Connect with us

Analysis

Regime change?

Published

on

Political turmoil that has been unleashed due to American interference could generate internal chaos.

Addressing a public rally on 27th March, Prime Minister Imran Khan charged on the basis of documentary evidence that foreign powers are trying to bring about regime change in Pakistan through supporting the opposition’s no-confidence motion against him. While the opposition has denied these charges, such a serious assertion from the head of government deserves serious scrutiny.

The document in question, a report of 7th March from the Ambassador in Washington – the contents of which were shared with journalists before it was placed before the National Security Committee – reportedly maintains that it is no longer possible for Washington to work with the incumbent Prime Minister and if the no-confidence vote fails then there would be dire consequences for Pakistan. Bur if the motion succeeds, bilateral relations would significantly improve. Intriguingly, these remarks predate the tabling of the no-confidence motion which suggests that this move has American endorsement. Even more alarming is the contention of some government spokesmen that the message contains threats which endanger the life of the Prime Minister.

Western powers have been openly critical of Pakistan’s decision not to join the US-led alliance against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and of the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow before the invasion, taking the diplomatically unprecedented and unacceptable step to castigate Pakistan in a joint press statement. More broadly as well, Americans have been critical of Pakistan’s foreign policy direction, specifically relations with China, Russia and Afghanistan while being incensed about the refusal to provide military bases. Therefore, it would not be surprising if regime change in Pakistan is being sought by Washington.

It is worth recalling that Prime Minister ZA Bhutto had claimed an American conspiracy to remove him from power after the 1977 elections owing to his refusal to abandon Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme for which the US had threatened to “make an example” of him. Later General Zia died in a mysterious plane crash for which many Pakistanis blame the US, on the grounds that Zia had become a liability for Washington after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. The ouster of General Musharraf in 2008 was accomplished more openly by the Bush administration with his own naïve collaboration, once the Americans realised that he could no longer mobilise public support for the American “War on Terror”. With the passage of time such charges of American interference are now broadly accepted in Pakistan.

ALSO READ :  Human Organ Trade in Global Perspective

This conviction is strengthened by the more recent publicly acknowledged US policy of regime change such as in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Only a few days ago, President Biden himself called for removing Russian President Putin, though subsequently his officials retracted this statement. There are also several other prominent examples of American regime change documented in numerous books and articles. In 1953, Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddagh was removed in a coup orchestrated by the US and the UK to take control over Iranian oil. In 1961, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo was removed and executed with the involvement of the American CIA, for his relations with the Soviet Union.

Similarly, the CIA was involved in the overthrow and death of Salvador Allende, President of Chile in 1973, owing to his socialist policies. Several failed attempts were also made by American administrations to remove Cuban President Fidel Castro including an abortive military invasion of the Island. Similarly, the Reagan administration created the “Contras” to overthrow Nicaraguan Leader, Daniel Ortega. These are among the more well-known instances of regime change by the US which include dozens of others in Latin America and South-East Asia, such as in Guatemala (1953-1990s); Costa Rica (1950-1970); Vietnam (1945-1973); Cambodia (1955-1973); Ecuador (1960-1963) among others listed meticulously by William Blum in his book Rogue State.

With such a track record, it is indeed conceivable that the US would be willing to orchestrate the removal of Imran Khan’s government and promote a more pliable set-up instead. The brief positive trend in Pakistan-US relations, following Pakistan’s facilitation of the American-Taliban dialogue, ended when the Biden administration took over. The American debacle in Afghanistan for which Pakistan has been blamed, compounded further by the refusal to provide bases, has led to vengeful indignation. Such pique has been aggravated by Pakistan’s outreach to China and Russia, especially implementation of CPEC and promotion of regional connectivity which undermines America’s containment of China in the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, India’s continuing tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir and with China in Laddakh, confronting that country with a two-front challenge, undermine India’s role as “net security provider” for the Americans. Therefore, the US wants Pakistan to “normalise” relations with India but on Indian terms which is rejected by Khan’s government. These are the geopolitical considerations that essentially underscore the American compulsion for regime change in Pakistan.

