WW3.0 JUMPING WITH BOTH FEET

Are the US and China tiptoeing toward an Indo-Pacific Cold War?

After Washington said it will share highly sensitive defense technology with Australia in the name of securing a "free and open" Indo-Pacific, all eyes are on the region and China's response.



Washington with AUKUS looks to have taken a step towards alliance building to balance China's military capability

The new security partnership between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, dubbed "AUKUS," has made waves from Asia to Europe. Beijing called the partnership "highly irresponsible" and indicative of a Cold War-style "arms race."

Washington's European allies received AUKUS as a surprise and a snub. France was especially furious, as the agreement meant scrapping a multibillion-dollar, diesel-electric submarine deal with Australia in favor of US nuclear-powered vessels.

The AUKUS countries have hailed the pact as an "endeavor" to "sustain peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region," an area conceived as stretching from India to Australia, and ostensibly the scene of a geopolitical showdown between the US and China.

As the Sino-American rivalry continues to take shape, Washington with AUKUS looks to have taken one of the biggest steps in recent history toward an alliance-building strategy to balance China's growing military capability.

Quad: From 'sea foam' to 'Pacific NATO'

President Xi Jinping's ambitious geopolitical plans for China are also behind the dusting off of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), which is holding its first in-person leaders' summit since it was launched by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2017.

US President Joe Biden is hosting the leaders of India, Japan and Australia for talks in Washington on Friday, focused on what the White House has called the "priority of engaging in the Indo-Pacific."

After dismissing the Quad as mere "sea foam" in 2017, by October 2020 China compared the grouping to a "Pacific NATO" promoting a "cold war mentality to stir up confrontation."

Similar rhetoric was employed by Beijing once again, this time in response to the AUKUS announcement, although the idea of nuclear-powered submarines based in Australia is likely to cause more consternation in Beijing than lofty statements following a security dialogue.


US President Joe Biden is hosting the leaders of India, Japan and Australia for talks in Washington on Friday after the last Quad meeting was held virtually in March 2021

"I believe Beijing is more likely to be very concerned about AUKUS, especially given that this new setup also comprises a robust military technology element," said Collin Koh, a strategic analyst at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore.

"AUKUS is made up of close allies, and the chance of it becoming a basis for some sort of future 'Indo-Pacific NATO' is more plausible to imagine than the Quad is," he told DW.
Biden's friend down under

At the core of AUKUS is a pledge from the US to share its ultra-sensitive nuclear submarine propulsion technology, allowing Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines at the "earliest achievable date."

It is a major step. For only the second time, the US has shared nuclear technology with an ally, the first instance having been with the UK in 1958.

Biden and Morrison welcomed the deepening of ties after the AUKUS announcement

The AUKUS agreement comes amid months of deteriorating bilateral and trade relations between China and Australia.

Richard Maude, a senior fellow at Asia Society Policy Institute in Australia, told DW that the ever-closer strategic ties between Australia and the United States have deeper roots — a long-standing and close alliance and shared concern about China's growing power, nationalism and assertive foreign policy.

"Cooperating to help balance China's power serves the interests of both countries and has been intensifying for several years," he said, adding: "Policymakers in Canberra see the alliance as more relevant and more important than ever — a vital hedge against Chinese aggression."

Australia binding itself so tightly to a US-led security scheme has raised debate in Canberra over the diplomatic cost of ratcheting up deterrence against China.

"The US is by far still the only plausible counterweight against China given its sheer economic, military and diplomatic clout," said Koh. "Notwithstanding concerns about US unilateralism and strategic reliability, are there better alternatives for countries like Australia?" he added.

President Biden emphasized the depth of the new partnership ahead of a sit-down with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, saying that the US had "no closer or more reliable ally than Australia."

China blasts 'Cold War' mentality

Although nowhere in the AUKUS or Quad communiques is countering China explicitly mentioned, Beijing is clearly the elephant in the room.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian blasted the partnership as "severely damaging regional peace."

Lijian warned the group that it should "abandon the obsolete cold war zero-sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical concepts," or else risk "harming their own interests."

A pugnacious English-language op-ed published this week in the Communist Party-backed Global Times went even further, warning that "Australian troops are also most likely to be the first batch of Western soldiers to waste their lives in the South China Sea," in the event of conflict with the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Putting the US-China rivalry on ice

However, dialogue forums like the Quad are a long way away from having a NATO-style mutual defense assurance. And the submarines promised to Australia under AUKUS will likely not be operational until sometime in the 2030s.

China has been churning out warships like this guided missile destroyer to rival the US Navy

Officially, neither side is openly showing signs of outright hostility. During the opening of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Biden said the US is "not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs."

President Xi maintained that "China has never, and will never, invade or bully others or seek hegemony."

Charles Dunst, an associate at the US-based political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, told DW the US and its allies would work to avoid war with China, even while "pursuing efforts like AUKUS to counter Beijing's increasingly assertive behavior in the Indo-Pacific."

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned last week that the "completely dysfunctional" Sino-US relationship is risking a "Cold War" that would probably be "more dangerous and more difficult to manage" than the original.

The most dangerous potential flashpoint in the Indo-Pacific remains Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade Chinese province. The island's reunification with the mainland has become a core interest of the Communist Party in Beijing.

While Biden administration officials have reemphasized that the US will help Taiwan defend itself, in recent months, the PLA has been stepping up military maneuvers in the Taiwan Strait.

In July, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi accused the US of "trying to take risks on the Taiwan question," calling recent high-level meetings between officials "extremely wrong and dangerous."

"Achieving complete reunification of China is a historical trend and any person or force cannot stop it," said Wang.

"China could probably get away with aggressive action against some small Taiwanese islands, and probably too in the South China Sea, but any serious Chinese invasion of Taiwan would almost certainly bring about US involvement," said analyst Dunst.

"The 'red line' for US involvement in an Indo-Pacific war would be a Chinese military campaign against Taiwan," he added, although this would be a big line to cross.

