Call for Alarm

Treachery, treason, tyranny, and traitors in a fading United States Democracy

by Dan Lieberman / June 19th, 2024

The unique post-World War II economic and military power of the United States prevented military and foreign policy errors from becoming overpowering disasters. Military adventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq upended America’s political system and wounded its psyche. Other than the 2001 attacks on American soil, physical destruction was foreign, appearing as images on television screens. Oil price rises, inflation, increasing debt to finance military costs, and social upheavals temporarily perturbed the US socioeconomic system. A powerful America overcame the impediments and continually extended its power until the Asian Tigers, a rejuvenated China, and progressive Latin leaders appeared on the global stage. America’s hegemony declined and the decline became confirmed by the Russian/Ukraine conflagration, Israel’s invasion of Gaza, and a subsequent attack on protesting students at the UCLA campus. No nation with unique power and in control of that power would have permitted these horrific happenings.

The US is sliding into a mediocre existence. Heard that before? Hear it again. Four words describe those who have brought the United States to a sorrowful state ─ treachery, treason, tyranny, and traitor ─ harsh words that will be met with smiles, sneers, and derisions. They are correct words and backed by a long list of treacherous, treasonous, tyrannical, and traitorous actors in the American public. The description of the “tyranny in America” is not a repetitious overkill; it is a necessary refrain that punctuates the alarm ─ America is led by pseudo patriots who have betrayed its ideals and Americans must regain its inspiring freedom, liberty-loving, and peaceful aspirations.

Domestic treachery, treason, tyranny, and traitors

Running for president of the USA are two traitors ─ Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Donald Trump is accused of provoking and aiding the Jan 6, 2021 attack on the US capitol and pursuing an insurrection against the US government. Treason.

Donald Trump is accused of keeping US government top secrets in his home in locations where they could be revealed to others. He is guilty of violating US espionage laws. Treason.

Donald Trump solicits Evangelical vote and financial assistance by supporting Israel, a foreign nation, in its genocide of the Palestinian people. Treachery.

Joe Biden said, “Because even where we have some differences, my commitment to Israel, as you know, is ironclad. I think without Israel, there’s not a Jew in the world who’s secure. I think Israel is essential.” Besides the nonsensical statement that condemns Biden for not knowing that Israel is the only country in the world where Jews have continually suffered from fatal attacks, claim insecurity that seeks security, and exhibit excessive prejudice toward one another — Ashkenazi against Mizrahi, both against Yemeni and Falasha, and secular against ultra-orthodox — Biden admits he has failed to protect the most well-off Americans ─ Jewish citizens (from what??). Treachery.

By having said, “My commitment to Israel, as you know, is ironclad,” Joe Biden betrayed US interests, which should have a flexible foreign policy. He has allied the US people with genocide. Traitor.

Hunter Biden had financial dealings with adversaries of the US government. Joe Biden should have known his son’s arrangements and prevented accusations of influence peddling. Joe Biden is guilty of violating his oath of office. Treachery.
Biden, similar to Trump, brought classified documents to his home and left them scattered in places open to revelation. Despite the Justice Department not pressing charges, Biden is guilty of violating US espionage laws. Treason.

The US Justice Department (DOJ) indicted several Russians and Chinese who infiltrated America, gathered information, and lobbied for a foreign nation. The US Justice Department has not indicted one of tens of thousands of Israelis (could be one of hundreds of thousands), who have performed similar duties for Israel. Lobbying is only a small part of the damage to Americans done by these miscreant infiltrators, sent by Israel to foreign shores to do their mischief. From the almost one million Israelis living in the United States, hundreds of thousands may have become citizens, voted, and changed a highly contested election. In a coming election in Westchester, New York, Westchester Unites urged Jewish voters in the district  (not non-Jewish voters??) to request ballots so they could vote before the June 25 Democratic primary battle between New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who criticizes Israel, and challenger, Westchester County Executive George Latimer, an avid supporter of apartheid Israel’s genocide. Campaign organizers say they will spend up to $1 million to boost voter turnout.

I’m not privy to the manipulations of the American public performed by the mass of Israeli infiltrators. One example is the declarations by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, the senior rabbi of Manhattan’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue. His contrived Amplify Israel Initiative “aims to breathe new life into the principles we’ve been committed to for decades, with an array of programs aimed at bolstering support for Israel and aligning Zionism with liberal ideology.” In clearer words, “influence every man, woman, and child that nationalist, militarist, oppressive, and apartheid Israel is a benevolent country.”

Who is Rabbi Hirsch? Ammiel Hirsch went to high school in Israel, served as a tank commander in the IDF, and was formerly the director of the Association of Reform Zionists of America, the Israeli arm of the North American Reform movement. In a response to a letter, in which 93 rabbinical and cantorial students harshly criticized Israeli actions in the hostilities between Israel and Hamas, Rabbi Hirsch wrote:

For the record, the Reform movement is a Zionist movement. Every single branch of our movement — the synagogue arm (Union for Reform Judaism), the rabbinic union (Central Conference of American Rabbis), and our seminary (HUC-JIR) — every organization separately, and all together, are Zionist and committed ideologically and theologically to Israel.

Why did Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, after receiving training in Israel, come to the United States to guide the Reform movement, which, in previous decades, had been against Zionism, and define it in Israel’s image? By not investigating the actions of multitudes of Israelis residing, the US Justice Department betrays the US people.

In an espionage scandal involving Lawrence Franklin, a former United States Department of Defense employee, who passed classified documents to AIPAC officials, which disclosed secret United States policy towards Iran, Franklin pleaded guilty and, in January 2006, was sentenced to nearly 13 years of prison. He served ten months of house arrest. The DOJ dropped espionage charges against the AIPAC officials — Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman. Reason (which was treason) — the Department claimed court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information (which can apply to almost every trial for treason). Despite the previous espionage charges and knowledge that un-American AIPAC is a lobby for apartheid Israel, the DOJ has not indicted AIPAC for being an unregistered lobby and has permitted its cadre of Israel firsters to wander the halls of Congress and shake palms with dollar bills. Traitors.

