Back in grade school PE class the coach would, on occasion, have the students sit together on the gymnasium floor for a short lecture. One of those lectures I have thought about periodically in the years since. It is the lecture in which the coach described the enriched bread scam.

When you see bread labeled “Enriched” on a grocery store shelf you probably think it is improved over other bread, the coach said that day in the gym. But, he explained, the truth is the bread is inferior. Much of the nutritious part of the bread had been taken out or was never there, and then some lesser nutrition was added. The bread is now “Enriched,” but, in reality, it is less nutritious than other bread.

Calling the bread enriched, the coach said, was like saying you had been enriched by a robber who took all your money and then gave some of it back.

I was lucky to hear about the enriched bread scam so early. It is not often mentioned in schooling or media. Here is a brief discussion of it in a September 14, 2021 article by Jennifer Cook at Consumer Reports:

Grains have three parts: the endosperm, bran, and germ. White flour is made just from the endosperm, while whole wheat contains all three parts. And many of a grain’s nutrients are in the latter two components.

White bread does offer some protein, and most commercial loaves are made from flour enriched with B vitamins and iron. Bread that’s primarily whole grain, however, has a lot more going for it. In addition to B vitamins and iron, it supplies vitamin E, minerals such as zinc and magnesium, flavonoids and other antioxidants, protein, and fiber.

Being aware of the enriched bread scam is helpful far beyond in grocery shopping, I soon figured out. Marketing the inferior and the downgraded as superior and upgraded is a scam companies and governments routinely use to mislead people. Seeing though the scam can be helpful for advancing wellbeing and liberty.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By Kevin Van Elswyk*

Modern secular society embraces a new religion complete with prophets, crusaders, commandments, contrition, and even a holy land: East Anglia, United Kingdom. These congregants will behave idiosyncratically in the economy. The activist green movement increasingly parallels Western religious structure, even generating a modern version of the medieval Children’s Crusade.

Motivated by hope, the first Children’s Crusade assembled in 1212 under the preteen leadership of two boys countries apart—Stephen of Cloyes (France) and Nicholas of Cologne. One claimed a vision and the other a letter from Christ, sparking a movement to retake Jerusalem from the city’s Muslim conquerors. The boys’ preaching and zealous piety created what some historians have called mass hysteria.

Greta Thunberg of Norway has become a leader of the second Children’s Crusade. “How dare you?” she scolds as she issues press releases and speaks globally, seemingly without adult manipulation, speechwriters, coaches, press managers, or stylists. Into this publicity storm steps a second leader, charismatic young Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of Brooklyn, New York. A “cool” older sister who galvanizes children’s fear of imminent death, she claimed in early 2019 that “we have 12 years left.” These two figures have many willing acolytes.

The first Children’s Crusade was spontaneous; it carried no papal blessing or church authentication. However, the current movement has Pope John Kerry, resident envoy on climate, who commends the crusade.

Official records and accounts are open to contrasting interpretations, but historians converge on a size for the thirteenth-century Children’s Crusade of between 15,000 and 30,000 participants. Many of these were marginalized people who had neither skill, nor money, nor weapons to recapture Jerusalem. Children had the largest representation.

The populace during the first Children’s Crusade was ripe for naïve solutions. Prior crusades had gained Jerusalem but failed to hold it. Believers wanted blessings from the relic of the true cross; pleasing God, Jerusalem would be wrested from the infidels. The citizenry had been taught from the crib that crusaders were heroes and that anyone losing their life on crusade would be rewarded in heaven. Lacking prospects in the nasty, brutish, and short life of the underclass, these crusaders may have been desperate.

In 1212 thousands were led across the Alps to Italy, with many dying along the way. Those surviving the trek expected the Mediterranean to part like the Red Sea. Some marched on to French Mediterranean ports to embark for the Holy Land; many were lost at sea or sold into slavery.

The second Children’s Crusade officially dawned in Senator Diane Feinstein’s office on February 23, 2019. Children as young as seven years old from the Sunrise Movement pleaded with Feinstein to immediately adopt new, green ideas, so they would still be alive twelve years later. They demanded that Feinstein look at their faces as future victims (not you, Diane, you’re old) of climate/global change/warming. She responded, “You didn’t vote for me.”

Today’s climate prophets preach inconvenient truths. There is a doctrinal revelation (via science) that must influence daily life. There is a dogma of procedural remedies, with wind and solar as its catechism. And there are traditional struggles for virtue against the omnipresent and seductive sin of Oil.

With no hope for the future, believers adopt tribal behavior rules. Zealously embracing the new tenets allows virtuous scolding of outsiders. Outrageous acts against culture and history are praised: soup poured on priceless art, hands glued to museum walls, “die-ins” staged to block traffic, and milk poured out in resistance to global warming. Student walkouts solidify tribal status.

In June 1989, a “senior” United Nations environmental official predicted that if the trend were not reversed by 2000, entire nations could disappear. In 2006 Nobel Prize–winner Al Gore predicted that in ten years the Earth could be a “frying pan.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks humans could be extinct in twelve years.

The second Children’s Crusade mirrors the first in many ways. Environmental fears have been taught in twenty-first-century schools since kindergarten. There is frustration with the lack of progress in addressing climate change. There is fear, leading to desperation; the children are considering how short their lives will be. Covid isolation has made socialization difficult and the future unappealing. Long-term goals of education and family formation are dissipating. There is only now for this generation’s spending.

Meanwhile, as the ice disappears in Greenland we find Viking bones and artifacts. Polar bear populations have increased in some places and are stable in others. Hunting artifacts are being exposed in melting Alaskan and Norwegian glaciers. Are we heading toward a cooling period, yes or no? Will solar minima slow the arrival of our doom?

This panicked rush to the doors focuses on elimination of carbon emissions without the help of the three largest developing economies; we will not reach the heaven of Carbon Zero. We are ignoring geoengineering efforts to mitigate suspected warming. Efforts like no-till farming, open-field grazing, feldspar applications to fields, and planting trees to rebuild the carbon sink could contribute toward a planned, cost-effective mitigation.

Parents in 1212 locked their children at home to prevent them from being swept up—in a Pied Piper moment—in the Crusade and its speciousness. In 2023, especially after the early covid predictions, parents need to take their children aside and teach them to be suspicious of these precise predictions of climate doom.

Generation Z citizens need to take a flinty look at the climate debate. From Robert Malthus 225 years ago to global cooling alarmists of the early ’70s to doomsayers of the twenty-first century’s global climate change panic, predictions have not been challenged adequately. The current dialogue labels disagreement with the new green religion precepts as heretical.

Today’s crusade is drawing from a pool of distressed teens. Psychologists are alarmed at the rate of suicidal ideation and attempts in this generation. Among adolescents aged twelve to seventeen in 2020, 17 percent (or 4.1 million people) had had a major depressive episode in the past year. Twelve percent of that same age group had had serious thoughts of suicide. Fifty-five percent of the female high school population had reported feelings of hopelessness.

Jonathan Haidt of the New York University Stern School of Business commented to the Wall Street Journal on Gen Z’s high anxiety profile, concluding that they are “‘less likely to swing for the fences, . . . start [their] own company. . . . I hear from a lot of managers . . . that it’s very difficult to supervise their Gen-Z employees, that it’s very difficult to give them feedback.’ That makes it hard for them to advance professionally by learning to do their jobs better.”

The threat of incineration interrupts the American Dream and may underlie “quiet quitting” trends. This fear will affect education, the economy, and family formation.

*About the author: Kevin is a 10-year adjunct associate professor most recently with University of Maryland’s Global Campus. He lives in Brookfield Wisconsin and happily has time to read, tie flies, think, and write.

Source: This article was published by the MISES Institute

It was a sight to behold and took the wind out of the bellicose sails of the AUKUS cheer squad.  Here, at the National Press Club in the Australian capital, was a Labor luminary, former Prime Minister of Australia and statesman, keen to weigh in with characteristic sharpness and dripping venom.  Paul Keating’s target: the militaristic lunacy that has characterised Australia’s participation in the US-led security pact that promises hellish returns and pangs of insecurity.

In his March 15 address to a Canberra press gallery bewitched by the magic of nuclear-propelled submarines and the China bogeyman, Keating was unsparing about those “seriously unwise ministers in government” – notably Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles, unimpressed by their foolish, uncritical embrace of the US war machine.  “The Albanese Government’s complicity in joining with Britain and the United States in a tripartite build of a nuclear submarine for Australia under the AUKUS arrangements represents the worst international decision by an Australian Labor government since the former Labor leader, Billy Hughes, sought to introduce conscription to augment Australian forces in World War One.”

In terms of history, this was chilling to Keating.  The AUKUS security pact represented a longing gaze back at the Mother Country, Britain, “shunning security in Asia for security in and within the Anglosphere.”  It also meant a locking alliance with the United States for the next half-century as a subordinate in a containment strategy of Beijing. This was a bi-partisan approach to foreign policy that saw the US dominating East Asia as “the primary strategic power” rather than a balancing one.

For Keating, the impetus for such madness came from a defence establishment that dazzled the previous Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.  That effort, he argues, was spearheaded by the likes of the US-funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Andrew Shearer of the Office of National Intelligence.  They even, he argues, managed to convince PM Albanese, Marles and Wong to abandon the 20-month review period on the scope of what they were seeking.

The steamrolling Keating was also unsparing in attacking a number of journalists for their ditzy, adolescent belligerence.  The sword, once produced, was never sheathed.  Peter Hartcher, most notably, received a generous pasting as a war infatuated lunatic whose anti-China campaign at the Fairfax presses had been allowed for years.  

In terms of the submarines themselves, Keating also expressed the view that the Royal Australian Navy would be far better off acquiring between 40 to 50 of the Collins Class submarines to police the coastline rather than having nuclear powered submarines lying in wait off the Chinese shoreline.  

As we all should know, submarine policy is where imagination goes to expire, often in frightful, costly ways.  For all Keating’s admiration for the Collins Class, it was a nightmarish project marred by fiascos, poor planning and organisational dysfunction within the defence establishment.  At stages, two-thirds of the Australian fleet of six submarines was unable to operate at full capacity.  The lesson here is that submarines and the Australian naval complex simply do not mix. 

The reaction from the Establishment was one of predictable dismissal, denial and distortion, typical of what Gore Vidal would have called deranged machismo.  Instead of being critical of the powers that are, they have turned their guns and wallets on spectres, ghosts and devilish images.  The tragedy looms, and it will be, like many tragedies, the result of colossal, unforgivable stupidity.  