ALSO READ :  Knee-deep in Covid-19, our hospitals need steady supplies of PPEs, sanitisers and adequate staff

But, even in the event of the opposition succeeding in the no-trust vote against the PM, it is unlikely that American objectives would be realised. No Pakistani government, no matter how pliable, would be able to reverse the popular consensus on key national issues such as Kashmir, the nuclear programme, relations with China and pursuit of a balanced foreign policy. Past experience amply demonstrates this. Bhutto’s ouster did not reverse the nuclear programme. Zia’s removal did not change Afghan policy nor did Musharraf’s abdication. But, due to their arrogance, the Americans are purblind to the reality that any change of leadership in Pakistan cannot deviate from the country’s strategic interests. But the political turmoil that has been unleashed due to American interference could generate internal chaos undermining Pakistan’s political and economic development. It is, therefore, essential for all political parties to recognise and overcome the dangers ahead.

Via Tribune

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Analysis

Survey Results Reveal: Young Right-Wing Women Demand Trump Debate

Published

on

Introduction

A recent survey conducted by Change Research has revealed that young women with right-wing political views are demanding a debate with former President Donald Trump. The survey was conducted in the United States and included participants from different age groups and political affiliations.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the survey results and analyze the possible reasons for the demand.

Survey Results

The survey included 1,009 participants from across the United States. The participants were divided into different age groups and political affiliations. The survey found that 57% of young women with right-wing political views demanded a debate with Donald Trump. This is in contrast to other groups, where the demand was much lower.

Analysis

The survey results raise several questions about the possible reasons for the demand. One possible reason is that young women with right-wing political views see Donald Trump as a strong leader who can represent their interests. They may also see him as a symbol of the conservative movement and want to hear his views on various issues.

Another possible reason is that young women with right-wing political views are dissatisfied with the current political climate and want to hear from a leader who can bring about change. They may see Donald Trump as someone who can shake up the political establishment and bring about the changes they desire.

The demand for a debate with Donald Trump also has several implications. It shows that young women with right-wing political views are an important demographic that cannot be ignored. It also highlights the need for political leaders to engage with young people and understand their concerns.

ALSO READ :  PCB's Musical Chairs: How it's Harming Pakistan's Cricket

The demand for a debate with Donald Trump can also be compared to other political debates. For example, the demand for a debate with Bernie Sanders was much higher among young people with left-wing political views. This shows that young people across the political spectrum are interested in hearing from political leaders who represent their views.

Conclusion

The survey results show that young women with right-wing political views are demanding a debate with former President Donald Trump. The demand is much higher among this group compared to other groups. The demand raises several questions about the possible reasons and implications. It also highlights the need for political leaders to engage with young people and understand their concerns.

Continue Reading

Analysis

The Challenges to “Two State and Combined State Solution” of Gaza Crisis: A Comprehensive Analysis

Published

on

The Gaza Crisis has been ongoing for decades and has been a major source of conflict in the Middle East. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.

The historical background of the Gaza Crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict is rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent occupation and annexation of Palestinian land by Israel. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.

Key Takeaways

  • The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the Gaza Crisis.
  • The crisis has been ongoing for decades and is characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability.
  • The historical background of the crisis is complex and multifaceted, rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948.

Historical Background of Gaza Crisis

The Gaza Strip has been at the center of conflict between Israel and Palestine for decades. Understanding the historical background of the Gaza crisis is crucial in comprehending the current situation and potential solutions.

The Birth of Israel

The Gaza Strip was originally part of the British Mandate of Palestine, which was established after World War I. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition of the land into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The plan was accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs, who believed that the land belonged to them. In 1948, Israel declared its independence, and neighboring Arab countries invaded, starting the first Arab-Israeli War. The war resulted in Israel’s victory and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including many who fled to the Gaza Strip.