US representatives know that AIPAC lobbies for an apartheid Israel that is committing genocide and drags US citizens into accusations of aiding the genocide. Politicians accept contributions from individuals allied with AIPAC and vote in accordance with AIPAC’s preferences. The power of the contributions and fear that disregarding AIPAC poses a danger to remaining in office was highlighted in 1984. For voting to permit Boeing to sell AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia and for suggesting there were Palestinians and they had “rights,” AIPAC marked as undesirable the popular Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Charles Percy, who had always favored Israel. Paul Simon wrote in his autobiography that Bob Asher, an AIPAC board member, called him to run for Senator from Illinois. Simon unseated the admired and respected Charles Percy who was only 98% pure in his support for Israel. Treachery.

The US government and local governments favor laws, such as the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which can suppress free speech and free actions that contend Israel’s genocidal policies, and H.R. 3016, Anti-Boycott Act, which “bars U.S. citizens from participating in boycotts of U.S. allies if those boycotts are promoted or imposed by foreign countries.” Federal and local governments tyrannize the US people. Tyranny.

The Los Angeles (LA) Police Department stood by for hours before halting attacks on peaceful UCLA students and then arrested dozens of student protesters and not any of the vigilantes who represented a foreign power and attacked the students. The LA Police Department supported a group representing a foreign government and failed to protect American citizens. Treason.

The House of Representatives has had numerous one-sided hearings on campus anti-Semitism that feature callous remarks against Jews from relatively few of the protestors. In none of the hearings has a Committee invited the student protestors to testify; maybe, because they might say, “These students do not represent the protestors. They are angry and frustrated individuals who see Israel identify itself as a Jewish state and note that a great number of American Jews approve of Israel and its genocide of the Palestinian people. They realistically equate Jews with the genocide.” The truth of these hearings is they are more concerned with fictional Jewish feelings than factual Palestinian lives. Let’s face it, these hearings are organized by Israel’s advocates who seek to prevent the US public from gaining awareness of the genocide and shift the protest arguments to a spurious charge of anti-Semitism in America. Elected officials adhere to a foreign nation’s request to stifle American citizens from exercising their right to protest and move dialogue from the horrific victimization of Gazans to an artificially created Jewish victimhood. College presidents committed a huge error by not responding to the committees’ fabricated charges of campus anti-Semitism with a simple statement, “There is no campus anti-Semitism and you are attempting to divert the impact of these demonstrations that criticize Israel policies into a false charge that indirectly enhances Israel’s image.” By representing a foreign power and censoring American students from their right to protest, these elected officials are guilty. Treason.

Foreign policies exhibit the same treachery, treason, tyranny, and traitors.

North Vietnam
President Lyndon Johnson’s reciting a dubious attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on the USS Maddox in international waters cajoled Americans into accepting an increased US military involvement in the Vietnamese civil war. Global strategists also mentioned the Domino Theory, where if one country falls to communism, then adjacent nations also become communist. A non-functioning Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) tied these fabrications into a call for action. Result was 58,148 uniformed Americans killed, 200,000 wounded, and 75,000 severely wounded. Ho Chi Minh’s followers won the war and none of the neighboring SEATO nations became communist. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the leading prophet of the Domino Theory, confessed, “I think we were wrong. I do not believe that Vietnam was that important to the communists. I don’t believe that its loss would have led – it didn’t lead – to Communist control of Asia.” Treachery.

Six-day war
During the 1967 war between Israel and its neighbors, Israeli torpedo boats and airplanes attacked the intelligence ship USS Liberty in international waters, killed 34, and wounded 171 American service personnel. President Johnson refused to respond to this assault, an insult to all Americans. Treason.

Yom Kippur war
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, President Nixon’s administration supplied arms to Israel and reversed the course of the war. Arab nations responded with an oil embargo that caused huge inflation in the United States, punished the American consumer, and harmed the American economy. Treachery.

Afghanistan-1980s
President Ronald Reagan’s CIA covertly assisted Pakistan intelligence in providing financial and military assistance to Osama bin Laden during the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. In effect, the US played an essential role in creating the al-Qaeda network. Treason.

International Terrorism and 911
After Ronald Reagan helped create and popularize Osama bin Laden, later presidents did not heed Osama bin Laden’s warnings. The arch-terrorist clarified his position in the infamous  Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to the American people,” which has been conveniently sidetracked to ensure Americans do not get infected with terrorism germs. It should be titled, “How the United States made me a terrorist.” It is difficult to agree with bin Laden but his statements are not easily contended.

You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern.

Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.

William J. Clinton was president during the period that Bin Laden raged his fury at the United States. If Bill Clinton had considered some of bin Laden’s grievances his considerations might have prevented the later 9/11 attack on American soil. Treason.

George W. Bush and American security officials permitted 19 co-conspirators to enter the country and take preparatory flying lessons in full view of authorities. His DOJ did not pursue information that connected the Saudi royal family with the bombers. Treason.

Afghanistan-2001
Without exhausting all means to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan and knowing that the Taliban was not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan in a military adventure that had no defined purpose and accomplished nothing. In a war that lasted 20 years, the United States had 2,459 military deaths and 20,769 American service members wounded in action. Twenty years of a useless war that only brought the Taliban back to power. Treachery.

Iraq
George W. Bush’s uncalled-for war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) is the best example of sacrificing U.S. lives to advance Israel’s interests. The cited reason ─ destroying Hussein’s weapons of destruction ─ whose evidence of developments the U.S. based on spurious intelligence and was a farce that no sensible person could believe. This “made for consumption” and fabricated story detracted from the real reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq — to prevent Iraq from becoming the central power in the Middle East and able to threaten Israel. Neocons succeeded in pressuring President George W. Bush to sacrifice American lives and, by military action, remove Saddam Hussein from power. Discarding the nonsensical assertion that Saddam Hussein, who had no nuclear material, no technology to develop a nuclear weapon, and no ICBMs to deliver a bomb, threatened the United States, and needed to be immediately stopped from turning bubble gum into a mighty weapon solicits a more acceptable reason for the U.S. attack on Iraq. The U.S. Department of Defense casualty website has the US military suffering 4,418 deaths and 31,994 wounded in action during the Iraq War. No coincidence that Iraq was a long-time adversary of Israel and it was in Israel’s interests to have Iraq become militarily impotent. Treason.