At the very least, the intervention by Keating, notably in the Labor Party, has not gone unnoticed.  Within the Labor caucus, tremors of dissatisfaction are being recorded, breaches growing.  West Australian Labor backbencher Josh Wilson defied his own party’s dictates by telling colleagues in the House of Representatives how he was “not yet convinced that we can adequately deal with the non-proliferation risks involved in what is a novel arrangement, by which a non-nuclear weapons state under the NPT (Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty) comes to acquire weapons-grade material.”

Wilson’s views are not outlandish to the man. He is keen to challenge the notion of unaccountable executive war powers, a problem that looms large in the Westminster system.  “To assume that such decision-making is already perfect, immutable, and beyond scrutiny,” he wrote in December last year, “puts Australia at risk of making the most dangerous judgments without the best institutional framework for doing so.”

A gaggle of former senior Labor ministers have also emerged, even if they initially proved sluggish.  Peter Garrett, former environment minister and front man of Midnight Oil, while proving a bit squeamish about Keating’s invective, found himself in general agreement.  “The deal stinks with massive cost, loss of independence, weaking nuke safeguards & more.”

Kim Carr, who had previously held ministerial positions in industry and defence materiel, revealed that the matter of AUKUS had never been formally approved in the Federal Labor caucus, merely noted.  Various “key” Labor figures – again Marles and Wong – agreed to endorse the proposition put forth to them on September 15, 2021 by the then Coalition government.

He also expressed deep concern “about a revival of a forward defence policy, given our performance in Vietnam”.  For Carr, the shadow cast by the Iraq War was long.  “Given it’s 20 years since Iraq, you can hardly say our security agencies should not be questioned when they provide their assessments.”

For former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, there were three questions: whether the submarines are actually fit for purpose; whether Australia retained genuine sovereignty over them in their use; and, were that not the case, “whether that loss of agency is a price worth paying for the US security insurance we think we might be buying.”

Will these voices make a difference?  They just might – but if so, Australia will have to thank that political pugilist and Labor veteran who, for all his faults, spoke in terms that will be considered, in a matter of years, treasonous by the Empire and its sycophants.

On March 16, 2023, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced—during his visit to Niger—that the United States government will provide $150 million in aid to the Sahel region of Africa. This money, Blinken said, “will help provide life-saving support to refugees, asylum seekers, and others impacted by conflict and food insecurity in the region.”

The next day, UNICEF issued a press release with information from a report the United Nations issued that month stating that 10 million children in the central Sahel countries of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger need humanitarian assistance. UNICEF has appealed for $473.8 million to support its efforts to provide these children with basic requirements. According to the Human Development Index for 2021, Niger, despite holding large reserves of uranium, is one of the poorest countries in the world (189th out of 191 countries); profits from the uranium have long drained away to French and other Western multinational corporations. The U.S. aid money will not be going to the United Nations but will be disbursed through its own agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance.

Northeast of Niger’s capital Niamey, near the city of Agadez, is Air Base 201, one of the world’s largest drone bases that is home to several armed MQ-9 Reapers. During a press conference with Blinken, Niger Foreign Minister Hassoumi Massoudou affirmed his country’s “military cooperation” with the United States, which includes the U.S. “equipping… our armed forces, for our army and our air force and intelligence.” Neither Blinken nor Massoudou spoke about Air Base 201, from where the United States monitors the Sahel region, trains Niger’s military, and provides air support for U.S. ground operations in the region (all of this made clear during the visit by Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass to the base at the end of December 2021). The U.S. will spend $280 million on this base—twice the humanitarian aid promised by Blinken—including $30 million per year to maintain operations at Air Base 201.

Blinken is the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Niger, a country that his own department accused of “significant human rights issues” like “unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by or on behalf of government” and torture. When a reporter asked Blinken during the press conference what the U.S. will do “to bring democracy” to Burkina Faso and Mali, he replied that the United States is monitoring the “democratic backsliding, the military coups, which so far have not led to a renewal of a democratic constitutional process in these countries.” The military governments in Burkina Faso and Mali have ejected the presence of the French military from their territories and have indicated that they would not welcome any more Western military intervention. A senior official in Niger told me that Blinken’s hesitancy to directly speak about Burkina Faso and Mali might have been because of the distress about the faltering democracy in Niger.

Niger President Mohamed Bazoum has faced serious criticisms within the country about corruption and violence. In April 2022, president Bazoum wrote on Twitter that 30 of his senior officials had been arrested for “embezzlement or misappropriation,” and they would be in prison “for a long time.” This was a perfectly clear statement, but it obscured the deeper corruption within Bazoum’s own administration—including the detention of his Communications Minister Mahamadou Zada on corruption charges—which was revealed through an audit of the country’s 2021 spending that highlighted millions of dollars of missing state funds. Furthermore, a third of the money spent by Niger to buy $1 billion in weapons from arms companies between 2011 and 2019 was pilfered by government officials, according to a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

In December 2022, during the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, President Bazoum joined Benin’s President Patrice Talon to be part of the U.S. project known as the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The U.S. government pledged $504 million toward facilitating transportation between Benin and Niger, to help increase trade between these two neighbors. The MCC, set up in 2004 in the context of the U.S. war on Iraq, has been expanded into an instrument used by the U.S. government to challenge the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Senior officials in Niger, who requested anonymity, and several studies by independent authorities indicate that this MCC money is being used to upgrade African farmlands and that the corporation has been working with U.S.-funded institutions such as the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (fundedby the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations), and turn these agricultural resources over to multinational agribusinesses. The MCC grants, the senior officials said, are used to “launder” Niger’s land to foreign corporate interests and to “subordinate” Niger’s political leadership to U.S. government interests.

At the press conference, Blinken was asked about Russia’s Wagner Group. “Where Wagner has been present,” Blinken said, “bad things have inevitably followed.” Statements have been made recently about the Wagner Group operating in Burkina Faso and Mali by the U.S. State Department’s Vedant Patel after the second coup in the former country in September 2022, and by the RAND Corporation’s Colin P. Clarke in January 2023. Governments in both Burkina Faso and Mali have denied that Wagner is operating from their territory (although the group does operate in Libya), and informed observers such as the Nigerien journalist Seidik Abba (author of Mali-Sahel, notre Afghanistan à nous, 2022) said that countries in the Sahel region are being wary about any foreign intervention. Despite repeating many of Washington’s talking points about Wagner, Niger Foreign Minister Massoudou conceded that focus on it might be exaggerated: “As for the presence of Wagner in Burkina… the information that we have does not allow us to say that Wagner is still in Burkina Faso.”

Before Blinken left for Niger and Ethiopia, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee said that Niger is “one of our most important partners on the continent in terms of security cooperation.” That is the most honest assessment of U.S. interests in Niger—largely about the military bases in Agadez and Niamey.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power.

This article was produced by Globetrotter

Lawmakers from both parties this week sought to tie TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew personally to the Chinese Communist Party. Despite his pledge to keep safe the data of American users and shield TikTok from foreign manipulation, lawmakers repeatedly asserted that TikTok is a tool of China’s Communist government. Washington state’s Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, claimed “TikTok is a weapon by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on you, manipulate what you see and exploit for future generations.” 

Confession: I’ve posted short videos on TikTok.

Hell, I’ve even danced on TikTok.

I don’t want to make light of the challenge China represents to the United States, but the greatest danger America faces today is not coming from China. It is our drift toward proto-fascism. We must take care not to demonize China so much that we generate paranoia that further distorts our priorities, fuels American nativism and xenophobia, and encourages authoritarianism at home. 

There’s a difference between seeing China as challenging American technological and economic dominance, on the one hand, and viewing China as potentially threatening America’s existence. The former is correct, and can be beneficial if it induces further investments in American education, basic research, and infrastructure — on which our future standard of living depends. The latter leads to zero-sum strategies and possible warfare.

In the 1980s, when the Soviet Union began to implode, America found its next foil in Japan. Japanese-made cars were taking market share away from the Big Three automakers. At the same time, Mitsubishi bought a substantial interest in Rockefeller Center, Sony purchased Columbia Pictures, and Nintendo considered buying the Seattle Mariners.

Hearings were held on the Japanese “threat.” Members of Congress proposed a tsunami of legislation to keep American technology out of the hands of the Japanese. Techno-nationalism became the rage.

Alarmist books demonized Japan. Pat Choate’s Agents of Influence claimed Tokyo’s alleged payoffs to influential Americans were designed to achieve “effective political domination over the United States.” Robert Zielinski and Nigel Holloway, in Unequal Equities, claimed that Japan rigged its capital markets to undermine American corporations. Daniel Burstein asserted in Yen! Japan’s New Financial Empire and Its Threat to America that Japan’s growing power put the United States at risk of falling prey to a “hostile Japanese … world order.” Clyde Prestowitz’s Trading Places argued that because of our failure to respond adequately to Japan, “the power of the United States and the quality of American life is diminishing rapidly in every respect.” William S. Dietrich’s In the Shadow of the Rising Sun claimed Japan “threatens our way of life and ultimately our freedoms as much as past dangers from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.”

And on it went: The Japanese Power Game, The Coming War with Japan, Zaibatsu America: How Japanese Firms are Colonizing Vital U.S. Industries, The Silent War, Trade Wars.

But there was no vicious plot. America failed to acknowledge that Japan had invested heavily in its own education, research, and infrastructure — which enabled it to make products that American consumers wanted to buy. We didn’t see that our own financial system was coming to resemble a casino, demanding immediate profits over long-term investment. We overlooked the fact that our educational system left almost 80 percent of our young people unable to comprehend a news magazine and many others unprepared for work. We didn’t notice that our infrastructure of unsafe bridges and potholed roads was draining our productivity.

The question for America — ever more diverse but more deeply divided than in generations — is whether it is possible to rediscover our identity and mutual responsibilities without creating another enemy.

Seeking the defeat of one’s own country has never been an effective political strategy, Grigory Golosov says, and making the defeat of Russia in Ukraine the centerpiece of its political campaign as the Russian opposition abroad has done is especially counterproductive.

While the opposition’s position is both morally justified and politically understandable given its presence in the West and the attitude of Western countries toward Russia and Russians, the political scientist at St. Petersburg’s European University says, it doesn’t help the opposition win power which is what its primary goal must be (holod.media/2023/03/15/porazhenie-rossii/).

“If the opposition can win only as the result of a military defeat of the regime,” Golosov argues, “then it can also come to power only because it receives power from an external winner,” someone who “whether we like it or not,” can only be called “’an occupation administration.’” And “no nation will accept such a prospect will joy.”