"China, too, still prefers lower-level action to full-on war, although this could change as China's capabilities improve and Xi Jinping becomes more impatient," he said.

Economics before submarines

However, for the time being, China's primary strategy in the Indo-Pacific remains leveraging economic pressure to bring countries into its orbit, rather than directly rivaling US-led security guarantees promising a free and open region.

"China offers aid and investment to countries throughout the region, particularly in Southeast Asia, that the US does not," said Dunst.

"Without a US economic plan for the Indo-Pacific, China's efforts on this front will continue to find success," he added.

"Most Indo-Pacific countries prefer to balance the US and China — cooperating with and extracting economic benefits from both — but some have aligned with the United States for fear of Chinese aggression. Australia and India are prime examples," he continued.

Maude said China's leaders are confident that the tide of history is running in their direction.

"Especially in the lead up to the all-important Party Congress next year, China has few incentives to cooperate with the United States or compromise on issues of concern to Washington," he pointed out.

"The challenge for Washington is to convince China that its aggressive turn of recent years will be met with sustained resistance and that the costs for China of its current course will be high. Partnerships like AUKUS and the Quad are central to those endeavors."

Corbyn: ‘Crazy beyond belief’ for UK to enter defence pact with US and Australia

The former Labour leader said he wanted to live in a peaceful world.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn joins a demonstration in Parliament Square by the Stop the War campaign group (Kirsty O’Connor/PA)

By Geraldine Scott, 

PA Political Correspondent
September 25 2021 

Jeremy Corbyn has said Britain should stay out of a defence pact that he fears could see the country drawn into a new cold war with China.

Earlier this month, Boris Johnson announced that the UK would join a new pact with the United States and Australia – dubbed Aukus – where the three allies agreed to co-operate on the development for the first time of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines for the Australian navy.

The move, widely interpreted as an attempt to check China’s growing military assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific, was swiftly condemned by Beijing as a “geopolitical gaming tool”.

The Prime Minister insisted it was not intended as an “adversarial” move against China but was questioned in the Commons what the implications were if China should attempt to invade Taiwan.

He said the UK “remains determined to defend international law”.

The idea we're going to sort of bomb our way into these things is simply not very sensibleJeremy Corbyn

Speaking at an event at The World Transformed conference, which is running alongside the Labour Party conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn said the idea of the pact was “crazy beyond belief” and could only lead to rearmament.

The former leader said: “When Biden said that he wasn’t very keen on nation-building any more around the world, a succession of Tory MPs and not a few Labour MPs as well got up and said, ‘well, if Biden won’t play the global role, we will… we’ve already got an aircraft carrier in the South China Sea, and if Taiwan is under threat from China, we’re gonna get stuck in’.

“Hang on a minute, they’re actually saying that this country – 65 million people, north-west coast of Europe, tiny proportion of the world’s population – should have a global arms presence and involve ourselves in an alliance that can only lead to rearmament of the West and of China, and of Russia at the same time.

“This is crazy beyond belief, surely Covid has taught us something that real inequality is health inequality, is poverty, and the refugees are the ultimate victims of that.

“I want to live in a peaceful world.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (Aaron Chown/PA)

“And if we’ve got differences with people, as we have on human rights, then challenge, then take it up, then support those in those societies that are demanding their rights, work with them.

“But the idea we’re going to sort of bomb our way into these things is simply not very sensible.

“Let’s learn the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq, of Libya, of Syria, and talk to the 70 million people who are refugees around the world, many of whom are victims of war. We can do things differently.”

Hoping for miracles

Abbas Nasir

Published September 26, 2021 - 

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.


WHILE the ramifications of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan are far from clear at this point, what can be said with certainty is that Pakistan appears ill-equipped to deal with the challenges that regional developments can potentially throw up.

Claiming vindication of the military strategists’ long-held view and policy on Afghanistan is one thing; buckling down to what changes that ‘win’ can bring and the need for fleet-footed policy responses is altogether another.

The US rightly got slammed for the manner in which it announced its departure from Afghanistan and executed the pullout. The Taliban saw it as a huge win with some justification as they had faced the US military might for two decades.

The Taliban fought the hi-tech juggernaut with small arms, improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers. Even if they found a few sanctuaries, succour and counsel in the erstwhile tribal areas of neighbouring Pakistan, during those 20 years, the win was theirs and theirs alone.

Pakistan will be exposed to international recrimination if the Taliban revert to their old ways.

Since they see the win as theirs alone, they don’t seem to be in the mood to listen to anyone including Pakistan, long seen by the international community as a benefactor and protector of the Afghan militant group with extraordinary influence over it.

The reality was evident when a senior Taliban leader in an address whose clips were shared on social media responded harshly to Prime Minister Imran Khan’s call for an inclusive government in Kabul. He used rather strong language and called into question the latter’s democratic credentials.

Of course, this is not to say Pakistan has zero leverage over the Taliban but merely to underline the complexity of the Afghan situation with different elements of the militant group such as the military and political pulling in different directions.

The success of the Taliban’s military and terror campaign, experts said, was also due to decentralised command structure. From recruitment, training to planning, targeting and executing attacks a lot was left to the local commanders.

Now that the task is to run the country and present a unified whole, that autonomy is proving difficult to curtail as is evident in old-style Taliban system of summary ‘justice’ ie brutal punishments and confining women, even schoolgirls, to quarters in so many areas of the country.

Understandably, this may be the view of the apologists who also maintain that the reborn Taliban leadership is not anything like what the world witnessed when they took power in 1996. Pakistan is among those nations that are pumping out this message daily.

Pakistan may be advocating global engagement with the ‘changed’ Taliban and arguing for Western funds to flow to Afghanistan to ward off hunger that large swaths of the population will soon be facing so that a flood of refugees doesn’t come knocking at its door soon.