Libya
NATO declared it intervened in the 2011 Libyan Civil War “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” President Barack Obama remarked, “Gaddafi declared that he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment.”

Reuters report demonstrated significant differences between Gaddafi’s remarks and President Obama’s rendition: Gaddafi Tells Rebel City, Benghazi, ‘We Will Show No Mercy,’ March 17, 2011.

Muammar Gaddafi told Libyan rebels on Thursday his armed forces were coming to their capital Benghazi tonight and would not show any mercy to fighters who resisted them. In a radio address, he told Benghazi residents that soldiers would search every house in the city and people who had no arms had no reason to fear. He also told his troops not to pursue any rebels who drop their guns and flee when government forces reach the city.

Logic tells us that few Benghazi residents could even have guns to hide, and Gadhafi’s forces were too limited to carry out any large-scale purge.

The U.S. vacillated, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, convinced President Obama to join NATO in removing Gaddafi. NATO eliminated Gaddafi, Islamic extremists gained partial power, discarded armaments were shipped to al-Qaeda “look-alikes” throughout North Africa and soon the Jama’at Nusrat al Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM) coalition, Boko Haram, and Islamic State in West Africa (ISWA) were creating havoc throughout North Africa. The US gained nothing in removing Gaddafi and created more Islamic extremist organizations with which to contend. Treachery.

UN Vetoes

As of December 18, 2023, the U.S. vetoed resolutions critical of Israel 45 times. Each time, the Secretary of State offered the excuse that the resolution would not advance the cause of peace, and each time vetoing the resolution did not advance the cause for peace. Why do Americans give deference to Israelis when Israel insults American leaders, uses Americans to die in wars that advance Israel’s interests, causes havoc that brings injury to U.S. relations with other nations,  and sucks money ($3.1 billion annually) from U.S. taxpayers to support its apartheid and oppressive policies?

Some mentioned reasons, which have changed during the decades, are:

• Israel was aligned with the US during the Cold War.
• The US needs a Western-style pistol-packing mama in the Middle East.
• Israel has an excellent intelligence-gathering network that shares information.
• The two countries collaborate on the joint-development of sophisticated technologies.

Pundits confuse support for Israel with support for this Israel. The United States, for military and geopolitical reasons, can support Israel, as it does Columbia, but there is no reason to support and assist this Israel in the destruction of the Palestinians. The Washington establishment and foreign policymakers have incorrectly calculated the tradeoffs between supporting this Israel in its denial of Palestinian rights and in satisfying the Palestinian cause.

• Israel is no longer dependent on the United States and seeks its own alliances.
• Israel will not scratch a finger to help the US in any conflict; just the opposite, it convinces the US to fight for Israel.
• Israel intelligence provides the CIA with intelligence concerning nations that are adversarial to the US due to its close ties with Israel. No close ties, none of these adversaries, and no need for intelligence.
• Israel has used US and Russian engineers for its technical achievements. No Israel, and the Russian and American engineers will go to work in Silicon Valley.

Just for money and votes, U.S. politicians sell out their commitment to the American people, follow the dictates of a foreign nation, and make Americans party to the destruction of innocent people. TREASON!!

Conclusion

Americans have, at times echoed grievances against their government’s policies and demonstrated their despair, well, some Americans, a small minority of the US population. The rest of the population has been naïve, complacent, and manipulated. Due to America’s intrinsic wealth — natural resources, abundant farmland, temperate climate, rivers, valleys, streams, hard-working population, ocean barriers to foreign incursions —  the treachery, treason, tyranny, and traitors temporarily slowed but did not stop the roaring engine. The roaring engine is beginning to sputter.

America’s posture as the leading defender of democracy and human rights is hypocritical; its economic system is challenged; its united states are disunited; its pluralistic political system is an epic fantasy; its legislative bodies are divided; and its courts are agenda-seeking rather than law-abiding. Democracy recedes and polarization of citizens widens. Americans are increasingly divided in their aspirations and express increasing fears of one another. An almost self-sufficient economic system proceeds with debt financing imports, trade imbalances, and growth, an unruly situation that can continue until debt hits a financial wall and repaying the debt becomes intolerable.

Hopefully, more Americans will take cognizance of the failed leadership, meet the challenges they pose, gather the resources, form the organizations, shout much louder, push much stronger, and succeed in disposing of the treachery, treason, tyranny, and traitors that have made the Statue of Liberty weep.

The words of Patrick Henry, “These are the times that try people’s souls,” are heard again in the cities and villages of a disunited United States of America.

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com. He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

China Springs a BRI Surprise on US

M K Bhadrakumar | 11 Jun 2024

The China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway project has become a lodestar in the phenomenal transformation of regional connectivity in Central Asia.

China, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan signed an intergovernmental agreement to begin construction of a railway link connecting Xinjiang with Fergana Valley, Beijing, on June 6, 2024

The report of the death of China’s Belt and Road Initiative [BRI] was an exaggeration, after all. Within days of the US President Joe Biden’s acerbic remark during an interview last week with the Time magazine that the BRI has “become a nuisance graveyard initiative,” a trilateral intergovernmental agreement to commence construction work on the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan [CKU] railway project was signed in Beijing last Thursday. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping offered congratulations on the trilateral intergovernmental agreement with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and described the CKU as “a strategic project for China’s connectivity with Central Asia, symbolising the three nations’ collaborative efforts under the Belt and Road Initiative.” Xi hailed the agreement as “a show of determination”.

The idea of such a railway project was first proposed by Uzbekistan in 1996 but it languished for over a quarter century thereafter due to the geopolitical and alliance changes in Central Asia, including reservations reportedly on the part of Moscow and Astana. China, which could unilaterally finance CKU, also lost interest and prioritised its ties with Russia and Kazakhstan. 

Principally, the failure of the three countries to reach a consensus on the railway’s route became a vexed issue with China and Uzbekistan favouring a southern route, which would represent the shorter transit route to Europe and West Asia, while Bishkek insisted on the northern route—a longer passage that would connect Kyrgyzstan’s northern and southern regions and boost its economy. 

However, the moribund project took new life following the changing geopolitics of Central Asia, as intra-regional integration processes began gaining traction, the rethink in Moscow in favour of strengthening regional connectivity in the conditions under western sanctions, etc. 