Thus, as much as one may want Russia to suffer a defeat for its criminal war in Ukraine, Russia’s opposition abroad “could not have made a better gift to the [Putin regime’s] propaganda … even if it had tried very hard.” The opposition needs to recognize this rather than assume that taking this position will bring it victory.

According to Golosov, “this fixation on the military defeat of the regime is largely due to the fact that the main audience of the Russian opposition abroad are [Russian] immigrants [in Western countries].” Such anti-war rhetoric helps “protect immigrants from the suspicious and hostile attitudes in their new countries of residence.”

In sum, he continues, “this is what the idea of ‘good Russians’ boils down to.”

In one respect, “such an idea could be quite productive. Many immigrants probably have problems when they move to countries where Russia’s reputation is to put it mildly tarnished.” Émigré opposition groups win support from them for such help, and they also win it from Western governments opposed to Putin’s war in Ukraine.

“But if we talk about priorities,” Golosov concludes, “then it seems to me that the foreign opposition should formulate an approach to the transformation of Russia that would separate that process to the maximum extent possible from external factors. Otherwise, this won’t be an opposition but an immigrant trade union.”

Asia is a key continent where bilateral and multilateral relations are largely created, which determine the constellation of forces in Asia and the world. Asia is the continent of the present and the future, it’s not only home to the two most populous countries in the world, China and India, but also an area of great potential in every respect. It is precisely on the Asian continent that humanity has recently made great strides in the field of education, science and technology. Great strides and changes are also taking place in the field of international relations. One of them is the special relations between communist China and Muslim Pakistan.

Historical context

The People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1951. Pakistan was the first Muslim country to recognize the new communist China in early 1950, a year after the communists won the Chinese Civil War. While initially ambivalent about the idea of a communist state on their borders, Pakistani policymakers hoped that China would serve as a counterweight to India’s Hindu influence. Accordingly, Islamabad was among the first to recognize the People’s Republic of China as China’s representative in the United Nations and cut off relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan). In 1956, Pakistani Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai sign the Treaty of Friendship, marking closer bilateral ties. In the beginning, the famous Chinese diplomat Zhou Enlai was the architect of the partnership between the two countries.

Sino-Pakistani relations became more serious after the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1962. With little hope of resolving the border disputes, India became a strategic threat to both countries. In 1963, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China, an area claimed by India. China then supplied Pakistan with weapons, material to build a nuclear program and large amounts of economic aid. The Karakoram Highway, also known as the China-Pakistan Friendship Highway, was built by the governments of Pakistan and China. It was started in 1962, and was completed and opened to the public in 1978. It is 1,300 km long and connects China’s Xinjiang region and Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan region. The first veto in the UN Security Council ever used by China occurred in 1972 and was in favor of Pakistan. The Chinese used a veto when considering the admission of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan), and it was conditional on the safe return of Pakistani prisoners of war from India. On May 27, 1976, 105 days before his death, despite a serious illness, Chinese dictator Mao Zedong, at the age of 83, received his last foreign guest, Pakistani President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

An untrustworthy partnership

However, Beijing has not wholeheartedly embraced the relationship with Islamabad for a number of reasons. First and foremost, China then did not see India as an equal rival or a dominant strategic threat. That role was reserved for the United States. That is why in the Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971, China did not intervene militarily in favor of Pakistan. Although Beijing at least publicly supported Pakistan in 1965, it did not do so in 1971, despite Pakistan playing an important role in China’s historic opening to the US.

Second, China became deeply concerned about Pakistan’s reputation in the international community, which began to perceive it as a dangerous nuclear power due to its protection and support of Islamist terrorists. The Chinese province of Xinjiang is home to the ethnic Uyghur Muslim community. China has long been concerned about Islamist radicalism among the Uyghurs, and their alleged ties to militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan have exacerbated those concerns as well as relations with Pakistan. That is why China distanced itself from Pakistan during the 1999 Kargil War and the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

Two factors that connected Islamabad and Beijing

In 2005, the Agreement on friendship, cooperation and good neighborly relations was signed. The treaty defined Sino-Pakistani relations as a “bilateral strategic partnership of good-neighborly friendship”. Around the mid-2000s, two factors became important. The first factor was the shift in US-India relations. Although the Americans already talked about India as a counterweight to China during the Cold War, their military and economic partnership with India progressed more seriously after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1991 and was a factor that deeply worried the Chinese political elite. Sino-Indian border incidents in the Galwan Valley in 2020-2021. they further worried Beijing considering the deepening ties between New Delhi and Washington, while China’s relations with Washington were getting worse. The Chinese do not want to make concessions to the Indians in terms of border disputes and see an alliance with the Pakistanis, who are suffering from the same problem, as a solution.

Another factor is China’s ambitions to restructure the international order. In 2013, President Xi launched China’s New Silk Road, a massive multilateral infrastructure and investment project aimed at making China a dominant economic and political power. One of the backbones of the New Silk Road is certainly the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). More precisely, the then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif established in April 2015 CPEC – China’s mega-project of investment in Pakistan’s infrastructure. He was defined by Sharif as a project that changes the geopolitical game in the region. Although China has previously given Pakistan infrastructural aid and economic support, CPEC is different. It consists of a three thousand kilometer long Chinese network of infrastructure projects. It contains numerous initiatives: the development of infrastructure and energy networks, numerous economic zones and the development of the strategic port of Gwadar. All the projects within the CPEC are estimated to be worth a staggering $65 billion. The project primarily seeks to connect southwest China and Pakistan. Essentially, the success of the New Silk Road largely depends on the success of CPEC as CPEC has become the hallmark of Chinese power in South and West Asia. These two factors mean that Pakistan has become an important partner for China.

“Higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey”

For many years, the leaders of China and Pakistan have praised their relationship as “higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey.” In June 2022, a survey was conducted in Pakistan on how 1,200 citizens view China. Respondents were selected from all regions and included all age groups and genders. The same questions about China have been asked in many other countries and rarely have the answers been so positive. The first survey question asked respondents what comes to mind first when they think of China. The most common answers were “friend”, “best friend”, “good friend” and even “trusted friend”. The Chinese were perceived as a friendly and hardworking people. The respondents labeled China as a strong and developed country, and many gave it the epithet of a superpower. The connection between the two countries is described as “fraternal”.

The second question aimed to find out whether the attitude of Pakistanis towards China has improved or worsened over the past three years and why. The vast majority of respondents (85%) gave a positive answer. Only 9% of respondents stated that their perception of China had worsened, while 6% expressed a neutral attitude. Those who stated that they see China in a worse light than before cited reasons such as Covid-19, looking only at China’s own interests and the attitude towards the Muslim Uyghur community. Respondents whose perception of China improved mainly focused on China’s economic support to Pakistan, investment and medical support during the pandemic. Pakistanis have a positive view of China (far more so than other nations), due to China’s long-standing economic support for Pakistan and Pakistan’s isolated position in South Asia where Islamabad is bereft of reliable allies.

In particular, the positive attitude correlates with Chinese investments flowing into the country under the guise of CPEC. Although the investment program progressed more slowly than expected, notable successes were recorded. The Chinese are building the transport and energy infrastructure that Pakistan desperately needs to develop faster. The new power plants provided additional amounts of energy to Pakistan’s electricity grid. Roads and railways are being built. The ML-1 high-speed railway connecting Karachi with the northern city of Peshawar is the most significant project being built by Chinese companies. It is estimated that ML-1 employs around 24,000 workers. However, more money and efforts are needed, especially in terms of energy, as Pakistan is still prone to power shortages.

Sharif in Beijing – Pakistan’s support for Xi

In early November 2022, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif paid an official two-day visit to the People’s Republic of China. Sharif is the first statesman to arrive in Beijing since Xi Jinping assumed a third term as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party at the end of October. During the visit, Sharif met with Premier Li Keqiang and other senior Chinese officials. The two countries signed a number of interstate agreements on cooperation in culture, economy, trade, investment, digital economy, security. During the meeting, Xi emphasized the importance of Pakistan in China’s diplomacy in the neighborhood and said that the two countries are “good friends, good partners and good brothers”. He added that the two countries “supported each other and made progress, demonstrating firm friendship” and that China is ready to “raise the level of comprehensive strategic cooperation and give new impetus to their all-time strategic cooperative partnership.”

CPEC was an important topic in the talks between the two leaders. Xi stated that Beijing and Islamabad will further accelerate the development of CPEC and make it an example of high-quality cooperation. The Chinese leader stressed the importance of accelerating the construction of supporting infrastructure for the Gwadar port in Balochistan in order to achieve greater development in the region. He also stressed that his government would push for the upgrading of a number of development projects including ML-1 (Karachi-Peshawar High Speed Rail Project worth $9.8 billion) and the Karachi Circular Rail Project. Sharif underlined the importance of deepening Pakistan’s strategic partnership with China.

Sharif believes that special relations with Beijing form the main backbone of Pakistan’s foreign policy, around which there is a national consensus. He expressed full confidence in the People’s Republic of China and Xi’s “extraordinary vision” to “lead China to even more outstanding achievements and create an even brighter future for the world.” He thanked China for all the help during the coronavirus pandemic as well as for the support during the terrible floods. He expressed confidence in Xi’s initiatives: the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, stressing that the Pakistan-China strategic partnership is “unbreakable”. The most pleasing to Chinese ears were Sharif’s statements of support for the “one China” policy and his agreement with China’s position regarding crisis hotspots such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and the South China Sea.

Cooperation with some conditions

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said that China wants to work on infrastructure and other projects with Pakistan, but at the same time demands the signing of an agreement that will protect Chinese personnel and institutions in that country. The security of Chinese citizens working on CPEC projects has been compromised for some time and is causing concern in Beijing. The two sides agreed that Pakistani institutions should be strengthened to prevent attacks on Chinese nationals on the ground working on project implementation. These attacks speak more about how Pakistan’s constitutional and legal order is weak on the ground than they symbolize the hatred of the population towards the Chinese. The joint statement highlighted strong strategic defense and security cooperation as “an important factor for peace and stability in the region” and promised to continue and increase their cooperation in areas such as military training, joint military exercises and military technology. Both sides reiterated their condemnation of all forms of terrorism and criticized the politicization of the issue.

Financial conflicts

In a political sense, Sharif’s visit is a success and once again showed that the relationship between Beijing and Islamabad is at the level of a special partnership. However, good political relations can be a mask for financial conflicts between two friendly countries. The point is that Pakistanis have to pay off huge debts to China, which is not at all easy for them considering the difficult economic situation at home. According to Pakistani media, Sharif asked the Chinese to delay repayment of their $6.3 billion debt due between the end of 2022 and June 2023. Of this debt, Chinese commercial loans amount to $3.3 billion, and the remaining $4 billion dollars are government loans. Additionally, Pakistan has more than $900 million in Chinese debt that will be ready to be repaid in the current fiscal year. Meanwhile, Pakistan sought a new Chinese loan to repay the debt due in 2023. Pakistan’s Finance Minister Ishaq Dar told the media that during Sharif’s visit to China, the Chinese leadership promised to defer payment of US$4 billion in government loans, refinance US$3.3 billion USD loans from commercial banks.

