as the perspectives and ideologies of historians have changed.

The deepest division among historians is between those who see Germany and Austria-Hungary as having driven events and those who focus on power dynamics among a wider set of actors and circumstances. Secondary fault lines exist between those who believe that Germany deliberately planned a European war, those who believe that the war was largely unplanned but was still caused principally by Germany and Austria-Hungary taking risks, and those who believe that some or all of the other powers (Russia, France, Serbia, United Kingdom) played a more significant role in causing the war than has been traditionally suggested. Another narrative points to Kaiser Wilhelm II, role in causing the War. Because mighty Russia supported Serbia, Austria-Hungary waited to declare war until its leaders received assurance from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause.

Austro-Hungarian leaders feared that a Russian intervention would involve Russia’s ally, France, and possibly Great Britain as well. On July 5, Kaiser Wilhelm secretly pledged his support, giving Austria-Hungary a so-called carte blanche, or “blank check” assurance of Germany’s backing in the case of war. The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary then sent an ultimatum to Serbia, with such harsh terms as to make it almost impossible to accept. Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance.

On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed. Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun. The causes of the Second World War are neither singular nor straightforward. This section will explore the primary causes which led to the outbreak of war in 1939. Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was not the sole cause of the Second World War, but it was a large contributing factor. From 1935 onwards, Germany had actively pursued an aggressive foreign policy: reintroducing conscription and occupying Austria, the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia before eventually invading Poland in 1939. By breaking international agreements set out in the Treaty of Versailles and pursuing aggressive expansionism, Germany’s actions made a major European war more likely.

In the aftermath of the First World War and following the end of the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles was agreed. Whilst a temporary economic recovery appeared between 1924-1929, Germany remained politically and economically fragile. The political instability from 1929-1933 led to disillusionment with politics and a rise in support for extremist parties such as the Nazis.

The Treaty of Versailles also reduced the size of Germany. This had numerous outcomes, among them losing key economic outputs, as well as making people who had previously been German part of other countries. The change in the eastern borders of Germany in particular became a source of contention, and as a result, many people within Germany felt that the treaty was unfair. This again led to discontent and was exploited by extremist parties such as the Nazis who rejected of the treaty.

WEAKNESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AND POLICY OF APPEASEMENT

The weakness of the International System and the Policy of appeasement became apparent. Whilst Germany’s foreign policy played a decisive role in the outbreak of the Second World War, the failure of other countries to react, or their inability to react, was also key. The aftermath of the First World War also left France and Britain in politically and economically weak situations. This meant that they were often unwilling or unable to respond effectively to German aggression. Britain in particular felt that the Treaty of Versailles, and its effects on Germany, were harsh.

Following the devastation of the First World War, Britain was desperate to avoid another world war. As a result of this followed a policy of appeasement towards Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy from 1933-1939. This policy boosted Hitler’s confidence and as a result, his actions became progressively bolder.

Outside of mainland Europe, the USA and the Soviet Union also played key roles in the outbreak of the Second World War. In the lead-up to 1939, both countries followed increasingly isolationist policies, keeping themselves out of international foreign affairs where possible. The USA had not joined the League of Nations and had passed several Neutrality Acts in 1938 which avoided financial and political war-related deals. As a major power, the USA’s reluctance to involve itself in other countries’ affairs helped to embolden Hitler and the Nazis.

This contributed to the rise of Nazism in Europe, and its confidence to carry out its aggressive foreign policy without fear of retaliation from the USA. In addition to this, following the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 , the Soviets ceased to be an immediate threat to the Nazis. This allowed them to start the war for Lebensraum with Soviet support. When combined, these factors reduced the chances of an effective challenge to Nazi Germany preceding the Second World War.

It meant that Hitler was able to get progressively more confident without fear of retaliation or serious action from other powers. Creation of the Axis Powers Throughout the 1930s, new alliances were forged across Europe. The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) helped to unite Italy and Germany, who both offered military support to the nationalist rebels attacking the democratic government.  Prior to this, Italy and Germany had not been militarily aligned, and Italy had blocked Germany’s plans to annex Austria in 1934. Following the Spanish Civil War, however, relations between the two countries improved.