But in the process it is also giving an undertaking of sorts that the Taliban will behave in a certain manner over the coming months and in the future. Ergo, leaving itself exposed to international recriminations if Kabul’s new rulers revert to their old ways.

In these columns over the past weeks, we have already discussed the new US priority: encirclement of China. Whether the Taliban defeated the US or the latter decided to refocus its energies and priorities on its new enemy is difficult to tell.

What is not is that from AUKUS to the Quad contacts and initiatives, the Biden administration now seems to have its sight set on one goal. As it tries to restrict China’s growing footprint in the Asia Pacific region and beyond, the US sees India as one of its main partners.

Pakistan’s astute military planners, I am sure, are already gaming multiple scenarios and the policy responses to those. However, one major piece is missing from the jigsaw. The importance of that piece can’t be mentioned enough.

It is the need for a consensus within the country on both the challenges and the response to those. National security and large chunks of foreign policy decisions are being made by the military, more than in the past, in the incumbent set-up which some of its key supporters call hybrid.

Neither parliament nor key opposition leaders have been consulted in any meaningful way in the past so many weeks. The odd briefing to a handful of parliamentary committee members at GHQ is not the same as seeking input from elected members representing the popular will.

However, that is proving difficult as with two years to go before elections, the governing party is not willing to lift its foot off the confrontation pedal as it believes that castigating and hounding the opposition for even uncommitted sins is a winning formula.

And if doing that vitiates the environment and divides society, it is a small price to pay. While the PTI government is easier to blame because of its leaders’ inflammatory statements and its visible persecution of opposition leaders, its backers are not.

This, despite the fact that in a hybrid set-up responsibility has to be shared by all partners for all actions. Talking of responsibility, the opposition is not blameless either. It is terribly fragmented and now seems to be fighting for crumbs off the ‘head table’ and is content with what it can pick up.

The main opposition PML-N and its top leaders have played the ‘good cop, bad cop’ game so many times that it has lost its utility. If I were a supporter of the party I’d be totally confused regarding its direc­­tion and whether to offer a fight or flight response.

The PML-N has chosen to appease a few it deems powerful at great cost. The most obvious being treated no better than a doormat more or less like the PPP also chose to do so. With new regional realities and the country’s economy tanking, one is left at the mercy of unaccountable institutions, decision-makers and hoping for miracles.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2021

Abusing trans people

Zofeen T. Ebrahim

Published September 26, 2021 -

The writer is a Karachi-based independent journalist.


“WHAT happened at Minar-i-Pakistan on Aug 14 to the cis woman [non-trans woman] is what happens to us routinely, and in a much more violent manner, but remains hidden from society’s view,” said Sophia-Layla Afsar, a trans woman, who worked as a corporate lawyer for 10 years till it became suffocating to continue in the transphobic office culture.

The abuse, almost always by men who are their intimate partners, can range from searing with cigarette butts, slapping, chopping off hair, rape, gang rape and ultimately murder. According to the Karachi-based Gender Interactive Alliance (GIA), an organisation working for trans people, since the beginning of the year, 10 trans women have been murdered across Pakistan.

Fighting societal transphobia and unable to fall back on their family because the latter were the first to reject them, they have no one to turn to but the trans community.

In Karachi, the violence is often committed by beelas. They are part of a larger syndicate of men operating in the city and have grown in numbers and gained notoriety.

Trans women have found the courage to lodge complaints.

They organise underground dance parties where trans women perform. This is sometimes followed by sex. With educational institutions reluctant to enrol trans women and offices unwilling to hire them, a majority in the community make a livelihood in this manner.

The beelas, for their part, consider the trans women their playthings to do what they please with them, even offering them to their friends. They brook no dissent and if a trans woman resists, she is penalised.

The beelas are able to operate with impunity because they have powerful connections in the police as well as with local politicians. If by chance one is arrested, the trans woman is harassed and threatened by the entire gang with dire consequences, forcing her to recant.

For many the worst form of punishment is getting their hair chopped off, a seemingly less violent abuse, but for them, it is a death sentence. With their honour and their livelihood closely linked to their locks, the abuse leaves them totally devastated.

Today, the trans women have found the courage to lodge complaints and in the last two years, GIA was able to file for over three dozen cases of extreme violence.

However, the transphobic treatment at the police station makes it difficult for the trans community to seek redressal or report these crimes, they say.

Further, the current Penal Code provision on rape only recognises cis women as victims. Unfortunately, the only trans frie­ndly law — the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 — which made the definition of rape gender neutral and victims and perpetrators inclusive of all genders, has lapsed.

Another dilemma faced by most trans women is that since they continue using the male name and gender on the national ID card, when they report a rape, it is registered as sodomy. But even where their gender is identified as a khawaja sira (X), in the absence of female genitalia (and because they are labelled as commercial sex workers), the complainant risks being booked for unnatural sex.

The cumbersome reporting process often results in the complainant returning home disheartened and without filing a complaint. Where complaints are filed, these often end in ‘reconciliation’ as the complainant is unable to bear with appearing in front of the investigating officer and suffering thoughtless interrogation.

Although the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018, was a historic step giving trans people a legal cover, perhaps the only positive outcome has been recognition of their identify on the nat­ional identity card. However, being a federal law, it is limited in assuring jobs, education or even protection to trans people beyond Islamabad Capital Territory.

The law drafted by the trans community in Sindh in 2016, based on the crimes they experience routinely, is gathering dust because no political party has found the time in the last five years to study the document, get it vetted and table it in the provincial assembly.

If the Minar-i-Pakistan incident and Noor Mukaddam’s brutal murder filled us with horror, why are we not repulsed by the violence meted out to trans persons? The state needs to show its seriousness in protecting this community. The type of violence experienced by them is specific, they say, and requires specific laws.

But treating other humans with respect should not be forced upon us because of fear of the law alone. It is time for some introspection of why we have become apathetic. We need to be kinder towards the vulnerable and the marginalised. It is time to turn the tables on the beelas and ‘intimate partners’ by castigating them instead of offering protection.