Alliance strengths and weaknesses

At a strategic political and economic level, Pakistan is extremely important to China. Xi personally stated that China approaches Pakistan “from a strategic and long-term perspective”, which means that Pakistan’s current political and economic difficulties are unlikely to have a negative impact on the further development of relations. As far as Pakistan is concerned, even though it may establish better relations with other powerful countries such as the US, the special relationship with China will remain. Why? Because rivalry and fear of India is something that will always be an important determinant of decision makers in Islamabad. Unfortunately, Pakistan and India are “mortal enemies” and it looks like they will stay that way for a long time. Reconciliation is not in sight. On the other hand, China is a country that also has often very bad relations with India (and frequent border skirmishes in the Himalayas), which is its direct competitor for supremacy in Asia. By allying with Pakistan, the Chinese are to some extent eliminating Indian influence in Southwest Asia. The close Sino-Pakistani relationship raises the possibility that India could face a two-front war in the future, a scenario that was unthinkable just a decade earlier.

Also, China is the only major country that is currently ready to make huge investments in Pakistan. After the American army withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban returned to power, the Americans lost more interest in Pakistan. Since Beijing considers its biggest geopolitical rival to be Washington, policymakers in Islamabad do not have much room for maneuver if they want to maintain a privileged relationship with Beijing. Even if they want to improve their relations with the Americans more strongly, the Pakistanis will have to think carefully about what China will say about it. There is no doubt that Pakistan has become dependent on its great northern neighbor in the sector of economy, military industry and finance, but also in terms of the conflict with India in the region of Jammu and Kashmir. Even military cooperation is more active than economic cooperation precisely because of possible border disputes in Kashmir. At the same time, Pakistan has warm-cold relations with countries in Asia such as Russia, Afghanistan and Iran.

However, Sino-Pakistani relations are not without potential problems. China’s wariness of Islamist militants in Xinjiang and their ties to Pakistani militants, China’s concern about its nationals working in Pakistan being targeted by terrorist attacks, and China’s wariness of the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir remain points of contention. Nevertheless, Sino-Pakistani relations are more than serious and not a joke, and Indian creators should understand this in order to avoid potential double skirmishes on their borders.

It decries curbing of the right to protest and the lack of progress in ensuring Tamils’ and Muslim women’s rights.  

In its concluding observations at the sixth periodic review of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) stressed the need for constitutional reforms to check the over-riding powers of the Executive over independent institutions. 

It also decried the curbs imposed on the right to protest and the lack of progress in securing the rights of the minorities.  

On the plus side, the HRC welcomed the adoption of the following legislative and policy measures: (a) the Office on Missing Persons Act No. 14 of 2016; (b) the Local Authorities Elections (Amendments) Act No. 16 of 2017;  (c)     the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 2017; (d) the Office for Reparations Act No. 34 of 2018; (e) the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Act No. 5 of 2018; and (f) the Land Development (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2022.  

The HRC also welcomed the ratification of, or accession to, the following international instruments: (a) the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, in 2016; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in 2016; the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in 2017.

Separation of Powers

The HRC asked the Lankan government to expedite and finalize its constitutional reform process with a view to ensuring that the Separation of Powers and institutional checks and balances between the executive and oversight institutions (the independent commissions and the judiciary), entrusted with protecting human rights, are fully respected and are not subject to arbitrary removal by future amendments.

It wanted the government to safeguard, in law and in practice, the full independence and impartiality of members of the Constitutional Council, and other officials responsible for upholding the rule of law and human rights, including by ensuring that their appointments are in compliance with relevant international standards.

It asked the government to provide judicial review mechanisms for the constitutionality of both draft and enacted legislation.

HRCSL Reduced to B Class 

The HRC noted the inadequacies of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL). It said: “While noting the adoption of the twenty-first amendment made to the Constitution aiming to restore the independence and effectiveness of the HRCL, the HRC regrets that the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions downgraded the Commission to a “B” status because of, among others, the lack of transparency in the appointment process and of pluralism in its membership and staff.

The HRC said that is deeply concerned about the extreme delay in bringing to justice perpetrators of past human rights violations that occurred during the conflict. It regretted that domestic legislation has not criminalized war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Slams Army Court of Inquiry 

It expressed concern that, despite credible evidence of war crimes, the Army Court of Inquiry (ACI) found no civilian casualties caused by army operations between 2006 and 2009 and that allegations of systematic use of torture and sexual violence at the Joseph Camp in Vavuniya remained unaddressed.

The HRC expressed concern about reports of interference in and obstruction of judicial and investigative processes by politicians and members of security forces. It was particularly concerned about the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry to Investigate Allegations of Political Victimization which led to the withdrawal of charges in many emblematic cases, including the abduction of eleven Tamil individuals by Navy officials in 2008 and 2009 and the killings of Tamil Members of Parliament Nadaraja Raviraj and Joseph Pararajasingham. 

It was concerned about the continued appointment and promotion of military personnel, accused of war crimes during the conflict, which fosters a climate of impunity.  

While noting the amendment made to the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act of 2015, the HRC remained concerned that victims, their relatives and witnesses were not provided effective protection and continue to face threats, intimidation and harassment.

Missing Persons

The HRC noted the establishment and operation of the Office for Reparations and the Office of Missing Persons, but expressed concern over the lack of progress in clarifications of the whereabouts and fate of persons subjected to enforced disappearances and of the appointment to these bodies of individuals implicated in the past human rights violations and interference in prosecutions of such cases, which would deter victims and their relatives from seeking justice. 

While noting the government’s information that former combatants are eligible for reparations pursuant to the Office for Reparations Act No. 34 of 2018 and are included in social services schemes, the HRC regretted reports that they lacked adequate access to such information and other services, including medical care.

Declarations of Emergency  

In light of the Lankan government’s frequent declaration of States of Emergency, the HRC expressed concern that the Security Ordinance No. 25 of 1947 allows the emergency regulations to override any law, except the Constitution, that its Section 8 prevents any declaration from being challenged in court and that Sections 9 and 23 guarantee immunity for officials acting in “good faith”. 

The HRC was concerned that serious human rights violations, including deaths, injuries, arbitrary arrests and detention of protestors and blanket bans on social media, had occurred during the States of Emergency following the Easter Sunday bombings in April 2019 and during the mass protests from April to May 2022. The government should also ensure that the measures are strictly required by and proportional to the exigencies of the situation and are limited in duration, geographical coverage and material scope. 

Additionally, the HRC said that “if the State party avails itself of the right of derogation, it shall immediately inform other States parties to the Covenant, through the intermediary of the United Nations Secretary-General.” 

Counter-Terrorism   

While noting the amendment made in 2022 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the HRC remained concerned that the Act continues to permit prolonged pretrial detention, up to 12 months, without charge. The definition of terrorism is a broad, and is used to legitimize the targeting of minorities, particularly Muslims and Tamils, government critics “and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals”, and to extract confessions through torture. It was also concerned about reports of deaths in custody of individuals detained under the Act. 

The HRC urged the government to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and replace it with legislation that narrows the definition of terrorism and is compatible with principles of legal certainty, predictability and proportionality. It wanted the legislative process for enacting a new anti-terrorism or national security law to be inclusive and transparent. A wide range of stakeholders, including the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, civil society and the public should be consulted.

Personal Laws and Women’s Rights

The HRC wanted the government to repeal and amend discriminatory provisions in personal laws, including the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act and the Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and Inheritance Ordinance. 

Full and equal participation of women in political and public life, including in executive, judicial and legislative bodies at the national and provincial levels, particularly in decision-making positions, should be ensured by means of temporary special measures, such as the establishment of quotas. 

Death penalty 

While noting Sri Lanka’s long-standing moratorium on the death penalty, the HRC  was concerned about the continued and frequent use of the death penalty. It is further concerned that the death penalty remained mandatory for certain crimes, that offences that do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes” are subject to the death penalty.

Detention Laws  

The HRC wanted all allegations of arbitrary arrests and detention, particularly of government critics, protestors, trade unionists and members of minority groups, are promptly, effectively and independently investigated, and those responsible are brought to justice and victims are provided with full reparations

On the issue of pre-trial detention, the HRC said that it should be used only as an exceptional measure and for a limited period of time, that the use of alternative measures to pretrial detention, as provided for in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), be followed. 

The government should take all measures necessary to ensure the full independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the public prosecution and guarantee that they are free to operate without any type of undue pressure or interference from the executive and legislative branches, the HRC said.

Tamils’ Issues

The HRC asked the government to (a) give back private lands held by the military to their legitimate civilian owners; (b)    cease military land grabbing and land annexation, especially Tamil lands, with a view to preventing forced resettlement of the Tamil community, and (c) provide full reparations to members of the affected community.  

The State should reduce military presence in the Northern and Eastern provinces with a view to minimizing their adverse impact on the livelihoods of internally displaced persons and returnees. 

Buddhism’s Primary Place 

While noting that the Sri Lanka constitution recognizes Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Christianity, the HRC noted with concern that Buddhism continues to be granted “the foremost place” under its Article 9. 

It was concerned about continuing ethno-religious hostility targeting religious minority groups and of persisting discrimination, violence, hate speech and misinformation, on and offline, and incitement to hatred and violence against them. It was also concerned about reports of discrimination and attacks against places of worship of religious minorities.

Freedom of Expression  

The HRC was concerned about reports of severe restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression in the State party, such as: 

(a) harassment, intimidation, surveillance, disappearances and killings of journalists, human rights activists and other media workers with impunity, including the disappearance of the journalist and activist Prageeth Ekneligoda in 2010, the murder of the journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge in 2009 and the killings of 17 employees of the nongovernmental organization Action against Hunger in 2006; 

(b) the misuse of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act No. 56 of 2007 to stifle freedom of expression, as well as the failure of the authorities to grant bail in a timely manner to individuals charged under the Act. 

(c) the blocking of public access to social media platforms ahead of and amid anti-government protests in 2022 as well as possible restrictions on freedom of expression online through the proposal, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in April 2021, to draft legislation on false and misleading statements on the internet.