In October 1936, the Rome-Berlin Treaty between Italy and Germany was signed. The following month in November 1936, an anti-communist treaty, the Anti-Comintern Pact, was signed between Japan and Germany. In 1937, Italy joined this pact. The three countries formalized these pacts into a military alliance in 1940.

The countries that were part of this alliance became known as the Axis Powers. When coupled with Germany’s aggressive foreign policy, the creation of an alternative military alliance to the Allies, intensified the volatile situation. The Failure of the Allied Powers in the Summer of 1939 the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were ideological enemies. Despite this, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany entered into a non-aggression pact in the summer of 1939, which allowed them to invade and occupy parts of Poland. This pact suited both countries’ territorial aims. This situation, however, was not inevitable. In 1939, the Soviet Union was initially engaged in talks with the Allies over a defensive strategy for Poland. When these talks broke down, the Soviet Union turned back towards Germany, quickly agreeing on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Ultimately, the Allies failed to make a concerted effort to work together to prevent Hitler’s attack on Poland. This failure was a contributing factor in the outbreak of the Second World War.

The War ended with the victory of the Allied powers in 1945 with US President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin busy with the division of defeated Germany and the trial of Nuremberg.

CHINA AT THE END OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR

The end of the Second World War saw China, now US President Joe Biden’s enemy number one, effectively divided into three regions—Nationalist China under control of the Ching Kai Shek’sgovernment, Communist China, and the areas occupied by Japan. Each was essentially pitted against the other two, although Chinese military forces were ostensibly allied under the banner of the United Front. By the time Japan accepted the surrender terms on August 14, 1945, China had endured decades of Japanese occupation and eight years of brutal warfare.

The end of World War II did not mark the end of the conflict in China, however. Japan’s defeat set off a race between the Nationalists and Communists to control population centers in northern China and Manchuria. Nationalist troops, using the transportation facilities of the U.S. military, were able to take over key cities and most railway lines in East and North China. Communist troops occupied much of the hinterland in the north and in Manchuria.

The United Front had always been precarious, and it had been tacitly understood by both the Nationalists and Communists that they would cooperate only until Japan had been defeated; until then, neither side could afford to seem to pursue internal aims at the cost of the national struggle.

IMF HOPEFUL OF CHINA AND INDIA TO PROMOTE GLOBAL GROWTH

China has travelled many miles since then by becoming the second richest country in the world. IMF is hopeful that China and India will help global growth in the coming years. In its latest chart, IMF has predicted that in the region will contribute about 70 percent of global growth this year—a much greater share than in recent years. IMF’S latest Regional Economic Outlook describes the resilience of the world’s most dynamic region and the important challenges facing its policymakers.

In recent times, China has faced challenges due to Xi Jinping’s struggle to shift the economy from being export-driven to consumption-oriented. People are increasingly inclined to save their money in banks rather than investing in real estate, which has become problematic. Additionally, a lack of employment opportunities for educated individuals has led to the emergence of a frustrated segment of the population. It remains uncertain whether Xi Jinping will attempt to bolster his popular support by pursuing actions such as an invasion of Taiwan.

 

Soviet soldiers in World War II. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Where Is The Tipping Point? – OpEd

 August 18, 2023  0 Comments

By Ambassador Kazi Anwarul Masud

It is generally believed that the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ignited the First World War. Narratives on the causes of the War differ. Wikipedia’s narrative on the identification of the causes of World War I remains a debated issue. It claims that World War I began in the Balkans on July 28, 1914, and hostilities ended on November 11, 1918.

Moreover, the Russian Civil War can in many ways be considered a continuation of World War I, as can various other conflicts in the direct aftermath of 1918. Scholars looking at the long term seek to explain why two rival sets of powers (the German Empire and Austria-Hungary against the Russian Empire, France, the British Empire, and later the United States) came into conflict by 1915. They look at such factors as political, territorial, and economic competition; militarism, a complex web of alliances and alignments; imperialism, the growth of nationalism; and the power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire.

Other important long-term or structural factors that are often studied include unresolved territorial disputes, the perceived breakdown of the European balance of power, convoluted and fragmented governance, arms race, and security dilemmas, among other factors.   

Scholars seeking short-term analysis focus on the summer of 1914 and ask whether the conflict could have been stopped, or instead, whether deeper causes made it inevitable. The assassination referred to earlier escalated as the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was joined by their allies Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and the United Kingdom.

Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis leading up to the war included misperceptions of intent (such as the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), the fatalistic belief that war was inevitable, and the speed with which the crisis escalated, partly due to delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications. The crisis followed a series of diplomatic clashes among the Great Powers (Italy, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Austria-Hungary, and Russia) over European and colonial issues in the decades before 1914 that had left tensions high. And the cause of the public clashes can be traced to changes in the balance of power in Europe that had been taking place since 1867.

Consensus on the origins of the war remains elusive since historians disagree on key factors and place differing emphasis on a variety of factors. That is compounded by as classified historical archives become available, and as the perspectives and ideologies of historians have changed. The deepest division among historians is between those who see Germany and Austria-Hungary as having driven events and those who focus on power dynamics among a wider set of actors and circumstances.

Secondary fault lines exist between those who believe that Germany deliberately planned a European war, those who believe that the war was largely unplanned but was still caused principally by Germany and Austria-Hungary taking risks, and those who believe that some or all of the other powers (Russia, France, Serbia, United Kingdom) played a more significant role in causing the war than has been traditionally suggested. Another narrative points to Kaiser Wilhelm II, role in causing the War. Because mighty Russia supported Serbia, Austria-Hungary waited to declare war until its leaders received assurance from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause. Austro-Hungarian leaders feared that a Russian intervention would involve Russia’s ally, France, and possibly Great Britain as well. On July 5, Kaiser Wilhelm secretly pledged his support, giving Austria-Hungary a so-called carte blanche, or “blank check” assurance of Germany’s backing in the case of war.

The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary then sent an ultimatum to Serbia, with such harsh terms as to make it almost impossible to accept. Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed. Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun.

The causes of the Second World War are neither singular nor straightforward. This section will explore the primary causes which led to the outbreak of war in 1939. Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was not the sole cause of the Second World War, but it was a large contributing factor. From 1935 onwards, Germany had actively pursued an aggressive foreign policy: reintroducing conscription, and occupying Austria, the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia before eventually invading Poland in 1939. By breaking international agreements set out in the Treaty of Versailles and pursuing aggressive expansionism, Germany’s actions made a major European war more likely. In the aftermath of the First World War and following the end of the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles was agreed. Whilst a temporary economic recovery appeared between 1924-1929, Germany remained politically and economically fragile.

The political instability from 1929-1933 led to disillusionment with politics and a rise in support for extremist parties such as the Nazis. The Treaty of Versailles also reduced the size of Germany. This had numerous outcomes, among them losing key economic outputs, as well as making people who had previously been German part of other countries. The change in the eastern borders of Germany in particular became a source of contention, and as a result, many people within Germany felt that the treaty was unfair. This again led to discontent and was exploited by extremist parties such as the Nazis who rejected of the treaty. 

The weakness of the International System and the Policy of Appeasement became apparent. Whilst Germany’s foreign policy played a decisive role in the outbreak of the Second World War, the failure of other countries to react, or their inability to react, was also key. The aftermath of the First World War had also left France and Britain in politically and economically weak situations. This meant that they were often unwilling or unable to respond effectively to German aggression. Britain in particular felt that the Treaty of Versailles, and its effects on Germany, were harsh. Following the devastation of the First World War, Britain was desperate to avoid another world war. As a result of this followed a policy of appeasement towards Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy from 1933-1939. This policy boosted Hitler’s confidence and as a result, his actions became progressively bolder.

Outside of mainland Europe, the USA and the Soviet Union also played key roles in the outbreak of the Second World War. In the lead-up to 1939, both countries followed increasingly isolationist policies, keeping themselves out of international foreign affairs where possible. The USA had not joined the League of Nations and had passed several Neutrality Acts in 1938 which avoided financial and political war-related deals. As a major power, the USA’s reluctance to involve itself in other country’s affairs helped to embolden Hitler and the Nazis. This contributed to the rise of Nazism in Europe, and its confidence to carry out its aggressive foreign policy without fear of retaliation from the USA.

In addition to this, following the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 , the Soviets ceased to be an immediate threat to the Nazis. This allowed them to start the war for Lebensraum with Soviet support. When combined, these factors reduced the chances of an effective challenge to Nazi Germany preceding the Second World War. It meant that Hitler was able to get progressively more confident without fear of retaliation or serious action from other powers. Creation of the Axis Powers Throughout the 1930s, new alliances were forged across Europe.