Indeed, with improved railway connectivity, it is not only the connection between China and the two Central Asian countries along the route that will be strengthened, but the interconnectivity in Central Asian region as well. 

However, in a curious reversal of roles, as Central Asia turned into a turf of the great game lately between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other, Washington began taking a dim view of the prospect of such a project to connect the railway systems of China potentially to the European railway network through Turkmenistan, Iran, and Türkiye.  

Suffice to say, in the past two years, with renewed interest, China began viewing the 523 km long railway line — 213 kms in China, 260 kms in Kyrgyzstan, and 50 kms in Uzbekistan — optimistically as a shorter route from China to Europe and West Asia than the existing 900 km corridor that passes through the Trans-Siberian Railway in Russia, which lacks modern infrastructure with only a single non-electrified track that makes it incapable of transiting Chinese goods to Europe, and also mitigate the economic costs associated with Western sanctions on Russia.

Above all, the growing geopolitical tensions over the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea have begun posing serious concern and top priority for Beijing to establish alternate land routes to the European market.         

Without doubt, CKU has huge potential in geopolitical, geo-strategic and geo-economic terms. Succinctly put, it will complete the southern passage of the New Eurasian Land Bridge, shaping a convenient transport path from East and Southeast Asia to Central and Western Asia, Northern Africa and Europe. 

Specifically, apart from integrating Central Asian region with the wider transportation network, and connect it better to the global market, Beijing envisages that CKU could be further extended to other countries in future, such as Afghanistan. 

In fact, speaking at the signing ceremony on Thursday alongside Xi and Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov, President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev underscored that “This road will allow our countries to enter the wide markets of South Asia and the Middle East through the promising Trans-Afghan Corridor.” 

Of course, the construction of CKU, which is expected to start later this year at a cost of $8 billion, poses formidable challenges, being a trans-national project to be executed by a joint venture of between three countries in the BOT  format. No doubt, CKU involves daunting engineering skills with its path traversing the challenging terrain of western China and Kyrgyzstan at altitudes ranging from 2,000-3500 meters and involving the construction of more than fifty tunnels and ninety bridges through Kyrgyzstan’s highest mountains.

But China has vast experience and expertise in pulling it off. Xi said the agreement signed in Beijing provided a “solid legal foundation” for the railway’s construction and it transformed the project “from a vision to a reality”.

The project feasibility study is currently being updated, following the completion of field surveys by Chinese engineers in December. Zhu Yongbiao, a professor at the Research Centre for the Belt and Road of Lanzhou University, told Global Times that construction techniques and financing pose no problems. 

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson stated at the daily press briefing in Beijing on Friday, “This important milestone was achieved thanks to the tremendous efforts of different departments and experts, as well as the personal attention and support from the leaders of the three countries.” 

The spokesperson flagged that CKU is “another testament to the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative and demonstrates the popularity of the vision for a community with a shared future for mankind in Central Asia.”

The CKU originates from the western Chinese hub of Kashgar to the Uzbek city of Andijan in Ferghana Valley, passing through Torugart, Makmal and Jalalabad. It connects the Soviet-era railway grid in Uzbekistan leading to Termez on the Amu Darya bordering Mazar-i-Sharif city in Afghanistan. 

Uzbekistan announced last month that the Trans-Afghan railway project is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2027, connecting Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, “facilitating crucial trade routes and bolstering regional connectivity.” Interestingly, the Trans-Afghan Railway project has also figured in the Chinese-Pakistani documents in the past.

The joint statement issued after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to China last week vowed to make the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor “an exemplary project of high-quality building of Belt and Road cooperation… (and) recognised the significance of Gwadar Port as an important node in cross-regional connectivity” while also agreeing to play a constructive role “in helping Afghanistan to achieve stable development and integrate into the international community.”

Notably, in the first official recognition of the interim Taliban government by a major nation, Xi Jinping welcomed Asadullah Bilal Karimi, the Taliban-appointed Afghan ambassador, in a formal ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in January, along with envoys from Cuba, Iran, Pakistan and 38 other countries, who also presented their credentials. 

It is entirely conceivable that the time has come for the realisation of the century-old dream of a Trans-Afghan railway. Qatar reportedly has shows interest in funding the project. At a meeting in Kazan in February with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mirziyoyev had disclosed that the Russian side had expressed interest in participating in the development of the technical justification for the project and its promotion. The Russian Deputy Prime Minister for Transport Vitaly Savelyev who had earlier visited Tashkent, attended the meeting in Kazan.

Certainly, the restoration of full relationship between Moscow and Kabul, which is imminent, will help speed up matters. 

The CKU becomes the lodestar in a phenomenal transformation of regional connectivity in Central Asia and far-flung regions surrounding it. In the current international climate, this has profound geopolitical implications for the Russian-Chinese joint/coordinated efforts to push back the US’ dual containment strategy. 

MK Bhadrakumar is a former diplomat. He was India’s ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey. The views are personal.

 

Courtesy: Indian Punchline

 

China Springs a BRI Surprise on US

M K Bhadrakumar | 11 Jun 2024

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway project has become a lodestar in the phenomenal transformation of regional connectivity in Central Asia.

The report of the death of China’s Belt and Road Initiative [BRI] was an exaggeration, after all. Within days of the US President Joe Biden’s acerbic remark during an interview last week with the Time magazine that the BRI has “become a nuisance graveyard initiative,” a trilateral intergovernmental agreement to commence construction work on the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan [CKU] railway project was signed in Beijing last Thursday. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping offered congratulations on the trilateral intergovernmental agreement with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and described the CKU as “a strategic project for China’s connectivity with Central Asia, symbolising the three nations’ collaborative efforts under the Belt and Road Initiative.” Xi hailed the agreement as “a show of determination”.

The idea of such a railway project was first proposed by Uzbekistan in 1996 but it languished for over a quarter century thereafter due to the geopolitical and alliance changes in Central Asia, including reservations reportedly on the part of Moscow and Astana. China, which could unilaterally finance CKU, also lost interest and prioritised its ties with Russia and Kazakhstan. 

Principally, the failure of the three countries to reach a consensus on the railway’s route became a vexed issue with China and Uzbekistan favouring a southern route, which would represent the shorter transit route to Europe and West Asia, while Bishkek insisted on the northern route—a longer passage that would connect Kyrgyzstan’s northern and southern regions and boost its economy. 