The writer is a Karachi-based independent journalist.

zofeen28@hotmail.com

Twitter: @Zofeen28

Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2021

Burqa isn’t choice

Ayesha Ijaz Khan

Published September 26, 2021 - 

The writer is a lawyer based in London.


SEVERAL years ago, when I started working as a lawyer in Karachi, as I was walking to my office inside a large building, which housed several offices, a man from an adjacent office, who looked like he could be my father’s age, stopped me and said, “Beta, dupatta kidhar hai?”

“It’s none of your business whether I wear a dupatta or not,” I retorted, and he backed down apologising. However, the incident stuck with me. The idea that a complete stranger could tell me what to wear wasn’t alien to me. I had grown up in Saudi Arabia, where an entire brigade of men called the mutawa, were tasked with going around town to check how many strands of hair were showing from women’s hijabs and admonish them and their next-of-kin males accordingly.

However, when I am told that women choose to wear a hijab, niqab or burqa, I find the notion completely fanciful. Some may certainly be choosing it, but a large number are not. Particularly those who live in Muslim-majority countries, where free choice has never been part of our ethos.

In Pakistan, for instance, isn’t it quite common for parents to decide who their children should marry or which profession they should pursue?

Free choice has never been part of our ethos.

One hundred per cent free choice doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, as there are always some norms and bounds that society dictates. For instance, nudity isn’t considered acceptable in public places and a University of California, Berkeley, student who attempted it back in 1992 was promptly arrested. Nevertheless, the amount of leeway one is given in choosing one’s life path, activities, and indeed dress is far more restrictive in our societies than it is in Western ones.

A cousin who moved from the US to UAE once told me that she had more freedom organising and attending Islamic religious lectures (dars) in the US than she did in the UAE, where the subject was strictly regulated by the state.

One only has to compare university campuses in Western countries with those in Pakistan to find how much freedom young adults have in terms of how freely they can come and go from campus or organise for a political cause. Many girls will tell you their dads do not allow them to wear sleeveless shirts or dance at functions where both men and women are present, while boys may be told that they need to marry off their sisters before they can think of marrying themselves.

So free choice plays very little role in our culture and society. This then brings us to the question — why do women wear the hijab, niqab or burqa? Primarily, it is because they are told that this is what their religion requires of them. But also, some young girls have told me that wearing a hijab leads to less familial constraint on their comings and goings, as male family members feel they have become religious and hence doubt them less. Others feel the extra clothing may fend off unwanted stares and advances.

One girl I recently spoke to told me that she wore a burqa when she went to study in China, thinking that it will make her safer as this is what she had been conditioned to believe in Pakistan. However, after a while she realised that the burqa was attracting undue attention in China and yet not serving the purpose it was supposed to. She said she soon realised that women in China were generally safe without wearing the burqa so she too took it off.

So the crux of the matter is making women feel safe in a public space. The questions to ask are: in societies where a large number of women are veiling, are women safe to walk on the streets alone? Are they safe at bus stops or driving cars alone or are they participating fully in public life? Or are they holding back, still fearful of unwanted advances from men, and yet not realising their potential?

I must add here that the hijab, a head covering alone, does not constrain women from doing most things that women without a hijab can do, but a niqab and burqa certainly do. They make public interface much more difficult. How many of us would be comfortable with a doctor or a nurse or a lawyer who veils her face? The idea of the face veil is to relegate women to a position where they have minimal public space.

This is not only detrimental for women but society at large. Emphasis on veiling often leads to calls for segregation of the sexes, which simply isn’t feasible in most real-life work situations. Saudi Arabia has learned this as it tries to diversify its economy and has reversed stricter veiling policies it promoted earlier.

As the Taliban take hold of Afghanistan and impose harsh conditions on women, it is more important than ever for other Muslim countries to speak out against such regressive interpretations of our religion, which are incompatible with modernity.

The writer is a lawyer based in London.
Twitter: @ayeshaijazkhan
Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2021

Deadly misinformation

DAWN.COM
Editorial

Published September 26, 2021 


THE distinction between ‘fake’ and ‘authentic’ news is now a concept impossible to escape. In an unprecedentedly hooked-up world, everyone knows the news of the day. But what to trust and what not to trust — there’s the rub. Even as the internet generation comes fully into its own, the world has watched while unverified ‘news’ has caused unforgiveable mischief ranging from rumour-mongering (the surmised plots behind the 9/11 attacks come to mind), to the spread of hateful ideologies (such as notions of white supremacy that proliferate in online echo chambers), to planet-endangering misinformation (including conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 vaccines that continue to confuse, or climate change), and everything in between. This is precisely why it is of seminal importance for news consumers to be intelligent and aware; to be fully cognisant of the fact that when the world lies at our fingertips, it also takes the touch of just one fingertip to upload for a potentially worldwide audience anything that may take one’s fancy — good or bad or ludicrous. In a praiseworthy effort to address exactly this, last year the All Pakistan Newspaper Society declared Sept 25 as National Newspaper Readership Day, reminding news consumers in Pakistan that the charms and ease of social media notwithstanding, it is newspapers that can be fully relied on for exactitude because of the extensive process of fact-checking, cross-checking and unquestionable verification that goes into the process of production. Newspapers are the Fourth Estate that not only demand accountability and truth from power, but also have over the centuries developed into a model that offers itself up for accountability through the fact of being a permanent record — as opposed to the ephemeral nature of online content, be it on ‘news’ sites, or social media sites whose messages can potentially spread nationally or globally like wildfire.

That said, the newspaper model must also look within and adjust in the face of contemporary realities. The World Association of Newspaper and News Publishers recognises as a ‘definite’ newspaper — as opposed to newsletters — The Relation of Strasbourg, dating back to 1609. What is published for the permanent record after extensive verification can unavoidably not compete with the immediacy of the internet — but its value is contained in precisely this verification process. The centuries-old model of immediate news may have become outdated, but newspapers can provide unmatchable context and meaning. Trustworthiness and verification will always trump immediacy.

Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2021

Climate of change

Ali Tauqeer Sheikh

Published September 26, 2021 - 

The writer is an expert on climate change and development.


WORLD leaders gathered in New York this week for the UN General Assembly meeting coinciding with the 20th Climate Week. These two major events come at a critical moment for climate action as a last-ditch effort to create momentum prior to the global climate summit in Glasgow in six weeks.

The General Assembly and Climate Week cater for two distinct constituencies. They compete and inform each other. Inside the UN halls, the delegates negotiate deals, create consensus and set the direction of their journeys, all this while reiterating their known or predictable positions. On the streets, diverse stakeholders, activists and interest groups raise alternative ideas and propositions. They come together to shape and influence the formal negotiations for speedy climate actions.

This process has grown in importance and outreach since it started in 2009. It has become a marketplace for ideas. This year alone there are over 535 planned events involving scientists, think tanks, CEOs, mayors, parliamentarians, governors, students and delegates from several countries. While for the delegates, planetary or climate considerations are subservient to national interests, the marchers bring disruptive propositions to the table for transformational change. They have been successful in changing the discourse as well as defining the role of civil society and the private sector vis-à-vis the Paris Agreement that has set global climate targets. Hundreds of entities — communities, corporations, universities, city governments and states — have set voluntary targets for their carbon neutrality or transition to net zero emissions.

In the UN halls, however, the dominant economies and the Global South are deeply divided, perhaps irreconcilably. The Western economies have so far focused mostly on mitigation and reducing carbon emissions and it is only now that climate-induced extreme weather events have begun to visit them and give them wake-up calls. Their ideas are persuasive, particularly since they hold the key to financial and technology flows, and host scientific and research institutions.

The world faces a climate emergency as the toll on people’s lives and livelihoods keeps growing.

The Global South, struggling with governance and economic issues is, on the other hand, at the forefront of climate vulnerability, frequently battered by the compound impact of the drivers of climate change. They are seeking international climate finance for adaptation measures as well as resources on account of loss and damage, or irreversible economic and non-economic losses.

The North-South climate divide however is deeper and more complex. The North often sees climate change more as an opportunity than a threat. It is recognised as the ultimate market failure. The Western economies have an element of faith that solutions have to be market-driven and instigated by incentivising technological changes rather than revisiting their consumption or production systems. This has led to increased investments in technologies for renewable energy, mobility, urban transportation, fuel, infrastructure and building material and standards.

These investments are reflected in accelerated economic growth rates and delinking of development from energy intensity or emissions reductions, waste generation, and the use of natural capital. Entire societies are in the process of reinventing themselves and redesigning community spaces, modes of transportation and ways of doing businesses. This has accelerated economic growth and boosted trade with new products and services. While the Global South seeks international finance and technology transfer, economic and trade relations have undergone profound changes. The urge­ncy for collective action on a planetary scale is being missed by both the North and the Global South.

The world faces an emergency as the toll on people’s lives and livelihoods keeps growing. According to a recent report by the World Meteorological Organisation, the past decade was the hottest on record. Yet, carbon emissions from fossil fuels and forest fires are 62 per cent higher than in 1990 and reached an all-time high in 2019, threatening all gains on climate change. Wildfires alone during the last one year in the US, Canada, Russia and the Arctic, for example, emitted more CO2 than India’s total annual emissions — and India is the world’s third largest emitter after China and the US. UN Secretary General António Guterres rightly labelled these trends as “code red for humanity”.

Some critical areas are worth watching for signs of progress leading up to the climate summit in Glasgow:

National Climate Plans: Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, are a barometer of countries’ commitment to climate action. Carbon emissions from the world’s 20 biggest economies are still rising. None of the G20 countries have presented plans that will put them on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some estimates suggest that the frontloading of emissions reduction by them can help limit global temperature rise to 1.7°C.

Climate Finance Deficit: Addressing the climate finance gap is vital for COP26’s success and for climate, particularly adaptation actions. The rich countries need to meet their overdue commitment made in Paris of $100 billion a year for developing nations. This amount is only a fraction of what the Global South actually needs to decarbonise and build resilience to climate impacts. Developed countries need to also commit an additional $500 billion for the 2020-2024 period, and to establish a more ambitious and transparent target to be agreed on prior to 2025.

Coal Moratoriums: China, South Korea and Japan have announced stopping international finance for coal. The G7 summit has already agreed to stop international finance for coal by the end of 2021 and to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. Altogether 44 countries have committed to no new coal, including Pakistan, but a complete exit and switch to renewables will require international financing.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Governments extend more than $500bn on subsidies for production and consumption to fossil fuels that contribute to climate high emissions, making renewables less competitive. For the decarbonisation goals of the Paris Agreement, subsidies need to be phased out, starting with G20, on a faster pace for the transition away from fossil fuels.

As the climate discourse in New York captures our imagination, there is an increasing pressure to act. Progress in four key areas is essential to reach an ambitious and just outcome at the COP26 climate summit: enhanced ambition, scaled-up climate fin­a­nce, enhanced tracking and support for adaptation, and support for loss and damage. This is a defining moment in history. It must not be wasted.

The writer is an expert on climate change and development.

Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2021

WHY THE HAZARAS ARE LEAVING AFGHANISTAN

Farid Kasi

Published September 26, 2021 - 

A file photo from a protest by Afghan Hazaras in Kabul. 

The community has historically faced persecution in the country 

| Reuters

On a September afternoon, an imambargah on the outskirts of Quetta is quieter than it has been over the past few weeks. The mostly Hazara Afghan refugees who had been living here have been asked to move out because of the fear of a raid.

Some of the refugees who had been staying at the imambargah have temporarily moved to a rented house. Upon entering the house, one is reminded of communal hostel living during college days. One kitchen, five rooms and many residents.