The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) helped to unite Italy and Germany, who both offered military support to the nationalist rebels attacking the democratic government.  Prior to this, Italy and Germany had not been militarily aligned, and Italy had blocked Germany’s plans to annex Austria in 1934. Following the Spanish Civil War, however, relations between the two countries improved. In October 1936, the Rome-Berlin Treaty between Italy and Germany was signed. The following month in November 1936, an anti-communist treaty, the Anti-Comintern Pact, was signed between Japan and Germany.

In 1937, Italy joined this pact. The three countries formalized these pacts into a military alliance in 1940. The countries that were part of this alliance became known as the Axis Powers. When coupled with Germany’s aggressive foreign policy, the creation of an alternative military alliance to the Allies, intensified the volatile situation. The Failure of the Allied Powers in the Summer of 1939 The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were ideological enemies. Despite this, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany entered into a non-aggression pact in the summer of 1939, which allowed them to invade and occupy parts of Poland. This pact suited both countries’ territorial aims.

This situation, however, was not inevitable. In 1939, the Soviet Union was initially engaged in talks with the Allies over a defensive strategy for Poland. When these talks broke down, the Soviet Union turned back towards Germany, quickly agreeing on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Ultimately, the Allies failed to make a concerted effort to work together to prevent Hitler’s attack on Poland. This failure was a contributing factor in the outbreak of the Second World War. The War ended with the victory of the Allied powers in 1945 with US President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin busy with the division of defeated Germany and the trial of Nuremberg. 

China At The End Of World War II

The end of the Second World War saw China, now US President Joe Biden’s enemy number one, effectively divided into three regions—Nationalist China under control of the Ching Kai Shek’s government, Communist China, and the areas occupied by Japan. Each was essentially pitted against the other two, although Chinese military forces were ostensibly allied under the banner of the United Front.

By the time Japan accepted the surrender terms on August 14, 1945, China had endured decades of Japanese occupation and eight years of brutal warfare. The end of World War II did not mark the end of the conflict in China, however. Japan’s defeat set off a race between the Nationalists and Communists to control population centers in northern China and Manchuria. Nationalist troops, using the transportation facilities of the U.S. military, were able to take over key cities and most railway lines in East and North China. Communist troops occupied much of the hinterland in the north and in Manchuria. The United Front had always been precarious, and it had been tacitly understood by both the Nationalists and Communists that they would cooperate only until Japan had been defeated; until then, neither side could afford to seem to pursue internal aims at the cost of the national struggle.

China has traveled many miles since then by becoming the second richest country in the world. IMF is hopeful that China and India will help global growth in the coming years. In its latest chart, IMF has predicted that in the region will contribute about 70 percent of global growth this year—a much greater share than in recent years. IMF’S latest Regional Economic Outlook describes the resilience of the world’s most dynamic region and the important challenges facing its policymakers. Though lately China is beleaguered by Xi-Jinping’s failure to transform the economy to consumption-oriented from foreign trade-based People now prefer to keep their money in banks than spend on real estate which has become problematic. Besides lack of employment to educated people has brought in a frustrated class. Whether XI-Jinping will try to gain popular support by invading Taiwan remains to be seen

 

Pakistan's Imran Khan. Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency.

Pakistan What Awaits Imran Khan? – OpEd

 August 13, 2023  0 Comments

By Ambassador Kazi Anwarul Masud

Pakistan’s Army Chief of Staff in July this year categorically described the core of China-Pakistan relations. A report from Pakistani newspaper Dawn (August 3 2023) described his comments as follows: “Pakistan and China on vowed to cement their “all-weather” and “robust” ties with Chief of the Army Staff Gen Asim Munir noting the bilateral relationship has proven its resilience in the face of all challenges and President Xi Jinping reiterated that Beijing would always stand firm with Islamabad regardless of any change in the international landscape.

Speaking as chief guest at the 96th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China commemorated at GHQ, the army chief felicitated the PLA and lauded its role in China’s defense, security, and nation-building. While highlighting various facets of the deep-rooted ties between the two states, militaries, and peoples, he said, “Pakistan-China relationship is unique and robust that has proven its resilience in the face of all challenges.” Gen Munir stated that PLA and Pakistan Army were brothers in arms and “our relationship will continue to contribute towards safeguarding our collective interests”. 