Six Day War

In 1967, tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors escalated, leading to the Six Day War. Israel emerged victorious, occupying the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The occupation of the Gaza Strip led to the establishment of Israeli settlements and the displacement of more Palestinians.

First and Second Intifada

In 1987, the First Intifada began, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. The uprising lasted six years and led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. In 2000, the Second Intifada began, after peace talks failed to reach a resolution. The violence resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis and the destruction of infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.

The historical background of the Gaza crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict has resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians and has led to the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Understanding this history is crucial in finding a lasting solution to the crisis.

Understanding the Two State Solution

Concept and Origin

The Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The concept of a two-state solution emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, when the British Mandate for Palestine was coming to an end. The idea was to divide the land between Jews and Arabs, with each group having their own independent state. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. While the Jewish community accepted the resolution, the Arab states rejected it, and the ensuing conflict resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Proposed Geographic Division

The proposed geographic division of the two-state solution would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would retain control over the remaining territories, including the settlements in the West Bank. The borders between the two states would be based on the pre-1967 borders, with some territorial swaps to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The idea of a two-state solution has been the basis of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for decades. However, the negotiations have been fraught with difficulties, and a final agreement has yet to be reached. The ongoing conflict between the two sides, including the Gaza crisis, has made it increasingly difficult to achieve a two-state solution. Nevertheless, many still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

ALSO READ :  Devastating Severe Storms Lead to Flooding and Casualties in Greece, Turkey, and Bulgaria

In summary, the Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The proposed geographic division would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. While the negotiations have been difficult, many believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

International Perspectives

United Nations’ Stance

The United Nations has been a vocal advocate for a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. In 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The UN has continued to support a two-state solution to the conflict, with the Security Council passing numerous resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

United States’ Approach

The United States has historically been a key player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has long supported a two-state solution. In 2002, the US proposed the “Roadmap for Peace,” which outlined a series of steps to be taken by both Israelis and Palestinians to reach a two-state solution. However, the Trump administration in 2017 recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there, which was seen as a significant blow to the prospects of a two-state solution.

European Union’s Position

The European Union has also been a strong supporter of a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. The EU has provided significant financial aid to the Palestinian Authority and has been involved in numerous peace talks between Israel and Palestine. In 2016, the EU issued a statement calling for a two-state solution and condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The EU has also been critical of the Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, which it sees as a violation of international law.

Challenges to the Two State Solution

The Two State Solution has been proposed as a resolution to the Gaza Crisis, but it faces many challenges. These challenges are political, security-related, and economic.

Political Disputes

One of the main challenges to the Two State Solution is the political disputes between Israel and Palestine. The two sides have different visions for the future of the region, and they have been unable to come to an agreement on how to move forward. The Palestinian leadership began seriously to consider a Two State Solution after the 1973 October War, but the solution faces insurmountable challenges given the current political climate.

Security Concerns

Security concerns are another major challenge to the Two State Solution. Both Israel and Palestine have legitimate security concerns, and they are unwilling to compromise on these issues. The Gaza War of 2014 highlighted the security concerns of both sides, and it has made it even more difficult to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties.

Economic Hurdles

Finally, economic hurdles are also a challenge to the Two State Solution. The Gaza Strip is one of the most impoverished regions in the world, and it is heavily dependent on foreign aid. The economic situation in the region is further complicated by the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. The lack of economic opportunities and the ongoing conflict have created a vicious cycle of poverty and violence in the region.

In conclusion, the Two State Solution faces many challenges, including political disputes, security concerns, and economic hurdles. These challenges must be addressed if there is to be a peaceful and just resolution to the Gaza Crisis.

Alternatives to the Two State Solution

While the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been alternative proposals put forward. Here are two potential alternatives:

One State Solution

The One State Solution proposes that Israel and Palestine should be combined into a single state. This state would be democratic and would allow for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Supporters of this solution argue that it would lead to a more peaceful and stable region, as it would eliminate the need for borders and would promote cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.