Zahida*, an Afghan woman barely in her thirties, is sitting in the room occupied by her and her family. They clearly have not travelled with many possessions. The most prominent thing is a packet of medicines.

Zahida’s shawl partially hides her amputated leg; her swollen eyes hide many stories. She shares some of them and her long journey with Eos.

On August 15, the world watched in disbelief as the Afghan Taliban seized control of Afghanistan. When President Ashraf Ghani flew out of his country it sent shockwaves around the globe. ‘What now?’ a great many confused commentators wondered in the media. But while those on the outside were coming to terms with how swiftly the Afghan government had fallen, many in Afghanistan had to quickly think of what to do next.

The return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan has also meant the return of fear for Afghan Hazaras, who faced brutal persecution at the hands of the Taliban during their last stint in power. Thousands of them have made their way across the border to Pakistan, a country with its own history of persecution of the Hazaras. One Afghan Hazara woman shares why she decided to make the move

For Zahida, a Hazara woman, the question of ‘What now?’ became relevant in early August, when the Taliban started capturing different cities.

Zahida was a schoolteacher in Herat and her husband owned a medical store there. As the Taliban seemed to move in closer and closer to them, the couple decided to leave for Kabul, which was generally believed to be more secure. Surely, the Taliban forces couldn’t defeat the mighty Afghan army, they thought.

With the Taliban taking control of cities around them, the Hazara couple’s worst fears were coming true. The Hazaras, who now make up an estimated nine percent of Afghanistan’s population, have historically faced prejudice, mistreatment and violence in Afghanistan. But things relatively improved for them after the collapse of the Taliban rule in 2001.

Afghans such as Zahida fear that the Taliban’s return means a return of violence and persecution for the country’s mostly Shia Hazara population.

As the Taliban approached Herat, Zahida and her husband knew it was time for them to leave. Her pay had been pending for the last three months, but the couple decided to leave it behind. They started selling all their belongings at throwaway prices. And, at last, on August 10, they left for Kabul with their children.

Two days later, Herat fell into the hands of the Taliban. They had escaped right in time, they thought. But their troubles were far from over.

In a matter of days, the Taliban would take control of Zahida’s country. And, in a matter of weeks, her family would be one of the thousands of Hazara families seeking refuge across the border in Pakistan.

THE FALL OF KABUL

Evacuees crowd the interior of a US tranport aircraft en route to Qatar | Reuters



When Zahida’s family reached Kabul, they found the city packed with people from all over Afghanistan. Everyone was rushing towards the capital for security against the Taliban. Many of them were Hazara Shias. The Hazaras were aware of the sectarian discrimination by the Taliban in the past and could simply not afford to trust them.

The family started temporarily staying at a friend’s house while searching for a place for themselves. But their search was cut short when, on August 15, the Taliban took control of Kabul.

Fear and confusion could be felt in the air. Kabul had become a textbook example of mayhem and chaos. Everyone started going towards the airport as they were told that US flights were airlifting people to America. The airport became another madhouse; people were climbing on each other, people hanging from planes. “My husband and I decided to wait for a few days because of my health — I am diabetic and cannot afford any fatigue and tension,” says Zahida.

On August 24, Zahida’s family went to the airport. Some of their relatives had gotten on a plane to the US, so they also decided to try their luck. It was tough to get in, with scores of people waiting to escape. “I sat in the shadow of a wall, covered from the top with barbed wire,” she recalls. “With each passing day, we were getting closer to the gate,” she adds.


With the Taliban taking control of cities around them, the Hazara couple’s worst fears were coming true. The Hazaras, who now make up an estimated nine percent of Afghanistan’s population, have historically faced prejudice, mistreatment and violence in Afghanistan.

On August 26, Zahida and her family were almost at the entrance gate when a massive explosion rocked the airport.

AFTER THE BLAST

Zahida and her family started running towards secure ground. After the blast, firing began. “We were running. I was breathless and ran for not more than 10 minutes when I started feeling pain in my left leg,” she says. “I asked my husband to sit somewhere.”

When she sat on a low wall to recover some energy, she noticed that her trousers were drenched in blood. She asked her husband to see what had happened. “Let me bring a wheelbarrow to carry you to the hospital,” he responded. “Something has hit you.”

It took Zahida’s husband some time to find a wheelbarrow. By the time he returned, the pain was unbearable. Her leg was numb and she couldn’t feel it. “I was almost unconscious when he rushed me to the hospital,” she says.

Even in her condition, Zahida couldn’t help but notice that the hospital was full of people who had been injured in the blast. She was quickly taken to the operation theatre and a bullet was taken out of her leg.

When she woke up, it was close to early morning. The doctor advised Zahida to leave the hospital as they needed the room for treating patients with more severe injuries.

That is when Zahida’s family decided to leave for Quetta, Pakistan.

ROAD TO PAKISTAN AND BEYOND

Zahida’s husband hired a taxi from Kabul that charged them almost 175 dollars (over 29,000 Pakistani rupees) for the nearly 590-kilometre-long journey till Spin Boldak, which neighbours Chaman in Pakistan. It was a long journey, made longer by several checkpoints and dilapidated roads along the way.

“I was continuously taking painkillers, but the excruciating pain wouldn’t go away,” Zahida recalls. “I felt a deep ache in my leg but couldn’t check it because of the burqa I was wearing,” she says.

On the way to Spin Boldak, the family stopped to have lunch at a local hotel. Zahida went to check her leg and saw that it was turning black and blue. She didn’t know what to make of it, and neither did her husband. Besides, while on the road, they had no choice but to ignore it anyway.

The family reached the border 18 hours after they first started in Kabul. A middleman helped them cross the border, charging an additional fee for his services.

Zahida and her family finally reached Quetta early in the morning and went straight to an imambargah. Here they were given breakfast and Zahida fell asleep for a while. Her husband went out to fetch some supplies.