However, the moribund project took new life following the changing geopolitics of Central Asia, as intra-regional integration processes began gaining traction, the rethink in Moscow in favour of strengthening regional connectivity in the conditions under western sanctions, etc. 

Indeed, with improved railway connectivity, it is not only the connection between China and the two Central Asian countries along the route that will be strengthened, but the interconnectivity in Central Asian region as well. 

However, in a curious reversal of roles, as Central Asia turned into a turf of the great game lately between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other, Washington began taking a dim view of the prospect of such a project to connect the railway systems of China potentially to the European railway network through Turkmenistan, Iran, and Türkiye.  

Suffice to say, in the past two years, with renewed interest, China began viewing the 523 km long railway line — 213 kms in China, 260 kms in Kyrgyzstan, and 50 kms in Uzbekistan — optimistically as a shorter route from China to Europe and West Asia than the existing 900 km corridor that passes through the Trans-Siberian Railway in Russia, which lacks modern infrastructure with only a single non-electrified track that makes it incapable of transiting Chinese goods to Europe, and also mitigate the economic costs associated with Western sanctions on Russia.

Above all, the growing geopolitical tensions over the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea have begun posing serious concern and top priority for Beijing to establish alternate land routes to the European market.         

Without doubt, CKU has huge potential in geopolitical, geo-strategic and geo-economic terms. Succinctly put, it will complete the southern passage of the New Eurasian Land Bridge, shaping a convenient transport path from East and Southeast Asia to Central and Western Asia, Northern Africa and Europe. 

Specifically, apart from integrating Central Asian region with the wider transportation network, and connect it better to the global market, Beijing envisages that CKU could be further extended to other countries in future, such as Afghanistan. 

In fact, speaking at the signing ceremony on Thursday alongside Xi and Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov, President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev underscored that “This road will allow our countries to enter the wide markets of South Asia and the Middle East through the promising Trans-Afghan Corridor.” 

Of course, the construction of CKU, which is expected to start later this year at a cost of $8 billion, poses formidable challenges, being a trans-national project to be executed by a joint venture of between three countries in the BOT  format. No doubt, CKU involves daunting engineering skills with its path traversing the challenging terrain of western China and Kyrgyzstan at altitudes ranging from 2,000-3500 meters and involving the construction of more than fifty tunnels and ninety bridges through Kyrgyzstan’s highest mountains.

But China has vast experience and expertise in pulling it off. Xi said the agreement signed in Beijing provided a “solid legal foundation” for the railway’s construction and it transformed the project “from a vision to a reality”.

The project feasibility study is currently being updated, following the completion of field surveys by Chinese engineers in December. Zhu Yongbiao, a professor at the Research Centre for the Belt and Road of Lanzhou University, told Global Times that construction techniques and financing pose no problems. 

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson stated at the daily press briefing in Beijing on Friday, “This important milestone was achieved thanks to the tremendous efforts of different departments and experts, as well as the personal attention and support from the leaders of the three countries.” 

The spokesperson flagged that CKU is “another testament to the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative and demonstrates the popularity of the vision for a community with a shared future for mankind in Central Asia.”

The CKU originates from the western Chinese hub of Kashgar to the Uzbek city of Andijan in Ferghana Valley, passing through Torugart, Makmal and Jalalabad. It connects the Soviet-era railway grid in Uzbekistan leading to Termez on the Amu Darya bordering Mazar-i-Sharif city in Afghanistan. 

Uzbekistan announced last month that the Trans-Afghan railway project is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2027, connecting Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, “facilitating crucial trade routes and bolstering regional connectivity.” Interestingly, the Trans-Afghan Railway project has also figured in the Chinese-Pakistani documents in the past.

The joint statement issued after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to China last week vowed to make the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor “an exemplary project of high-quality building of Belt and Road cooperation… (and) recognised the significance of Gwadar Port as an important node in cross-regional connectivity” while also agreeing to play a constructive role “in helping Afghanistan to achieve stable development and integrate into the international community.”

Notably, in the first official recognition of the interim Taliban government by a major nation, Xi Jinping welcomed Asadullah Bilal Karimi, the Taliban-appointed Afghan ambassador, in a formal ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in January, along with envoys from Cuba, Iran, Pakistan and 38 other countries, who also presented their credentials. 

It is entirely conceivable that the time has come for the realisation of the century-old dream of a Trans-Afghan railway. Qatar reportedly has shows interest in funding the project. At a meeting in Kazan in February with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mirziyoyev had disclosed that the Russian side had expressed interest in participating in the development of the technical justification for the project and its promotion. The Russian Deputy Prime Minister for Transport Vitaly Savelyev who had earlier visited Tashkent, attended the meeting in Kazan.

Certainly, the restoration of full relationship between Moscow and Kabul, which is imminent, will help speed up matters. 

The CKU becomes the lodestar in a phenomenal transformation of regional connectivity in Central Asia and far-flung regions surrounding it. In the current international climate, this has profound geopolitical implications for the Russian-Chinese joint/coordinated efforts to push back the US’ dual containment strategy. 

MK Bhadrakumar is a former diplomat. He was India’s ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey. The views are personal.

 

Courtesy: Indian Punchline

PAKISTAN

Price of peace

Muhammad Amir Rana 

Published June 9, 2024 

DAWN

PAKISTAN is not alone in confronting armed opposition. Many nations grapple with persistent violence, often resorting to force over peace negotiations. This hesitation stems from the fear of concessions, neglecting the heavy price paid for prolonged conflict.

Colombia offers a compelling example. In 2016, it opted for peace, establishing a ceasefire with major rebel groups — primarily factions of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which has been active since 1964. Despite initial setbacks, Colombia recently enacted a Total Peace Bill to forge agreements with remaining armed groups.

Colombia’s peace process has been arduous, with the government determined to achieve an end to the conflict, even if it necessitates meeting some of the armed groups’ demands. This dilemma resonates with states facing insurgencies, who fear internationalising their conflicts. While Colombia’s UN involvement, prompted by resistance demands, ultimately aided negotiations, core issues like land reform, victim justice, and political participation remain unresolved.