Scientific evidence keeps accumulating that following a religious diet religiously is good for both body and soul. BBC news (August 19, 2015) reports that even light and moderate drinking of alcohol could increase the risk of cancer according to a study in the British Medical Journal that looked at two large US studies involving more than 100,000 adults. These findings reinforce the health message that people should limit how much they drink and have frequent alcohol-free days and always remember there is no guaranteed safe level of drinking alcohol.

About 40% of cancers diagnosed in the UK each year – over 130,000 in total – are caused by avoidable life choices including smoking, drinking alcohol and eating the wrong things, according to a study that was published in the British Journal of Cancer in December 2011.

Tobacco is the biggest culprit, causing 23% of cancer cases in men and 15.6% in women. In total about 100,000 (34%) of all cancers are linked to smoking, diet, alcohol and excess weight.

For men, the best advice appears to be: stop smoking; eat more fruit and vegetables; and become more like Muslims who do not drink alcohol because for men, 4.6% (7,300) of all cancer cases were linked to alcohol.

Thank God, Allah has long had a diet that is good for humans both physically and spiritually. That diet is found in the Torah and in the Qur’an. Over many centuries the various legal schools have developed God’s diet somewhat differently within each religion and between the three religions, but the basic principle has always been retained. The Bible states: “Humans should not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 8:3 and Matthew 4:4) and the Qur’an states: “Eat of that over which the name of Allah has been mentioned, if you are believers in His (three) revelations.” (Qur’an 6:118)

All animals must eat to live. This is a law of nature. Most animals only eat plants or other animals. Only a minority of living creatures are omnivores. And of all omnivores only one animal voluntarily restricts its diet because of a commitment to follow God’s Divine Diet: human beings.

I am a faithful Jew submitting to the will of God, because I am a Reform Rabbi. As a Rabbi I am faithful to the covenant that God made with Abraham – the first Hebrew (Genesis 14:13) Jew, and I submit to the commandments of the covenant that God made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai.

As a Reform Rabbi I believe that Jewish spiritual leaders should modify Jewish law and tradition as social and historical circumstances change and develop. I also believe we should not make religion difficult for people to practice by adding an increasing number of restrictions to the commandments we received at Mount Sinai.

During the six centuries between the birth of Jesus and the arrival of Prophet Muhammad in Yathrib (Medina), almost all Jews became Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Rabbis added many extra prohibitions to Jewish law and most Jews became increasingly strict in the observance of the laws of Kashrut (dietary laws).

Orthodox Rabbis did not follow the principle of Prophet Muhammad as narrated by his wife ‘Aisha: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle was given the choice of one of two matters, he would choose the easier of the two, as long as it was not sinful to do so, but if it was  sinful to do so, he would not approach it.” ‘Aisha also said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle ordered the Muslims to do something, he used to order them to do deeds which were easy for them to do”.

These are lessons Prophet Muhammad taught 12 centuries before the rise of Reform Judaism in the early 19th century. Although most Jews today are no longer Orthodox Jews, if the Jews of Muhammad’s time had followed these teachings of Prophet Muhammad, Reform Judaism would have started 1,400 years ago. (In the U.K. Reform Jews are called Liberal Jews. Reform Jews in the U.K.are what we in North America call Conservative Jews.)

Like all diets, a Kosher Diet and a Halal Diet must be followed daily, to be effective. Like all diets, and all forms of exercise, the more frequently you fail to keep your Kosher-Halal Holy Diet, the less you will benefit from it.

Food and drink are the most important single element of animal life. But unlike all other animals  humans do not live by bread alone. Our act of eating is invested with psychological and spiritual meanings. Muslims will recognize in the following paragraphs the many ways both Islam and  Judaism share ini the philosophy of Allah’s Divine Diet.

The Torah asserts that we should  “EAT! BECOME SATIATED/SATISFIED! AND BLESS THE LORD!” (Deuteronomy 8:10) This is how I, as a Reform Rabbi and a Muslim Jew interpret these words.

EAT! Humans, like all animals, need to eat in order to live, but unlike all other animals some humans will not eat certain foods that other humans will gladly eat. This universal human trait proves that “humans do not live by bread alone, but humans may live on anything that God decrees.” (Deuteronomy 8:3) Thus by periodically not eating at all (fasting) Jews, Muslims and Christians live by God’s words. Torah and Qur’an command a moderate path between on one hand simply killing and eating anything you want, and excessive fasting and/or rejecting broad categories of food such as vegetarians and vegans do.

BECOME SATIATED/SATISFIED! If we only eat foods that we enjoy, we end up with a physically unhealthy diet. Obesity accounted for over 30,000 deaths in the year 2,010 and it gets worse each year. Our natural tastes do not lead us to good health. Maximizing enjoyment in the short run leads to disaster in the long run. Self-discipline leads to longer life. Religious self-discipline leads to a higher spiritual life. If you eat your fill you will become satiated. If you eat according to God’s decrees you will become satisfied.

BLESS: The Rabbis rule that we should say a blessing even if we eat only a small piece of bread the size of an olive. If that is all you have, be grateful you have that. One person can be satiated and not be satisfied, while another can be satisfied yet not satiated. “Who is wealthy? Those who are satisfied with what they have.” (Avot)  The blessing after the meal is a Mitsvah (a Jewish religious duty) from the Torah.

The Rabbis also ruled that we should say a special blessing before we eat. This blessing ends “who brings forth bread from the earth.” This phrase, from Prophet David’s Zabur (Psalm 104:14) is preceded by “who makes the grass spring up for cattle” to remind us every time we eat that we are part of the animal world and need to be considerate of their needs too. Thus it is a Torah Mitzvah (duty) not to eat until one’s domestic animals have been fed. (Deuteronomy 11:15)

THE LORD: We should also thank the cook, the baker, the miller, the farmer and everyone else involved in producing our food. But the four fundamental elements for producing food are sun, rain, earth and seed; and none of these four elements do humans create. Usually we are so caught up in using the end products that we forget our dependence on the fundamentals that are created by Allah. That is why we so blithely harm our environment. This blessing before eating helps us remember what life is really based on, and why we should be both grateful and reverent to God.

The dietary rules in Islam and Judaism serve as spiritual exercises to strengthen a person’s religious soul. Doing them will help make you a more spiritual and healthy person. If you do follow your own religion’s diet with the intention of submitting your will to God’s will, it will help you become a better Jew or Muslim.

Investment entails acquisition of assets or items with the primary objective of generating income or for the purposes of wealth appreciation. However, since successful investment is dependent on a host of factors-both quantifiable and undeterminable, it’s a risky business. Furthermore, the fact that the capital invested can’t be withdrawn prematurely without incurring substantial [if not catastrophic] losses, further aggravate an investor’s worries.

The flip side is that since probability of profit accruing from an investment is directly related to the risk the proposal portends, investors aren’t put off easily, especially where profit-making prospects are promising. So, given the excellent and wide-ranging scope for investment that J&K provides, one would have expected foreign investors making a beeline to cash upon the same. However, meaningful foreign investment eluded J&K, and the reason for this anomaly isn’t too hard to find.

The violence in Kashmir isn’t just a temporary phenomenon triggered by public resentment or anger that could be assuaged through reconciliation. What Kashmir has been experiencing for more than three decades is actually a full-blown and protracted proxy war unleashed by the Pakistan army's spy agency Inter Services Intelligence [ISI]. Being a classic case of state sponsored terrorism, the tense situation in J&K defied any resolution and with no prospects of the situation improving, investors were [expectedly] discouraged.

Through use of its proxies like the All Parties Hurriyat Conference [APHC] to orchestrate public unrest and enforce frequent shutdowns, the Pakistan army’s intelligence wing Inter-Services Intelligence succeeded in creating an atmosphere detrimental to commercial activity in Kashmir. To make matters worse, instead of focussing on development and meaningful welfare-oriented programmes, successive governments in the erstwhile state of J&K pursued populist policies to woo their vote bank creating an unpromising environment for investment.

However, things started changing once the center started choking the separatists’ illegal supply of funds from Pakistan. The near simultaneous crackdown on terror financing in Kashmir Valley and an end to the scourge of frequent public protests and rampant incidents of stone pelting can’t be a mere coincidence. Au contraire, it’s yet another unambiguous confirmation of the fact that demonstrations  were orchestrated by making lavish payments to the participants.

With the abrogation of Article 370, decks for extending central laws and people-oriented welfare schemes to J&K were cleared and bifurcation J&K and its reconstitution as Union Territory [UT] helped the government machinery to ensure time-bound implementation of various infrastructural and developmental programmes. Positives of the decision to abrogate Article 370 have started yielding results and the people of Kashmir are a much happier lot.

Kashmiris have finally seen-through APHC’s perfidy and are no longer willing to be swayed by the diktats of this conglomerate, which under the garb of working for the bright future of Kashmiris, is only interested in furthering Pakistan’s motivated agenda. The locals have also understood that the so-called ‘armed struggle’ and emergence of terrorist groups like The Resistance Front which are targeting minority community members, are ISI proxies tasked to destroy Kashmir’s pluralistic and secular fabric and impede return of normalcy.

While this realisation has generated a strong dislike for the ongoing spate of senseless violence, the people-friendly approach of security forces and law enforcement agencies have re-instilled public confidence in these forces. Since locals earnestly yearn for peace and perceive terrorists as disruptors of peace, they are more forthcoming in providing information regarding their whereabouts to the security forces.

While the pro-Pakistan lobby would reject these fact-based inferences, the undeniable fact is that there’s a marked improvement in the overall situation in Kashmir Valley. Why else would various renowned investors from the United Arab Emirate [UAE] enter into an agreement with J&K government in 2021 for infrastructure development by commissioning several projects like industrial parks, IT towers, multi-purpose towers, a shopping mall, logistics centres, a medical college as well and a speciality hospital?

While UAE isn’t the only foreign investor in J&K, but being an OIC member, its decision to invest in J&K is of special significance as it outrightly demolishes Pakistan’s incredulous claim of India’s so called “illegal occupation” of Kashmir and institutionalised persecution of its Muslim citizens. Had there been even an iota of doubt [leave alone truth] in Pakistan’s claim, then UAE most certainly wouldn’t have invested a single Dirham in an area which was disputed or where Muslims were being persecuted!

J&K’s march towards prosperity has recommenced in real earnest and while the government and investors are doing their bit, it’s the solemn duty of every Kashmiri to stay away from disruptive activities that threaten peace and prosperity in the UT. To further their own vested interests, some Kashmiris have sold their conscience and by doing ISI’s bidding brought about great misery and devastation in J&K. Those, who for their own self-serving interests have ruined the lives of millions of Kashmiris need to be shunned and exposed.