However, critics argue that this solution is not feasible, as it would require both sides to give up their national identities and would be difficult to implement in practice. Additionally, it is unclear how the rights of minority groups would be protected in a single state solution.

Confederation Model

Another alternative to the Two State Solution is a Confederation Model. This model proposes that Israel and Palestine would each have their own separate governments, but would share certain institutions and cooperate on issues such as security and economic development. This solution would allow for greater autonomy for both sides, while still promoting cooperation and peace in the region.

Supporters of this model argue that it would allow for greater self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians, while still maintaining a level of cooperation that would promote stability in the region. However, critics argue that this solution would be difficult to implement in practice, as it would require both sides to give up a certain level of sovereignty and would require a high level of trust between the two governments.

ALSO READ :  PCB's Musical Chairs: How it's Harming Pakistan's Cricket

Overall, while the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is important to consider alternative proposals that may lead to a more peaceful and stable region.

Impact on the Palestinian-Israeli Relations

The Gaza Crisis has had a significant impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has been ongoing for decades, and the Gaza Crisis has added another layer of complexity to the issue. The following subsections detail the impact of the crisis on the Palestinian-Israeli relations.

Socio-economic Impact

The Gaza Crisis has had a devastating socio-economic impact on the Palestinian people. The conflict has resulted in widespread poverty, unemployment, and a lack of access to basic necessities such as food, water, and healthcare. According to a report by the United Nations, the poverty rate in Gaza is over 50%, and the unemployment rate is over 40%. The crisis has also resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians, further exacerbating the socio-economic issues in the region.

Political Impact

The Gaza Crisis has also had a significant political impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides, making it difficult to reach a lasting peace agreement. The crisis has also led to an increase in tensions between the two sides, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.

In conclusion, the Gaza Crisis has had a profound impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The crisis has worsened the socio-economic conditions in Gaza and has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides. The political impact of the crisis has also been significant, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.

Conclusion

The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex and controversial issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion. Despite efforts by various international bodies and governments to resolve the crisis, the situation remains unresolved.

The key challenge to the two-state solution is the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict has resulted in significant loss of life and property, and has created deep-seated mistrust between the two sides.

Another significant challenge to the two-state solution is the political and economic instability in the region. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and the lack of economic opportunities has contributed to the ongoing crisis.

Despite these challenges, there are reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a two-state solution. The international community has been actively involved in promoting peace and stability in the region, and there have been some positive developments in recent years.

The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. While there are significant challenges to overcome, there are also reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a peaceful resolution. The international community must continue to work towards a sustainable and lasting peace in the region.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the history of the two-state solution for Gaza?

The concept of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been around for decades. It was first proposed in the 1930s, and the United Nations formally endorsed the idea in 1947. The two-state solution envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the two states living in peace and security.

Is a two-state solution still a viable option for resolving the Gaza crisis?

There is no simple answer to this question. While many people still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to resolve the Gaza crisis, others are skeptical that it can ever be achieved. The situation in Gaza is complex, and there are many factors that make a two-state solution difficult to achieve. Some experts argue that the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has made a two-state solution less likely, while others point to the ongoing violence and political instability in Gaza as major obstacles to peace.

What are the potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza?

There are many potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza, including political, economic, and security issues. One of the biggest obstacles is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which has led to several wars and countless acts of violence. Other obstacles include the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the lack of a unified Palestinian leadership, and the economic and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

What is Hamas’ stance on a two-state solution for Gaza?

Hamas, which controls Gaza, has historically been opposed to a two-state solution. The group’s charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine. However, some members of Hamas have indicated that they may be willing to accept a two-state solution under certain conditions, such as the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Are there any alternative solutions to the Gaza crisis besides a two-state solution?

There are several alternative solutions that have been proposed to resolve the Gaza crisis, including a one-state solution, a confederation of two states, and a regional peace agreement involving multiple Arab states. However, each of these solutions has its own set of challenges and obstacles, and none has gained widespread support.