Chinese president assures Pakistan of ‘unwavering support. Meanwhile, President Xi said China would always stand firm with Pakistan regardless of any change in the international landscape and emphasized that both countries would continue to improve overall planning and deepen cooperation. In his congratulatory message on the Decade of CPEC, he said the two countries would continue to work jointly to carry forward the ironclad friendship, coordinate development and security, besides pursuing cooperation of higher standards. He said Beijing and Islamabad would also keep working to take their all-weather strategic cooperative partnership to new heights to make an even greater contribution to peace and prosperity in the two countries and the region. In the message, 

President Xi said China would work with Pakistan to achieve high-standard and sustainable outcomes, and further build CPEC into an exemplary project of the Belt and Road Initiative. He said that China-Pakistan Economic Corridor was a flagship project of BRI and since its launch in 2013, both countries had been advancing it under the principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. The Chinese leader said CPEC had added new impetus to the economic and social development of Pakistan and laid a foundation for regional connectivity and integration. He said CPEC served as “a vivid testament to the all-weather friendship between China and Pakistan”, and stressed the need for both nations to continue to improve overall planning and scale up bilateral cooperation under it.” Army Chief General Munir’s comment is of crucial importance because the foreign policy of the country is dictated by the army and has been so for decades. An exception was made for the first time in many years when Prime Minister Imran Khan was displaced by his colleagues in Parliament and lately, he has been sent to jail as his appeal was dismissed by the Pakistani Supreme Court challenging Imran Khan’s earlier appeal of sentencing him to prison. 

The Imran Khan Conundrum

The Washington Post reported (August 9, 2023) that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif recommended dissolving Pakistan’s Parliament paving the way for a new election after his detained predecessor, Imran Khan, was banned from holding public office for five years. 

Shortly afterward, President Arif Alvi approved the dissolution, just days before the Parliament’s term was to expire.  Imran  Khan who was arrested a few days back after a court sentenced him to three years in prison for corruption, could have been a top contender in the upcoming vote. As Imran Khan’s lawyers seek his release, Pakistan may now face weeks of political upheaval that could provide an opening for the country’s powerful military to seize more control while the interim caretaker government of Anwarul Haq Kaka takes over. 

Most states have armies. In Pakistan, the army has a state. Imran Khan denies the accusations of concealing assets from the sale of state gifts during his time in office, and his legal team has appealed his conviction at a high court in Islamabad. But a hearing that followed did not result in his release on bail. The decision by Pakistan’s electoral commission to almost immediately bar him from office as a result of the conviction is “premature,” Imran Khan adviser Sayed Zulfikar Bukhari opined. He added that the “government is trying to eliminate Khan from the political landscape of Pakistan.”

The intent,  Zulfiqar Bukhari said, is to bog Imran Khan down with “frivolous” cases. While the military and security forces have regained control after violent pro-Khan protests in May challenged their authority, the Pakistani leadership does not appear to have succeeded in breaking Imran Khan’s popularity among voters and supporters of his party, Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice), or PTI.   

Imran Khan was arrested after receiving a jail sentence for corruption “If general elections are held, the PTI will sweep the polls, not only in this province but across the country,” said a staunch supporter of a rival party. The unbroken enthusiasm for Imran Khan among many voters in northwestern Pakistan, where his party had struggled in recent years, suggests that his arrest is deepening a divide between the Pakistani establishment and people who feel disenfranchised. 

While many voters cite easier access to health care and other popular policies introduced during Khan’s term, some also still admire the former cricket star for securing Pakistan’s victory at the Cricket World Cup in 1992, a triumph that paved the way for his quick rise in politics.

In an interview with the BBC before his arrest, Imran Khan had predicted that his party would continue to win in elections. “And because of that, they’re dismantling our democracy,” he said. While analysts agree that Imran Khan remains popular, some worry that his rhetoric is fueling tensions. “There is no sign of Khan losing support,” Zahid Hussain, a Pakistani political commentator, wrote in the Dawn newspaper recently.  

Can Imran Khan Damage Pakistan’s Democratic Process?