After more than three decades of suffering ISI orchestrated terrorism in J&K, the one absolutely clear lesson is that violence cannot achieve any desired result. And Pakistan’s failure to get UN, the international community or OIC support for its unconvincing stand on Kashmir has proved beyond any doubts that its claims have no takers. Hence, come what may, Pakistan can never ever get hold of J&K and this reality is actually a boon, because how can a country that can’t even provide basic amenities to its own people, take adequate care for the people of Kashmir?

Despite some local oppositions against the expansion of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), President Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos Jr. recently announced his approval to allow the United States to build additional military facilities in four extra locations inside Philippine territories.  

Though President Marcos Jr. has not yet identified these extra locations, there are talks that additional US military facilities can be built in 1) Cagayan North International Airport,  2) Lal-lo and Naval Base Camilo Osias, Sta. Ana in Cagayan, 3)  Camp Melchor Dela Cruz, Gamu in Isabela, and 4)  Philippine Air Force Base,  Balabac Island in Palawan.   

Secretary Carlito Galvez, Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Department of National Defense, said that some elected officials in Camarines Sur also expressed their interests to make the province an extra site for EDCA.

Apparently, all these locations can provide the US operational access to Philippine territories to respond to any military contingencies in key flashpoint of conflicts in Asia:  the Taiwan Strait, Korean Peninsula, and the South China Sea.

When the Philippines and the United States signed EDCA in 2014, the two countries agreed to train together in order to strengthen their interoperability in responding to natural disasters, humanitarian situations, terrorist threats, and maritime security challenges.   

With EDCA, the Philippine government allowed the construction of five American military facilities in Fort Magsaysay in Nueva Ecija, Basa Air Base in Pampanga, Antonio Bautista Air Base in Palawan, Mactan-Benito Abuen Air Base in Cebu, and Lumbia Air Base in Cagayan de Oro.  

Since then, Filipino and American armed forces have been holding joint and combined military exercises in the area of humanitarian assistance and disaster response (HADR), search and rescue operations, counter-terrorism cooperation, and maritime domain awareness.  

What is being downplayed by Filipino and American authorities about EDCA is its strategic intention to counter China’s growing international influence, particularly in the South China Sea where most parts of the West Philippine Sea are located.  

In the Joint Press Briefing with Secretary Galvez on 2 February 2023, US Secretary of Defense Llyod J. Austin III admitted that EDCA is “part of our efforts to modernize our alliance, and these efforts are especially important as the People’s Republic of China continues to advance its illegitimate claims in the West Philippine Sea”.

Thus, EDCA’s larger goal is to support American efforts to get strategic advantage over China amidst their worsening major power rivalry.

In fact, Pentagon leaders just requested last week the US Congress to approve the $842 billion budget for  the Department of Defense (DOD) in order to modernize the US military as it prepares for a possible confrontation with China.

General Mark Milley,  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  stressed during the most recent budget hearing that  China’s  current actions “are moving it down the path toward confrontation and potential conflict with its neighbors and possibly the United States”.  He  added  that preparing for war “is extraordinarily expensive, but it’s not as expensive as fighting a war. And this budget prevents war and prepares us to fight it if necessary.”

Apparently, EDCA expansion is part of US access arrangements in Asia  to decisively implement American military deterrence strategy and defense preparation plan against China.   As such, EDCA expansion largely serves American military interests to counter China rather than caters to Philippine national interests to harmoniously live at peace with China.

Hence, EDCA expansion can inevitably harm Filipino security interests as China can hit the Philippines in armed conflict situations with the US because of American military facilities in Philippine territories.  The Chinese Embassy in Manila already warned that  EDCA expansion can “seriously harm Philippine national interests and endanger regional peace and stability”.    

The Chinese Embassy further explained, “Whereas the US claims that such cooperation is intended to help the disaster relief efforts of the Philippines and some Americans even tout the EDCA sites as driver of local economy, it is plain and simple that those moves are part of the US efforts to encircle and contain China through its military alliance with this country”.

Filipino and American security officials exclaim that EDCA aims to strengthen Philippine-American military alliance and to reaffirm the commitment of the US to defend the Philippines against external attacks.  

EDCA, however, can only deepen Philippine reliance on the US for its defense.   Instead of relying heavily on the US for its national defense, the Philippines needs to pursue self-reliance to defend itself.  

Senator Imee Marcos, Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, hits the nail on the head when she calls for the revival of Self Reliance Defense Program (SRDP) initiated in 1974 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos.  She urges the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to resuscitate the SRDP in order to “scale down our dependence on foreign goodwill in the sticky web of geopolitics”.  

Senator Marcos also challenges the EDCA expansion when she underscores that EDCA “is addressing  the escalation of tensions in the Taiwan straits, not the  Philippine  interests in the West Philippine Sea.”

Local Filipino residents have also voiced their apprehensions against EDCA expansion.  Governor Manuel Mamba of Cagayan province already conveyed worries of his constituents that EDCA could turn his province “into a key target of the Chinese military if a conflict involving the US military breaks out over Taiwan.”  

Though Governor Mamba showed his respect to President Marcos Jr.’s approval on EDCA expansion, he exclaimed, “It is the President’s call, not mine”  highlighting that “I maintain my stand against any foreign forces stationed in my province. Still, I am against EDCA sites in my province.”  Governor Mamba also raised the lack of local consultations and stakeholders’ participation on the proposed EDCA expansion in Cagayan.

Rather than promote Philippine security interests, EDCA expansion can therefore endanger Philippine interests as it can drag the country in a war not of its own choosing.  

As candidly argued by Atty. Harry Roque, an expert in international law and foreign relations, “Participating in any war does not serve our national interest. We must never allow our territory to become a launch pad for an offensive attack against another state”. 

It is therefore imperative for patriotic and freedom-loving Filipinos to oppose EDCA and its expansion to make the Philippines a zone of peace rather than the battleground of American proxy war.

Let me begin by saying that throughout my life, I have believed that politics is not a science, but an art form. This is perhaps a fool’s paradise of political idealism but books taught me about freedom, not people. Such is the nature of bourgeois society. I was lucky enough to be born into a rich family and could afford education. It was not until later in life that I came to realize freedom as a political movement, as a force for culture and solidarity, at a time when I thought my diplomatic career had ended.

My ancestors were Scots, some directly from Scotland and others thrown out of the United States as Tory supporters during the American revolution. The latter are called United Empire loyalists. My grandfather’s name was William Wallace. My first name, Bruce, no need to tell a Scot where it comes from. I proudly represent two Highland clans and, like some Scots, I am told that I cannot keep my mouth shut.

Québec

From almost the beginning, I learned to love the French language and culture. Even though I was raised in English Toronto, I sought to learn French and often visited Québec with my parents. As a student, I left Canada to study in France. When I came back, I landed in Québec, finished my doctorate and became a diplomat.

As a diplomat, I was one of the very few anglophones who could speak the language of Molière with relative ease. I was sent to Paris to showcase Canadian bilingualism and battle against French Québec while managing our triangular relations between Paris, Ottawa and Québec. My French accent earned me my marginal status in Québec where I married a French Québec girl (or lassie). My marginal status was already sealed in the rest of Canada (ROC). Slowly but surely, I came to the realization that, like the French from Québec, I could not live outside its borders. My home is here, in Québec, where I speak both languages fluently.

I lived through two referendums, and I had the pleasure of knowing René Lévesque, a man of the people, a democrat and an idealist. We lost two referendums and despair set in. The absurdity of waiting for ex-Premier Lucien Bouchard’s ‘winning conditions’ made little sense as English has quickly re-asserted itself as the dominant force on the island of Montréal. Linguistic alienation is not unknown to Scotland either. Speaking French on the island of Montreal has become hazardous. I am a new kind of traitor in my own country.

Some twenty-five years hence, after years of despair, now the political terrain is shifting. Little by little support for an independent Québec is again rising. This inexorable upward movement is despite the federalist media, political class and polls dedicated to limiting French culture and language in Canada. 

At 58, I thought my diplomatic career would end quietly in Turkey. Destiny was to decide otherwise. The Arab Spring broke out in 2010. Brave young men and women fought against armed gangs and Assad’s soldiers with their bare hands. Such courage! They taught me what freedom meant as if William Wallace and Robert the Bruce could not. They taught me that freedom is at the base of all politics, the desire to decide for ourselves the rules that will govern ourselves. I think the word is self-government.

Québec supporters of independence are sometimes diffident and one can easily understand why. Like Scotland, the British northern colonies rebelled against British rule in 1837. Almost simultaneously in both colonies, there rose an opposition to tyranny. They were your sons and daughters slaughtered and exiled in the Mackenzie-Papineau rebellion. They were Scottish, French and Irish farmers. Their destiny was similar to that of so many Scots struggling for freedom and betrayed by pro-English forces of reaction. In this, our two countries share a questionable heritage of betrayal. 

Today that betrayal continues. One of my Ambassadors’ said to his host country after the second referendum that we lost by several tens of thousands of votes, no worries we will drown their culture and language with migration. Like the Lord Durham report that foresaw the genocide of the French in Québec, freedom and the movement it represents in Québec continues its resilience. 

Beijing’s interference in Canadian elections is another by-product of this deficit of freedom. Québec’s ability to clean its own house is limited by Ottawa’s minority government, riddled with scandals and political opportunism.

Scotland’s role

Until now, politicians like Paul St. Pierre Plamondon (PSPP) and leader of the Parti Québécois, have used Scotland to sow future bonds of friendship and fidelity. Understandably, the history of traitors has made them suspicious of any English language support for independence. This must change if we are to be free one day. As Scots, you need to recognize the plight of your sons and daughters in Québec and lend them your support. You need us as much as we need you. Help us overcome the massive forces arrayed against us. 

How often did Scottish independence appear lost for good? Your freedom is our freedom, this must be the goal towards which we strive together.

With any luck, very soon, there will be two new democratic nations on the world stage. Together, both free and democratic, we will be bound by culture and migration. We will be important cogs in the new free world.

Vive le Québec libre! Vive l’Écosse libre!

Canada’s Rogue Diplomat

By Matthias E. Leitner*

Precarious Conflict Trajectory - Russia and Ukraine are preparing for a spring offensive with higher levels of military involvement. Spill-over into the region has been avoided so far, despite several drone attacks on Russian bases in occupied Crimea and in western Russia as well as the bombing of Kerch Bridge that connects Crimea with Russia’s Taman peninsula in October 2022, one day after President Putin’s 70^th birthday. It is not excluded that intensifying conflict or a costly prolonged stalemate can lead to escalation and actively involve NATO or one of the front-line states with Ukraine.