How would a one-state solution differ from a two-state solution for Gaza?

A one-state solution would involve the creation of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians would have equal rights and representation. This would be a major departure from the two-state solution, which envisions the creation of two separate states. While a one-state solution has some appeal to those who believe in equal rights for all, it is also seen as a highly controversial and difficult solution to implement, given the deep divisions and historical animosity between Israelis and Palestinians.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Australia-China Relations: Can Anthony Albanese Thaw the Frozen Ties?

Published

on

Introduction: A Diplomatic Gamble Amidst Global Tensions

In November 2023, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made a bold diplomatic move by going on a state visit to China. This was a high-stakes endeavour against the backdrop of a world that was changing quickly. Under the previous Australian government, the complicated relationship between Australia and China—two countries whose ties had been on the verge of collapse—underwent a sea change as a result of this historic journey.

The Tangled Web of Australia-China Relations: A History of Cooperation and Discord

Australia and China have a long history of tangled relations laced with both harmony and conflict. Strong economic ties have resulted in China emerging as Australia’s top trading partner. But these economic ties have frequently been overshadowed by ideological and political divides.

The previous Australian government, led by Scott Morrison, brought relations with China to an all-time low. Tensions were high during this time due to trade disputes, opposing foreign policy positions, and worries about Chinese influence in Australia. Several punitive actions, such as trade sanctions and diplomatic expulsions, resulted from this.

Albanese’s Daunting Task: Thawing the Frozen Ties

When Anthony Albanese’s Labor Party took office in May 2022, it inherited a badly damaged relationship with China. Acknowledging China’s significance to Australia’s economy and security, Albanese promised to take a more practical stance in their bilateral dealings.

A Delicate Balancing Act: Navigating the US-China Chessboard

Albanese’s visit to China occurred amidst a backdrop of escalating tensions between the United States and China. The two superpowers have been in a fierce rivalry across various fronts, including trade, technology, and geopolitics. The United States has been particularly vocal in its criticism of China’s human rights record and its growing military assertiveness.

ALSO READ :  Asian Union: Will the Asian Countries unite to form Asian Union with the merger of ASEAN ,SAARC,NAM?: Prospects , Possibilities and Challenges

Australia, as a close ally of the United States, found itself caught in the crossfire of this rivalry. Albanese had to strike a careful balance between Australia’s desire to keep positive relations with China and its relationship with its key ally, the United States.

The State Visit: A Beacon of Hope Amidst Turbulent Waters

Albanese’s state visit to China was an important step towards reconciliation between the two countries. During his tour, Albanese met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other key Chinese leaders. Wide-ranging conversations about trade, investments, climate change, and regional security were held between the two parties.

Key Outcomes of the Visit: A Glimmer of Progress

The visit yielded several positive outcomes, including the resumption of high-level political dialogue, the restoration of some trade channels, and the establishment of new working groups to address areas of mutual interest.

The Path Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the positive steps taken during Albanese’s visit, the relationship between Australia and China remains fragile. Numerous challenges lie ahead, including ongoing trade disputes, differing views on regional security, and China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

However, the visit has also opened up new avenues for cooperation. Both countries are vested in promoting economic stability and addressing global challenges such as climate change.

Conclusion: A Cautious Optimism

The audacious and vital move towards repairing the tense relations between the two nations was Anthony Albanese’s state visit to China. Although the visit has set the stage for more fruitful communication and collaboration, there is still more work to be done to completely rebuild confidence and teamwork.

ALSO READ :  The Role of Middle Powers in a Multipolar World

The lessons from Albanese’s visit will certainly be critical in determining how Australia and China negotiate the complicated geopolitical terrain of the twenty-first century and how their future relationship is shaped. Their interactions will always be shaped by the fine balance between collaboration and competition, and maintaining peace and prosperity in the area will depend on how well these tensions are managed.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019-2023 ,The Monitor . All Rights Reserved .