Hussain cautioned that Imran Khan’s effort “to bring down the entire edifice” with his populist rhetoric “has done huge damage to the democratic process.” “A prolonged and empowered caretaker administration backed by the security establishment seems to be very much on the cards, putting democratic transition on hold,” Hussain wrote.

Many political analysts expect the Pakistani leadership to find a way to circumvent the requirement to hold elections within 90 days of the dissolution of Parliament.  A Pakistani political commentator said the current governing coalition may be worried about how its 15-month term, which began after Khan was ousted by Parliament in April 2022, will be judged by voters if memories of its performance are still fresh. “This government has been unable to lessen the suffering of people when it comes to inflation and high prices,” he said.

But any government would probably have struggled to succeed, “given the precarious economic situation” when the coalition government took over from Imran Khan last year, he added. The Pakistani political analyst said Sharif’s government could also highlight progress on restoring ties with other countries, including the United States, over the past 15 months, after Imran Khan frustrated U.S. officials by suggesting that they were behind a conspiracy against him. But the government’s most consequential legacy may become its inability to address the deeper frustrations of Imran Khan’s supporters, with many feeling increasingly disconnected from political elites. 

“What seems undeniable is that respect for orderly democratic processes in Pakistan has suffered a particularly severe blow over the last 15 tumultuous months,” wrote Marvin G. Weinbaum, director of the Afghanistan and Pakistan studies program at the Middle East Institute in Washington, in an analysis. For Pakistan, it might be a blow “from which it may not recover,” he wrote. The possibility that Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif was planning to debar Imran Khan’s political party, Tahreek-I-Insaf from the forthcoming general elections has come to a pass after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif recommended dissolving Pakistan’s Parliament paving the way for a new election after Imran Khan, was banned from holding public office for five years. Shortly afterward, President Arif Alvi approved the dissolution, just days before the Parliament’s term was to expire on Saturday. Imran Khan was arrested after a court sentenced him to three years in prison for corruption. 

Corruption

Crossing the floor due to corruption is nothing new in Pakistani politics, and more so when the Army has abandoned Imran Khan. It may be recalled that Imran Khan came to power as the blue-eyed boy of the army in 2018 and remained Prime Minister for four years.

After his ouster, Imran Khan accused the US administration of collusion with the Pakistan Army for his dismissal. The allegation was flatly denied by the Joe Biden administration. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif flew to London for guidance from his elder brother Nawaz Sharif, a three times Prime Minister, now living in exile accused of corruption charges. The problem of Shahbaz Sharif is that in the last provincial election in his home province of Punjab, he was resoundingly defeated by Imran Khan’s Tahreek-I-Insaf party. Imran Khan who remains immensely popular as a cricket legend in Pakistan was likely to repeat his impressive win if he was allowed to participate in the coming general elections. His future however remains in the dark. Pakistan has been suffering from an Orwellian system of governance as described by George Orwell in his famous book NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR.  

Violence is not new to Pakistan that started with the assassination of the first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan and subsequently of Benazir Bhutto, the first female Prime Minister in the Muslim world was assassinated in December 2007. A decade later, Parvez Musharraf, the general in charge of Pakistan at the time and President of Pakistan from 2001-2008, has suggested people in the establishment could have been involved in her murder.

Asked whether rogue elements within the establishment could have been in touch with the Taliban about the killing, General Pervez Musharraf replied: “Possibility. Yes indeed. Because society is polarized on religious lines. “And, he said, those elements could have had a bearing on her death. It’s a startling statement from a former Pakistani head of state reports BBC. Normally military leaders in Pakistan deny any suggestion of state complicity in violent jihadist attacks.  In Neorealism, the structure of the international system is the driving force behind the state’s quest to seek power and security. 

John Mearsheimer On Realism

As per Realist scholar, John Mearsheimer, five assumptions form the core of the Realist framework: a) International system is anarchic in nature. b) States are capable of militarily attacking one another. c) Intentions of other states are uncertain. d) Survival is the driving force behind state behavior. e) States continue to look for ways to ensure their own survival. Additionally, in the anarchic world, a superior authoritative power that dominates all great powers is absent and similarly, the assurances of security are non-existent. In such a world, the sole legitimate interest of every state is to ensure self-preservation by all means at its disposal. including building alliances and amassing power. The states, thus, define their interests in terms of power and security. (Mohammed Faisal. Research Fellow at the China-Pakistan Study Centre (CPSC), Institute of strategic studies.) 