Prospects for peace talks between the conflict parties are remote after two initiatives from Türkiye in spring 2022. A credible, neutral intermediary with convening power is lacking, although there have been two larger prisoner exchanges between Ukraine and Russia in February, and another swap of over 200 prisoners of war occurred on 7 March 2023. The Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) brokered by the UN and Türkiye is still operational (UNCTAD, 2023), albeit at a relatively slow pace. Its extension from 18 March onwards is uncertain beyond 60 days after a recent meeting of UN and the conflict parties in Geneva.

Global South Actors on the Side-lines - Influential countries such as Brazil, India and Indonesia in the Global South have generally avoided taking sides in the conflict and stayed away from polarization. 32 countries chose to abstain from the 23 February UN General Assembly Resolution on Ukraine that demanded Russian troop withdrawal and condemned the aggression against Ukraine. Powerful G20 members India and South Africa were among them. India blocked a final statement mentioning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine at the 25 February meeting of G20 foreign ministers that it hosted. 

Considering failings in traditional diplomacy and conflict resolution for Ukraine, the contribution from Global South actors becomes more pressing and relevant, especially since they continue to be affected by global effects from the war.  The UN Global Crisis Response Group (GCRG) has tracked cumulative shocks in food security, energy prices and inflation since March 2022 (UNSDG, 2022). In particular, the lagged effect from spiking fertilizer costs which rose by 199% from May 2020 to the end of 2022 has been a constraint on global food production, including rice growing in many developing countries and emerging economies of the Global South (Broom, 2023). Russia is a major fertilizer producer and exporter. Eminent academics and advisers such as Prof. Jeffrey Sachs and former German diplomat and previous director of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) Wolfgang Ischinger have argued that the Global South and China can play a constructive role in helping to bring peace to Ukraine. Countries with populist leanings such as Brazil, Mexico and South Africa also have legacy relationships with China dating from the Soviet Union era (Brown, 2013). The recent agreement facilitated in Beijing between Saudi Arabia and Iran with major repercussions for the Middle East (Turak, 2023) makes it necessary to take a closer look at potentials in the Chinese 12-Point Position on Ukraine. 

China’s Significance and Reactions from Key Stakeholders  

China officially presented its 12-Point Position on peace in Ukraine on 24 February 2023, the anniversary of Russia’s invasion. The Position is China’s first public step in favour of peace in Ukraine after a period of half neutrality where much attention was given to strategic ties with Russia. China had declared its “no-limits partnership” with Russia just before the outbreak of the war and refrained from condemning the invasion. Bilateral economic ties deepened through more oil imports from Russia that replaced Saudi Arabia as main oil provider to China. Bilateral trade reached a record USD 190 billion in 2022 and Yuan-denominated transactions increased significantly on the Russian market in efforts to evade western sanctions. Beijing kept Moscow apprised of the 12 Points prior to their release and its top foreign policy official Wang Yi was received not only by his counterpart Lavrov but also by President Vladimir Putin. On 22 February, Russia stated it welcomed China taking a more active role in efforts to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and said it valued China's “balanced approach”.   

The Position serves to position China as a peace-loving country and reminds Russia and the US as fellow UN Security Council members about their obligations to pursue peaceful courses of action. It also deflects criticism that China has ignored the Ukraine conflict. China had released principles for global peace in its Global Security Initiative (GSI) ahead of its Position on Ukraine. The intention was to communicate China’s vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security, according to the Chinese MFA. Notably, the 12 Points balance respect for territorial integrity with legitimate security interests of countries, rejection of Cold War mentality and military alliances as well as criticizing the use of non-UN sanctions. While this is directed at NATO and the US, China’s Position not only rejects the use of nuclear arms but also the threat of doing so, which is aimed at Russia. 

Reactions from the West to the 12 Points were largely sceptical, with the US showing the most consistent and adverse reactions from the moment the Chinese Peace Plan was first mentioned at the Munich Security Conference. US mistrust and competition with China for global dominance coloured the US view, compounded by fears that China might exploit the US distraction in Ukraine for advancing against Taiwan. The US State Secretary spoke repeatedly of alleged Chinese military support being readied for Russia and senior US officials including President Joseph Biden pursued this line, questioning the basic credibility of China’s Position on Ukraine. Experts at the leading bi-partisan US Institute of Peace (USIP) agreed that the Chinese Position was unlikely to advance the cause of peace (Freeman and Glantz, 2023). Conservative commentators in the US saw Washington outflanked by the Chinese peace proposal which is designed to highlight US unreliability in a multipolar era (Brown, 2023).

In Europe, reactions from Germany and the EU were slightly more nuanced between disappointment and caution but seemed at least to give consideration to China’s Position on Ukraine. China’s top foreign policy official undertook a regional diplomatic tour to Germany, Italy, France, Hungary and Belarus ahead of the 12-Point launch. Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated in New York that China as a member of the UN Security Council had an obligation to come out in favour of peace and a UN umbrella would have been preferable for the Chinese Position. German expert commentators saw an attempt by China to divide the EU and the US (Legarda, 2023). The EU was guarded in its reaction while looking at the 12 Points from the perspective that China had taken sides, according to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. She also commented that China had not shared a peace plan but some principles. Further EU reactions aligned themselves closer with the US position.  

EU member state Hungary openly welcomed the Chinese Position on Ukraine. Despite misgivings about the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative in the European neighbourhood (Bastian, 2022), the EU is in principle interested in reducing economic and trade disruptions from the conflict in Ukraine. Points 11 and 12 of China’s Ukraine Position speak to this shared interest including for reconstruction of Ukraine. The USD 349 billion estimated reconstruction cost[2] requires a broad global effort where China could also engage. Eurasian rail transport links are still functioning for shipments of critical rare metals that are now even more in demand in EU defence industries (Tirone and Nardelli, 2023). Interlinked with the broader Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) network of trans-continental transport infrastructures, only part of the traffic has switched from the Northern Corridor through Russia to the Middle Corridor through Central Asia and the Caucasus to Türkiye and onward destinations in Europe (Standish, 2022). These freight links are important for speeding up substantial reconstruction efforts and reliable functioning of supply chains. Before the 2022 Russian invasion, Ukraine took an interest in the BRI and became a critical piece of the Initiative (Brown, 2023). 

Accelerating Diplomatic Impacts - Following the release of China’s 12 Points, there has been a perceptible shift in diplomatic activity surrounding the conflict, most clearly in the European theatre nearer to Ukraine. The President of Ukraine expressed interest in meeting with his Chinese counterpart. He also stated that it was generally good that China started talking about Ukraine. Ukraine tabled its own 10-Point Peace Plan at the G20 Summit in Indonesia last November. The President of Belarus accepted an invitation for a state visit to Beijing where he met with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on 1 March. Canada’s Foreign Minister stated to media on 10 March that Canada had approached China about speaking also with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and not only with Russia during the recent G20 meeting. President Macron of France announced that he was planning to visit China in early April. These leaders’ visits are far from deliberately sequenced and offer no guarantee against possible military escalation. Yet they foster an environment that is more conducive to dialogue and discourage excessive steps in the conflict. 

In media comments on 7 March, the Kremlin’s spokesman explained that a big, powerful and authoritative country like China could not fail to have its own voice on problems high on the world agenda. He added that Moscow paid great attention to all the ideas from their colleagues in Beijing. President Xi Jinping’s first state visit after his re-election for an unprecedented third term in office was confirmed for Moscow from 20 to 22 March, following an invitation from President Putin. In the context of this visit, China’s Foreign Minister spoke with his counterpart in Ukraine and urged Kyiv and Moscow to restart peace talks as soon as possible, while the importance of Ukraine's territorial integrity reportedly featured in this exchange, in reference to the very first Point of the Chinese Position.

Global South Confidence Building Outlook  

Apart from the accelerated general diplomatic tempo, China’s Position also provides an impulse to non-aligned countries in the Global South about becoming more engaged for peace in Ukraine. While political apace remains severely constrained to act as mediators, these countries can rally in new ways to build confidence between Russia and Ukraine. Brazilian President Lula da Silva already conveyed Brazil's desire to talk with other countries and participate in any initiative related to building peace and dialogue when speaking with his Ukrainian counterpart in early March. He is scheduled to visit China and Russia and is on record as proposing the involvement of more neutral global players to end the war in Ukraine.   

It remains to be seen if the Global South will configure diplomacy as peace positive engagement, e.g. in the format of a consultative contact group, or agree to China as convener for initial confidence building steps. For instance, China’s Ukraine Position is explicit specific about implementing the Black Sea Grain Initiative (Point 9), which has resulted in the export of 25 million tons of food and agricultural produce as of 15 March 2023, according to UN data. Ukraine recently declared readiness for scaling up the BSGI by adding new ports, after criticizing lack of Russian cooperation in ship inspections. 

There is space for further non-traditional confidence building measures and scaling them. Facilitation of Russian fertilizer exports, including with UN guarantees about fair trade practices, or environmental war damages reduction and clean-up in the heavily industrialized Donbass region are possible areas. Environmental Peacebuilding (EP) approaches are already tested and available (Barnhoorn and Krampe, 2022). Using labour-intensive methods and skills development with modern technology from China as enabler, human capital in Ukraine and Russia can be jointly strengthened and pave the way for gradual normalization and recovery. These non-traditional confidence building measures are useful for creating a conducive environment to bilateral military talks and lessening fighting in certain front-line sectors ahead of a general cease fire. Starting to move the dial back from warfare to gradual conflict reduction is within reach but the time window for bringing meaningful Global South contributions to the table may be rapidly closing.

Bibliography:

Barnhoorn, Anniek, Krampe, Florian et al., Environment of Peace: Security in a New Era of Risk. (SIPRI Stockholm, 2022)

Bastian, Jens, “The Dragon Reaches the Eastern Mediterranean: Why the Region Matters to China”. CSES (70/3 2022)

Broom, Douglas, “This is How War in Europe is Disrupting Fertilizer Supplies and Threatening Global Food Security”. World Economic Forum (1 March 2023)

Brown, Kevin, “China’s Peace Plan is About More than Ukraine”. The National Interest, 16 March 2023

Freeman, Carla and Mary Glantz, What China's 'Peace Plan' Reveals about its Stance on Russia's War on Ukraine. USIP (2 March 2023)

Legarda, Helena, “The Peace Plan that Wasn’t”. MERICS Short Analysis (28 February 2023).