The success stories of other peace processes offer valuable lessons. Notably, many successful agreements involved compromises across the ta­­b­le. In some cases, these have caused major amendments in social contracts of the states, the autonomy of a region, the separation of a territory, or agreement on resource distribution. The Good Friday Agreement in 1998 in Northern Ireland helped end the violent conflict known as ‘The Troubles’, leading to power-sharing in the North­ern Ireland Assembly and disarmament of paramilitary groups.

Colombians took 50 years to assess the strength of the resistance movement.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 ended the Second Sudanese Civil War, granted southern Sudan autonomy, and led to a referendum in 2011, after which South Sudan gained independence.

The Peace Accords (1996) in Guatemala ended 36 years of civil war, leading to the demobilisation and integration of guerrilla fighters into society, and significant political reforms. The Mindanao Peace Process (2014) in the Philippines and the signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro established the Bangsamoro Autono­mous Region, granting greater autonomy and addressing the grievances of the Moro people.

Finally, the Final Agreement (2016) between the Colombian government and the FARC was signed. The agreement ended over 50 years of armed conflict. These peace processes typically involved lengthy negotiations, international mediation, and the establishment of frameworks for disarmament, political integration, and socioeconomic development to address the root causes of the conflicts.

A multifaceted armed resistance stretched out for 50 years in Colombia because it had roots in socioeconomic factors, took time to pick momentum, and once it picked momentum, it became more lethal compared with movements triggered by religion and ideologies. A mix of socioecono­mic, political, and ideological factors can nurture a separatist solid resistance against the states. The FARC emerged as a response to deep-rooted social and economic inequalities in rural Colombia. Vast land ownership disparities and peasant communities’ marginalisation provided fertile ground for the group’s initial support and recruitment.

Colombians took 50 years just to assess the strength of the resistance movement, which resu­l­ted in thousands of deaths, political instability, a poor economy, and a constant state of fear. Un­­governed and poorly governed spaces have always provided fertile ground for resistance movements, and Colombia was no different in this respect.

A similar situation was witnessed in the Fed­e­rally Administrative Tribal Areas — now the New­ly Merged Tribal Districts — where the state is still facing armed and unarmed resistance aga­inst its approach to governing these areas. The banned TTP wants to revoke the status of these areas to regain the strength it enjoyed before the military operations and under tribal arrangements.

Balochistan is facing the worst governance crisis; a hybrid governance system has failed to stop the power elites’ misuse of the province’s resources. It cannot deliver services to the people and needs help to conceive a development plan. The securitisation of the province fuels anger among the people, including those who have experienced urban life in other parts of the country.

A comparison between the Baloch and FARC armed resistance can be drawn as both movements are deeply rooted in socioeconomic disparities. An­­oth­er common feature that creates a conducive environment for the armed resistance movement lies in the structure of the parallel economies in the areas, which include illicit trade, smuggling, drug trafficking, etc. Both state and non-state actors become the beneficiaries of this parallel ec­­o­­nomy. The resolution of the problem can hurt their economic benefits, and they resist any attempt at this.

In Colombia, the FARC survived so long because of parallel economic structures, which significantly funded its operations through the cultivation, production, and trafficking of cocaine. Kidnapping for ransom and extortion of local businesses and individuals were also significant sources of income for the FARC, further sustaining the resistance.

Two factors that the state emphasises are regional dynamics and external support for the armed resistance. These are essential factors, but to deal with armed resistance, it must concentrate on other aspects too. For instance, the state underestimates the armed group’s ability to adapt its tactics and strategy to changing circumstances, as well as the local support network it has built up over time.

There is nothing new about the dynamics of armed resistance — a vast amount of literature is available on the subject. However, the peace process is challenging. First, realising that the chain of violence cannot be broken without a dialogue takes time, as the state evaluates strength in terms of resources, and not in terms of the local support that is available to resistance movements. The ceasefire between the Colombian government and FARC dissidents has been mixed, with both positive outcomes and significant challenges. However, spoilers continue to provoke both the state and non-state actors, which causes violations of agreements and inconsistencies in the implementation of peace agreements, often extending the peace process.

While a good takeaway from the Colombian peace process is that it has not caused the country’s disintegration, it is also true that had the peace process been started 40 years ago, the results would not have been very different. The state took 50 years just to prove it is strong, but real strength comes through dialogue.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2024

Chinese advice

Muhammad Amir Rana 

PAKISTAN’S law-enforcement agencies have completed the investigation of the Dasu terrorist attack carried out against Chinese nationals in March, in record time.

This is, indeed, a remarkable achievement, but it does not seem to have impressed the Chinese authorities very much, as there have been reports that Beijing wants a large-scale anti-terrorism operation, like Zarb-i-Azb, against the militants.

On March 26, a convoy of Chinese nationals travelling from Islamabad to the Dasu Hydropower Project site in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Kohistan district was attacked by Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) terrorists. The government announced compensation of $2.5 million for the families of the five Chinese nationals who lost their lives in the attack. A joint investigation team comprising police and intelligence agencies’ personnel was immediately formed to address Chinese concerns regarding the capability of Pakistani law enforcers to probe a high-profile terrorist attack.

The reports of China’s demand for a massive counterterrorism operation are reflective of Beijing’s concerns over the escalating threats to Chinese nationals working on CPEC-related and other projects in this country. Pakistan has a history of launching such counterterrorism operations at the request of China. The Lal Masjid operation in Islamabad in 2007 was launched after Chinese President Hu Jintao called Gen Musharraf. Prior to the operation, women students of the Jamia Hafsa madressah had kidnapped Chinese health workers who they believed were commercial sex workers.

One can take precautionary steps against terrorist groups, but what about intolerance?

International pressure, including from the Chinese, also worked in 2014 when the Pakistan military launched Operation Zarb-i-Azb in North Waziristan. China fully supported the Financial Action Task Force’s recommendation that Pakistan comply with its counterterrorism financing and anti-money laundering commitments. The maximum favour the Chinese officials extended to Pakistan in this case was to support the country’s need for more time to fulfil the financial watchdog’s requirements.