Zahida woke up with a fever and an excruciating pain in her leg. Her husband was sitting next to her. She told him she was not feeling well and needed to go to the doctor. He told her they couldn’t go because they were illegal refugees. She implored him to take her as she felt like she was dying.

Moved by her pleas, the imambargah’s caretaker called a community doctor who examined her and told her to go to a hospital. He said her leg had gangrened. “I didn’t understand him, but it seemed like things were not good,” she recalls. “He said he would sneak us into the Civil Hospital at night.”

They reached the hospital at midnight, where an on-duty doctor examined her. He was of the view that her leg would need to be amputated. “I wanted to die at that moment, but I had to live for my children,” Zahida tells Eos.

Her family was told that the operation would cost 50,000 rupees. They barely had 20,000.

The family asked for money from everyone at the imambargah, which had started to fill up with more Afghan Hazara refugees.

“I never knew I would have to beg for money to cut my leg,” Zahida says. “The next day I was taken to the hospital on two legs and came back with one”

THE SAFER OPTION

The plight of Hazaras in Pakistan is well-documented. But migrants such as Zahida believe that being here is a safer option than being in Afghanistan right now. Besides, most are only here temporarily and plan to travel further to Iran or Europe.

In a September 21 press conference, the Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said that they would consider putting women and members of the Hazara community in government positions. But most Hazaras, in Pakistan and back in Afghanistan, remain sceptical of these claims.

If there were any ambiguity about what the return of Taliban rule could mean for the Hazaras, it was removed by an August 19 report by Amnesty International, which found that Taliban fighters had massacred nine Hazara men after taking control of Afghanistan’s Ghazni province in July.

“On-the-ground researchers spoke to eyewitnesses who gave harrowing accounts of the killings, which took place between 4-6 July in the village of Mundarakht, Malistan district,” the report says. According to the report, the brutal killings likely represent a small fraction of the total death toll, as the Taliban had cut mobile service in many areas that they had captured, controlling the photographs and videos shared from the regions.

But as the group seized control of the entire country, the violent imagery of what had happened was etched in the memories of those who had witnessed the atrocities. Zahida is just one of them, her amputated leg being a constant reminder of the hysteria and fear that came to Afghanistan with the Taliban rule.

Thousands of other stories remain unheard.

Name changed to protect identity

The writer is a Chevening Scholar and received his Masters in Development Studies from the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. He tweets @f_kasi

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 26th, 2021

Taliban hang four bodies in Herat to deter abductions

Published September 26, 2021 - Updated about 6 hours ago

The corpses were displayed in various public areas on the same day as the killings to teach a “lesson” that kidnapping would not be tolerated. — AP/File

• Official says man, son rescued during gunfight with kidnappers
• Mostofiat Square footage comes as grim reminder of group’s previous rule
• ‘Municipal worker’ wounded in Taliban car bomb blast in eastern Nangarhar

KABUL: Taliban authorities in the western Afghan city of Herat killed four alleged kidnappers and hung their bodies up in public to deter others, a local government official said on Saturday.

Sher Ahmad Ammar, deputy governor of Herat, said the men had kidnapped a local businessman and his son and intended to take them out of the city, when they were seen by patrols that had set up checkpoints around the city.

An exchange of gunfire ensued in which all four were killed, while one Tali­ban soldier was wounded.


“Their bodies were brou­ght to the main square and hung up in the city as a lesson for other kidnappers,” he said.

The two victims were released unharmed, he said.

Herat resident Moham­mad Nazir said he had been shopping for food near the city’s Mostofiat Square when he heard a loudspea­ker ann­ouncement calling for public attention. “When I stepped forward, I saw they had brought a body in a pickup truck, then they hung it up on a crane,” he said.

Graphic images posted to social media showed bloody bodies on the back of a pick-up truck while a crane hoisted one man up. Another video showed a man suspended from a crane at a major roundabout in Herat with a sign on his chest reading: “Abductors will be punished like this”.

Wazir Ahmad Seddiqi, who runs a pharmacy on the side of the square, said that four bodies were brought to the main square and three bodies were moved to other parts of the city for public display. He said the Taliban anno­unced that the four were caught taking part in a kidnapping and were killed by the police.

Ziaulhaq Jalali, a Taliban-appointed district police chief in Herat, said Taliban members rescued a father and son who had been abducted by four armed kidnappers after an exchange of gunfire. He said a Taliban fighter and a civilian were wounded by the kidnappers but the four (kidnappers) were killed in crossfire.

Herat Deputy Governor Mawlawi Shir Ahmad Muhajir said the corpses were displayed in various public areas on the same day as the killings to teach a “lesson” that kidnapping would not be tolerated.

Muhajir said security forces received information that a businessman and his son had been abducted in the city on Saturday morning. Subsequently, police shut down the roads out of the city and the Taliban stopped the men at a checkpoint, ensuing an exchange of fire, he said. “As a result of a few minutes of fighting, one of our Mujahideen was wounded and all four kidnappers were killed,” the deputy governor said in a recorded statement.

“We are the Islamic Emirate. No one should harm our nation. No one should kidnap,” he said in the video clip.

Muhajir added that before Saturday’s incident there had been other kidnappings in the city, and the Taliban rescued a boy. One kidnapper was killed and three others were arrested, he said, although in another case the Taliban “failed and the abductors were able to make money”.

“It saddened us a lot because while we are in Herat, our people are being abducted,” the deputy governor claimed.

“In order to be a lesson for other kidnappers not to kidnap or harass anyone, we hung them in the squares of the city and made this clear to everyone that anyone who steals or abducts or does any action against our people will be punished,” he added.

The display across several squares in the city is the most high-profile public punishment since the Taliban swept to power last month, and is a sign they will adopt fearsome measures similar to their previous rule.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, senior Taliban leader and prisons chief Mullah Nooruddin Turabi had warned that the group would restore punishments like amputations and executions to deter criminals.