With the commencement of development work under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), both countries also increased their strategic coordination and converged on emerging issues in the regional security environments and at multilateral forums.

Coming back to Imran Khan and his future one of his close aides has said that Imran Khan has been slapped with more than 150 legal cases, including several on charges of corruption, terrorism, and inciting people to violence over deadly protests in May that saw his followers attack government and military property across the country. The cricket star-turned-politician remains the leading opposition figure despite his ouster. Independent analysts have described the asset concealment trial as the “worst in history and tantamount to the murder of justice.” Information Minister Maryam Aurangzeb stated that Khan has been “proven guilty of illegal practices, corruption, concealing assets and wrongly declaring wealth in tax returns.”  Any discussion on Pakistan without reference to Indo-Pakistan-China relations would be incomplete and grossly inadequate.

Again going back to Mohammed Faisal’s treatise in which he writes In the case of Pakistan and China, both are seeking to protect and project their interests in South Asia vis-à-vis India and the US.  The strategic context of recent developments in Pakistan-China relations is rooted in the gradual emergence of two dyads in South Asia over the last decade: India and the US on one hand, and Pakistan and China on the other.

Over the past 15 years, the Asian geopolitical environment has undergone a huge transformation. India and the US have engaged in political, military, and economic cooperation to deepen their strategic partnership. It commenced in 2005, when Bush administration publicly stated that the strategic goal of helping India is to become a “major world power” in the coming decades. In July 2005, India and the US concluded a civil nuclear deal and signed a 10-year military cooperation agreement. 

The Obama administration continued America’s engagement with India. In January 2015, President Obama renewed the 10-year military cooperation agreement. Six months later, a new defense framework agreement was concluded between them, which paved the way for synchronizing American and Indian militaries while developing protocols to grant each other the use of their respective logistical facilities.

Similarly, in India, Narendra Modi after becoming Prime Minister in 2014, also accelerated the pace of newly found engagement with the US. His national security team quickly removed bureaucratic delays. But then critics are not convinced of Narendra Modi’s adherence to the coattails of the US administration. After the British left India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru along with a few other world leaders initiated a non-alignment movement that continues to be the beacon of light of successive Prime Ministers of India. Meanwhile, the world has changed from the rule-based world that the leaders of the Yalta Conference that the victorious countries molded according to their will to the countries who now refuse to yield to the wishes of those who used to rule the waves or lived in splendid isolation surrounded by the two oceans. In the meanwhile China has risen from the days of the Nanking Massacre to claim its seat at the table of framing those rules.

Conclusion

Countries of South Asia however are caught between Chinese muscle flexing and India’s, albeit surreptitious, hunger for increased influence in the area. Pakistan which considers itself as the savior of hunted Muslims of the sub-continent forgetting that they had voted with their feet to remain in Nehru’s India before the arrival of BJP and Narendra Modi) remains a thorn in India’s side.

Added is the disquiet in Pakistan itself due to the destructive activities of Tehrik-e-Taliban in Pakistan who get refuge in Afghanistan where the Taliban have recaptured power forcing the US to flee from the country. In this mix of India-China-Pakistan disputes, it is difficult to predict what lies ahead for Imran Khan and his political party.

A word of caution should be sounded for the US as the population of Southern Asia. The current population of Southern Asia (including Iran) is 2,029,829,646 as of August 8, 2023, based on the latest United Nations estimate. Southern Asia’s population is equivalent to 25.2% of the total world population. Southern Asia ranks number 1 in Asia among subregions ranked by population. The total land area is 6,400,127 Km2 (2,471,102 sq. miles). It would be unwise for the US and the Western bloc to ignore such a vast number of people and leave them to the mercy of muscle flexing country.

The US would be well advised to take stock that Imran Khan may be out of the picture for now, but is not necessarily gone for good. If his conviction is upheld, he will be ineligible to contest the next election. But because of a recently amended law that limits disqualifications to five years, he would only have to skip one vote. Khan won’t lapse into irrelevance in jail. Instead, his sentence could bolster the narrative that has helped fuel his popularity: that Pakistan’s corrupt political class has it in for him.

FacebookTwitterEmailFlipboardShare