However, China’s latest demand regarding a large-scale operation does not seem feasible, as the TTP and its affiliates are hiding in Afghanistan, and cross-border operations would trigger a major conflict in the region. Moreover, there is also the Baloch insurgency, which is a complex issue that needs to be handled delicately. There is already an ongoing encounter between the insurgents and security forces in Balochistan. Any misadventure is likely to incur heavy political and security costs.

Pakistan’s economy is in the throes of a deep crisis, and a massive military operation would entail its own costs. At the same time, it seems that the Pakistani leadership is underestimating the demands of its friends for a fully secure environment for their investment. This is not only about China, a major investor in Pakistan, but also other friends of the country, such as Saudi Arabia, which have concerns similar to Beijing’s when it comes to putting their money here. These states are taking security concerns very seriously.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently approved a cooperation agreement between the Presidency of State Security in the kingdom and the military intelligence in Pakistan to combat terrorism and its financing. The Pakistani leadership appears overly confident in its assessment that the security challenges at home can be mitigated as before; it wants the states that are looking at investment prospects in the country to trust its capabilities. However, terrorist incidents such as the Dasu attack will only shake the confidence of foreign investors.

No doubt, the Taliban’s Afghanistan has emerged as a major security challenge for the country, but terrorism and extremism have a long history of state institutions using them as tools for political and strategic purposes. One can be aware of the dynamics of terrorist groups and take precautions, but what about intolerance, which can erupt suddenly and result in the lynching of innocent people?

The state has fanned the flames of intolerance in society, and this has eroded the social fabric and made conditions insecure for the minorities and for those who think differently from the state. Intolerance has become a huge hurdle in the way of economic progress, including foreign investment. How will the Chinese forget the incident last year when one of their nationals barely escaped lynching by a mob at the Dasu Hydropower Project site? The Chinese official was simply asking employees to complete their work before going for prayers.

Security firms dealing in risk assessment most often cite the killing of Priyantha Kumara Diyawadana, a Sri Lankan national lynched by a mob on Dec 3, 2021, in Sialkot, to show who controls the environment for investment.

If you were to ask a Pakistani official or leader, they would claim that Pakistanis are moderate in their views and the most tolerant society among Muslim nations. Such a claim was recently made in Beijing. Lynching incidents are dismissed as the actions of a few misguided and emotional youths.

However, defending the indefensible causes more damage and shakes even friendly countries’ confidence in one’s ability to maintain security. The truth is that Pakistan’s social indicators are amongst the poorest anywhere. A major reason for this is substandard education and an extensive network of religious institutions that nurture extremism and intolerance in the country. The establishment has not stopped considering the political utility of religious institutions either.

Extremism and intolerance are thriving with state support, as the power elites are not willing to review their connection with the clergy. Making policies to counter extremism and terrorism satisfies their conscience, and they believe that by simply placing policy drafts in the cupboards of the relevant ministries, they will automatically solve the issue. The maximum effort by the state to solve the problem has been to create institutions to counter extremism. Eventually, these institutions are used to appease the clergy.

China goes by its own model to forcefully ‘harmonise’ its ethnic and religious communities. However, for Pakistan, the first and foremost priority must be to abandon its approach of pacifying the sentiments of the hardliners, and instead, stand with the weak and the victims, regardless of their religion or community.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2024

From refugee camps to World Cup glory: Inspiring journey of Afghanistan cricket

June 05, 2024 
By Jafar Haand
Matiullah Abid Noor

Afghanistan'’s Karim Sadiq dives to catch the ball while fielding during the Asia Cup one-day international cricket tournament against Pakistan in Fatullah, near Dhaka, Bangladesh, Feb. 27, 2014.

WASHINGTON —

When the parents of Karim Sadiq and Taj Maluk fled a wrecked Afghanistan torn apart by the 1979 Soviet invasion and infighting warlords, they didn’t imagine their children — Karim and Taj — would return to reunite the war-torn nation through cricket.

Taj Maluk became the first coach of the Afghan national team. Fans refer to him as one of the founding fathers of Afghan cricket. Younger brother Karim Sadiq played a key role in Afghanistan’s qualification in the World Cup in 2010, creating history for the cricket-loving nation of more than 40 million.

The brothers were brought up in a refugee camp called Katcha Garhi, in Peshawar, Pakistan. The family left a decent life in the eastern Nangarhar province to live in a sea of mud houses and poverty.

“Life was all struggle those days,” Karim Sadiq recalls. “Doing odd jobs in the night and playing cricket in the daytime. We used a stick as a bat, used to make plastic balls from plastic waste material.”

There was an old black-and-white TV set in their refugee camp where the young and elders watched international matches, including Pakistan winning the 1992 World Cup. These events had a huge influence on aspiring cricketers in Afghan refugee camps.

Afghan national cricket team coach, Taj Maluk, speaks to his team in Kabul, May 27, 2006.

The elder brother, Taj Maluk, searched for talent in refugee camps and founded the Afghan Cricket Club, which arguably laid the foundation of the future Afghanistan team.

Another Afghan cricketer, Allah Dad Noori, also played a key role by pioneering a path for cricket in Afghanistan.

Like the brothers, many international Afghan players, such as Mohammad Shehzad, Raees Ahmadzai, Mohammad Nabi, and the country’s first global star Rashid Khan, now captain, all grew up learning cricket and becoming cricketers in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Gujarat Titans' Rashid Khan plays a shot during the Indian Premier League cricket match between Delhi Capitals and Gujarat Titans in New Delhi, India, April 24, 2024.

“It was our passion. We didn't know then that Cricket would bring such happiness to the Afghan nation,” Karim Sadiq told VOA. “Cricket conveys a message that Afghanistan is not a country of war and drugs. It's a country of love and sports.”

In 2001, after the invasion of the U.S. forces against the Taliban rule, cricket flourished in Afghanistan, which became an associate member of the ICC, the world’s cricketing body.

A new younger generation of cricketers emerged. Now, Afghanistan is a full member of the ICC’s elite club of 12 countries, and it enjoys the status of a test-playing nation.

The Afghan team won many hearts in the 2023 World Cup after earning wins against the former world champions — Pakistan, England and Sri Lanka.

“Afghan players fight for every match as they are fighting for the nation,” Pakistan’s former captain, Rashid Latif, who coached Afghanistan, told VOA. “T20 cricket needs aggression and Afghanistan players have it. They are capable of surprises in the World Cup.”