Despite international condemnation, the Taliban said they would continue to impose swift and severe punishments on lawbreakers to stop crimes like robbery, murder and kidnapping that had become widespread in Afghanistan.

Washington, which condemned Mullah Nooruddin’s comments on punishments, said any potential recognition of the Taliban-led government in Kabul would depend on respect for human rights.

Also on Saturday, a Taliban official said a roadside bomb hit a Taliban car in the capital of eastern Nangarhar province wounding at least one person.

No one immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Islamic State group affiliate, which is headquartered in eastern Afghanistan, has said it was behind similar attacks in Jalalabad last week that killed 12 people.

Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2021

Changing your mind about something as important as vaccination isn’t a sign of weakness – being open to new information is the smart way to make choices

September 23, 2021

Sticking to your beliefs in a rapidly changing world isn’t necessarily the best choice.

  Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Culturally, this is an era in which people are held in high esteem when they stick with their beliefs and negatively labeled as “flip-floppers” or “wishy-washy” when they change what they think.

While the courage of convictions can be a plus in situations where people are fighting for justice, sticking with beliefs in a dynamic world is shortsighted and dangerous, because new evidence can and should be taken into account. Rapidly changing environments are uncomfortable for people, because you can’t effectively use experience to guide choices about the future.

Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. All aspects of the pandemic response have evolved over time because knowledge of the disease and its prevention and treatment has changed significantly since the coronavirus made its appearance in early 2020.

The problem is many opponents of masking and vaccination made bold public pronouncements on social media, broadcasting positions like they’ll never get the COVID-19 shot. Once someone’s taken a strong stand like that, it can be hard to make a switch. As a psychology researcher who focuses on decision-making, I know there are powerful psychological and social forces that promote consistency of belief and action. Early commitments can be difficult to dislodge – though sometimes outside forces can help.

Social psychologists know that, on the one hand, people are motivated to maintain consistency across their beliefs. Because people want their web of beliefs to be coherent, they tend to give a lot of weight to beliefs that are consistent with their overall worldview and to discount those that are contradictory. As a result, people will continue to hold on to a set of beliefs even in the face of mounting evidence that they should revise what they think.

Psychologists describe this unconscious strategy as a way for people to minimize any cognitive dissonance they experience – when things don’t add up, it can be disturbing, so to avoid those uncomfortable feelings, they ignore what doesn’t fit well with their existing beliefs as a way to maintain balance.

In the context of COVID-19, for example, someone who is predisposed to dislike the vaccine will give little weight to new evidence of vaccine effectiveness, because that evidence contradicts their current worldview.

Eventually, though, enough counterevidence can lead to what psychologists call a shift in coherence, in which people can come to believe that their initial viewpoint was wrong. But additional social forces such as the desire to appear consistent or to show solidarity with a community can still lead people to resist changing their beliefs and behavior.

Do you stick with your tried-and-true order at your favorite restaurant or explore the menu for something new? Vladimir Vladimirov/E+ via Getty Images

Indeed, there is considerable research on the trade-off between what psychologists call exploitation and exploration in decision-making. Exploitation refers to people’s tendency to pick the option that has been best in the past. As a simple example, exploitation would be choosing your usual favorite dish from a restaurant where you often order takeout.

Exploration describes picking options that were not optimal in the past but may now be better than the best previous choices. In the restaurant scenario, exploration involves choosing a new dish or one that you tried in the past and didn’t like as much as your old standby. Exploration gives you information about options other than your current favorite.

When environments change a lot, exploration is important. Good decision-makers will often forego the best-known option in order to determine whether other options are now actually better. If your favorite restaurant is constantly hiring new cooks and tinkering with the menu, then exploration is probably a good strategy. The tendency toward consistency that people display – particularly in situations where they have expressed a strong preference – is most harmful in environments that change. The COVID-19 pandemic is just such a case.

In these situations, helping people to change behavior requires reducing their need to feel bound to act in a way that is consistent with the attitudes they have expressed. This is where external forces come to play.

When a mandate pushes against your position

As an example, think about two people: Al and Barb. Both of them are opposed to getting vaccinated for COVID-19 and have a variety of reasons for that – like being mistrustful of the science and concerned about long-term safety. Both of them have also posted their opposition to vaccination to their social media sites.

Al doesn’t know anyone who has gotten sick from COVID-19 and hasn’t really read many stories about the effectiveness of the vaccine, so he has a strong coherent set of beliefs against vaccination.

Barb has friends who have gotten sick, and one died from COVID-19. She has read some of the news articles with data supporting vaccination. While this information isn’t enough to flip her opinion, she is wavering.

Al and Barb are likely to have different reactions to the government-issued mandate that employers with more than 100 employees must require their staff to be vaccinated or frequently tested.

A mandate will get some vaccine holdouts to get the shot.

Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

Al is strongly opposed to vaccination, so the mandate is outweighed by all the rest of his beliefs. He is likely to fight the mandate and to make a public display refusing to get vaccinated.

Barb is in a different position. The vaccination mandate fits with some of her beliefs. While Barb may be uncomfortable getting the vaccine, she is more likely to use the mandate as social cover to get vaccinated, blaming the mandate for her ultimate choice.

For people who are on the fence about whether to get vaccinated because they have conflicting knowledge and beliefs, vaccine mandates serve two purposes. First, mandates provide one more fact that can make their pro-vaccine beliefs more consistent than their anti-vaccine beliefs. Second, even for people who are still largely anti-vaccine, it allows them to get vaccinated while still saving face by blaming the mandate for an action that they are not as strongly opposed to as they appear to be.

More generally, people are creatures of habit. You likely feel most comfortable doing what has worked for you in the past. The more you learn to pay attention to how much change there is in the environment, the more you can work to push yourself to explore new options and change your beliefs and behavior based on new evidence.

Author

Art Markman
Professor of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts
Disclosure statement
In the past, Arthur Markman has received funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research for studies relating to human decision making.
Partners