Now, Afghanistan is playing in the T20 Cricket World Cup co-hosted by the United States and West Indies. It has strong contenders like New Zealand and West Indies in the group, along with minnows Papa New Guinea and Uganda. Some experts call it the “Group of Death” because only two teams will make it through the knockout stage.

A sign advertises the Cricket World Cup matches in East Meadow, New York, May 8, 2024.

The Taliban banned all women's sports and put restrictions on some men’s sports, but not cricket. There is speculation it’s because they enjoyed the game themselves or were apprehensive about the possible public reaction if they banned it, given its massive popularity.

A few weeks ago, when Afghanistan’s team captain, Rashid Khan, visited Afghanistan to meet family and friends, Taliban officials presented him with bouquets and took selfies with the superstar.

Rashid and his team members, including young superstars — batters Rehmanullah Gurbaz and Ibrahim Zadran, allrounder Azmatullah Omarzai, spinners Mujeeb-ur Rehman and Noor Ahmed — have arrived in the West Indies, as have their diehard supporters from Europe, Canada and the U.S.

Back in Afghanistan, Karim Sadiq is now working to promote the sport, while his elder brother, 49-year-old Taj Maluk, has turned to religion. “Cricket is not just a game. It reunites Afghans and brings joy to the lives of people,” Taj Maluk told VOA. “We will pray for their success.”

Karim Sadiq recalls when Afghanistan qualified for the T20 World Cup in 2010. “When we returned home, it was a festival. Everywhere, celebrating crowds held up the Afghan flag. We all wish to see such festivity again, to see Afghanistan become the World Champion.”

Across Afghanistan, fans have made special arrangements to view the matches. Some have pooled their money to buy dish antennas. Others have decorated the hujras, or living rooms, with national flags.

“Afghanistan is a wounded land. Cricket helps people stitch those wounds,“ said Shams ul Rahman Shirzad, a cricket fan in Nangarhar, from where the brothers Taj Maluk and Karim Sadiq hailed and once dreamed of having a national cricket team.

This story originated in VOA’s Afghan service.

More difficult now

SUSTAINING hegemony over the masses

Dr Niaz Murtaza 

DAWN 

Published May 28, 2024 Updated a day ago

SUSTAINING hegemony over the masses has been a key aim and challenge for our elitist state. This exercise has caused endless political instability and insecurity, given the fightback by the people and the power tussles among elite ethnicities, classes and institutions.

The top gun position shifted often in the first decade: institutionally from the Muslim League to the bureaucracy, to the military; ethnically from Mohajirs to Punjabis; and from a mixed class clique to the middle class. The coordinates of raw power soon became conservative, older, male, military, elitist, Sunni, upper class and Punjab.

Since 1958, the unelected clique has kept its hegemony via close ties with global patrons, co-opting political and state elites, rigging politics and demolishing mass dissent, with religion and Kashmir as rallying narratives. It ruled unelected via large one-window but odious US aid: money, arms, veto cover, markets, technology, and multilateral loans. Linked to US security aims, it helped keep politicians out but caused violence too.

As US aid ebbed, it courted politicians to quell dissent and ruled covertly. The elected eras kept growing given the growing internal and external binds against autocracy. The first was from 1972 to 1977 with one (free) election. The second was from 1985 to 1999 with only one of five elections deemed fair (1988) and each assembly nixed early. The third is from 2002 to now, with two free elections (2008 and 2013) out of five. Four assemblies reached term but not the prime ministers, reflecting minor democratic gains. The early dismissals were due to civilian forays into what the establishment considered its own affairs, policy tiffs and claimed misrule. They were carried out via coups, no-trust votes, presidential powers, and forced exits. The mode and strength of covert rule varied, focusing on security and external policy from 2008-18 but more intrusively politics and economics as well after 2018, erasing all democratic gains. Both eras saw big tiffs with out-of-sync civilians, with Nawaz Sharif to the establishment’s left and Imran Khan to its right on the US, India, Taliban, etc.

State elements now face a unique challenge in sustaining their hegemony.

State elements now face a unique challenge in sustaining their hegemony. Cosy ties with the US are over and other powers (China and Saudi Arabia) can’t provide large, one-window aid. Arch-enemy India is now a global power and dwarfs our geo-economic powers. Global sanctions have cut the ability to deploy jihadis. State elements have partially lost their narrative as the custodians of national piety and patriotism as Imran Khan acts as a stauncher custodian. There are hostile extremist states on three sides matching our insurgencies in KP and Balochistan. The economy is unusually bad. Yet its residual powers are formidable — arms, agents, businesses — and keep all parties subservient.

The divorce with the PTI has created an elite middle-class alliance against older parties: middle-class parties (led by the PTI), media anchors, professional classes, expats and sections of the judiciary, bureaucracy, and reportedly even the ranks. Moreover, the insurgents are largely middle class. Smaller middle-class parties had existed for long, like religious ones and the MQM. But the advent of social media has aided the rise of a pan-Pakistan middle-class party popular in all core regions: upper Punjab, Peshawar valley and Karachi and even beyond. But this party’s governance and democratic records are poor too, like the older elite parties.

These trends are forcing elements of the state to resort to desperate ways of retaining its hege­mony as its options dwindle: mutually conflicting ties with multiple global pat­rons to scavenge various bits of key aid, new docile ele­cted allies, cruder rigging and gagg­ing, not too covert co-governance in more domains and using force even in core regions against dissident ex-middle-class allies. Even so, this hybrid set-up remains divided and inept and may not survive, let alone thrive. What options will unelected forces use if they fail? More force, overt rule or technocracy? But these won’t succeed and will, in fact, upend critical Western support. So, good governance eludes all elite factions. Governance can only improve by nixing elite politics for organic pro-poor politics.

Can society tame this unelected being? It may need a joint effort to overpower the flailing behemoth. So, we enter a new phase of high turbulence: economic volatility, political instability, and high insecurity. Passengers must fasten their seat belts, if they have one, as the captain won’t turn on the signs.

The writer is a political economist with a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.
murtazaniaz@yahoo.com
X: @NiazMurtaza2

Published in Dawn, May 28th, 2024