Standish, Reid, “China's Belt and Road Focuses on New Eurasian Trade Routes Due to Ukraine War”. RFE/RL (18 July 2022)

Tirone, Jonathan and Alberto Nardelli, “How Europe Needs Freight Trains to Cross Russia from China”. Bloomberg News, 22 January 2023

Turak, Natasha, “The China-brokered Saudi-Iran Deal has Big Repercussions for the Middle East — and the U.S.”. CNBC (15 March 2023)

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), A Trade Hope. The Impact of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Geneva, March 2023

United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG), Global Impact of War in Ukraine on Food, Energy and Finance Systems. Brief No. 1 (April 2022)

About the author:

Matthias E. Leitner currently serves as Analyst and Knowledge Management Lead in the Crises and Fragility Team of OECD GPP Directorate (Development Cooperation Division). His professional background is in peacebuilding, stabilization and transition to development, mainly through UN and OSCE regional peace assignments in Europe and the Africa/Middle East Region and in Southeast Asia. He takes an active interest in mediation and confidence building processes for innovative conflict resolution in the era of multi-crisis. His academic background from Bonn and Oxford Universities is in languages and history.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect IFIMES official position.

[1] IFIMES – International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has Special Consultative status at ECOSOC/UN, New York, since 2018.

[2] The cost estimate is the result of a tripartite assessment by the World Bank, the EU Commission and the Government of Ukraine and released on 9 September 2022 in Brussels. The figure is widely believed to be a conservative estimate.

After the US invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 attack and the fall of the Taliban government in Kabul, Pakistan  provided a valuable assistance in the US-led war on terror to the US, including air access and ground routes for NATO supplies, and worked as a Non-NATO ally. While in exchange, the US has helped Pakistan with economic and military support during the war on terror. However, the alliance between the two countries remained intricate and relations  strained owing to the US call for ‘do more’.

Despite strained relations over the years, the recent US State Department briefing about the US-Pak counter-terrorism dialogue has been a step in the right direction. The United States has shown their willingness to work with Pakistan on counter-terrorism and violent extremism to combat the threats to regional security and ensure terrorism-free South Asia and Central Asia. Moreover, it emphasized that the success of the dialogue largely depends on the strength of the US-Pak relationship. It is a well-known fact that instability in the region is not only vulnerable to Afghanistan but also has consequences across the borders.

Since the fall of Kabul into the hands of the Taliban, terrorist activities have escalated in Pakistan. A recent Police line mosque bombing in Peshawar is one of the deadliest attacks that has killed more than hundred police officials. After the attack, a high-level Pakistani delegation visited Kabul and conveyed serious concerns about Tehrik-i-Taliban to the interim Taliban government in Kabul. However, the Taliban government in Kabul claimed that it does not allow it’s soil for terror activities across the borders. Meanwhile, the US stated that the dialogue on counter-terrorism efforts is a piece of evidence that the US and Pakistan are in coordination in working out a strategy and are on the same page to counter all terrorist groups including TTP. The US is expanding it’s partnership to ensure regional and global stability. It was also advised to other regional and extra-regional countries to formulate their strategy in order to counter the current security situation in the region.  

Pakistan is currently passing through political and economic turmoil. While on the other hand, the mounting political and economic instability has catalytic effects on terror activities by banned outfits such as the TTP. The recent wave of terrorism has become a major concern for both political and military leadership in Pakistan. To deal with the present perturbed conditions, Pakistan is working to secure funds from International Financial Institutions such as IMF and World Bank. Pakistan is working hard to implement the IMF program for the revival of the economy. In these trying times, the US is looking forward to support Pakistan in securing bail out packages. The US has been the biggest export market for Pakistan. Meanwhile,  The United States is working to put Pakistan on a road of sustainable economic growth. In addition, the US is also playing its due role in defusing the political atmosphere in the country. This support to Pakistan is more significant, especially when Pakistan is facing an acute economic crisis along with security challenges.

After the fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021, the country is facing a major threat from ISIS. Kabul airport was attacked on the eve when the US forces were ready to leave. Pakistan embassy was attacked in which a Pakistani SSG commando was injured. Likewise, bombing took place at a hotel in Kabul where Chinese residents were residing. In addition to this, the banned outfit ,TTP, has formed it’s sanctuaries in the border areas of Pakistan which has become an imminent threat to Pakistan.  These groups have also carried out various terrorist activities beyond the border to Pakistan,  using Afghanistan’s soil. The government of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan is aiming to eliminate and dismantle such threats by launching different operations against these groups including the killing of a TTP leader in one of the targeted IED attacks. The Afghan government is taking encouraging steps to take down these groups; however, the current economic crisis of Afghanistan may impact the ongoing efforts. According to IMF, the central bank of Afghanistan has a total  of  only $ 9.4 Billion in assets. The US has frozen around $7 Billion reverses of Afghanistan in US federal Bank after the Taliban takeover making the Afghanistan Banking system collapsed and worsen the economic crisis even further. Such conditions will create space for re-emergence of terrorist groups. They will not only be a threat to regional security but also to the global security. 

Whereas, US and Pakistan are enhancing their relations and improving cooperation to fight terrorism, violent extremism, and terror financing in the region. Both countries are working jointly and introducing such programs that assist Pakistan’s determination to counter all forms of extremism and terrorism.   Meanwhile, Pakistan has left no stone unturned in fighting the menace of terrorism. Pakistan has been fighting the monster since two decades. It need supports from the US and other powerful countries in order to keep the world safe and secure for our future generations 

Jehangir Khan Mehsud, a graduate of economics and political science from Forman Christian College University, Lahore

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s visit to Saudi Arabia signals strategic intent of the country in banking on Riyadh’s renewed ambitious drive in modernisation and the resulting positive spin off effects. Both KL and Riyadh are in similar geopolitical and economic settings, with similar concerns and the need to reorient the economic fundamentals.

Both are in a transitional period of economic transformation from an oil based and fossil fuel led economic setting to one that is more transcending and future oriented that will need critical investments in digitalisation and new economic drivers.

While Malaysia is more deeply trapped between Beijing and Washington, Saudi has greater bargaining influence and power in determining the course of Sino-US relations with its oil production control and influence in OPEC. Its regional leadership status and military capacity as well as huge capital support also render them more superior and having more options to reap the benefits of Western rules based assurance, and Beijing’s market and joint capital pledge.

Riyadh realises Washington will need its regional diplomatic shaping capacity more in the future, in relying on Saudi’s capital and military expansion to feed America’s export of arms and security apparatus, It remains crucial in helping the West to have a greater sanctions impact through its role in oil supply control and influence.

Saudi Arabia’s new transformation drive will be based on a new economic foundation and parameter, pillared on digital and green economy, service oriented setting with focus on high technology and critical scientific advancement with a knowledge based orientation.

The visionary ambitions of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman paved the way for an unprecedented wave of institutional and structural transformation, reflected in Vision 2030, image changing efforts, the futuristic city of NEOM, the pursuit of a new Saudi airline and readiness by Saudi to normalize ties with Israel all signal a new intent by Saudi to project a new phase of rejuvenation based on building a new brand of a modernist approach and to reduce regional threat and systemic barriers to establish itself as the new force.

Riyadh has always seen Malaysia as a vital geopolitical, economic and soft power partner, with key areas of collaboration targeting Malaysia’s strength in critical technologies of the future which are vital for Saudi’s modernization drive. These include Malaysia’s semiconductor and microchip capacity, food security, digital and green economy and higher education and critical research domains. Investments in key infrastructures as well advanced engineering fields and joint research remain of common interests for both Riyadh and KL, tapping into one another’s resource, strength capacity.

In Riyadh’s soft power rebranding, it will need Malaysia’s established modern Islamist appeal and Saudi wanted to capitalise on the Southeast Asian region both for economic and geopolitical purposes, with important trade routes and oil routes that are critical for Saudi and in ensuring food and new energy assurances.

Other areas that will be crucial in which Malaysia is poised to play a role will be in Islamic finance and banking and governance approach, rural-urban development strategy, youth empowerment , women equality, balanced Islamic and modern development domain, and many others.

Malaysia needed Saudi’s readiness in capital and investment in common critical areas of high technology, digital economy and new inventions in resource sustainability.Human capital development and high impact research fields including scientific innovations and higher education will be important focus areas.

In ensuring both nations’ bankable fossil fuel revenue in powering developmental capital, Saudi Aramco and Petronas are projected to deepen partnerships and joint ventures particularly involving the transition and investment on new energy and the focus on ESG.

Malaysia wanted to further enhance its global Islamic credentials and to play a bigger leadership role in OIC and among the Islamic countries. By deepening special ties with Riyadh, it will continue to strengthen Malaysia’s progressive Islamic image and appeal, giving PM Anwar the chance to further enhance its Islamist credentials and in securing the needed image and appeal for greater economic involvement and investment in Malaysia with the new leadership and stability the world yearns for.

It will also provide the perfect timing for PM Anwar to introduce the Madani concept in incorporating the needed future driven and modernist element in the new transformation drive in Saudi and in OIC, which will begin the start of the global expansion of the concept that will leverage on Anwar’s own personal appeal at the global Muslim world.

Malaysia sees Saudi as maintaining its prominent leadership and geopolitical role in the Middle East, further deepened by Mohamad bin Salman’s renewed and ambitious transformation plan for the country and the region.

KL will stand to gain by maintaining the historical close ties and rapport with Riyadh, and to join on the bandwagon of rebuilding the modernisation drive and process for Saudi with mutually beneficial interdependence on critical areas.

These include Malaysia being able to transfer expertise in counterterrorism and deradicalisation capacities, projecting moderate and modernist Islam, and to support in ensuring food security and supply chain resilience that will be crucial for Riyadh.

Higher education remains a critical arena, and high impact scientific and technological superiority are being prioritised, looking to Malaysia as an emulated model of modern Islamic country that is open, vibrant and with immense potential to further exchange human capital and knowledge creation in developing these core industries.

Saudi Arabia is geared for global eminence through expansion of a rebranding effort and in projecting a new perspective and appeal of Saudi that transcends beyond regional leadership alone.

It faces no real looming threat for now, at least in conventional threat setting with the series of regional diplomatic moves with Iran, Israel, Syria and others.

Although mutual suspicion and wariness with historical hostility run deep with Iran, Saudi is skillful and wise in diplomatic statecraft in seeing the inevitable need to establish a constructive relationship with Iran that will fuel its regional and larger global ambition.

With growing internal socio-economic and demographic challenges with rising inequality, unemployment rate and a booming young demographic whose new demands and needs are hard to placate, the Kingdom realises a challenging future that will first require painful reform and transformation.

This can be seen in the Crown Prince’s ambitious pursuit to cement his legacy and claim in transforming Saudi’s traditional trap and dogma, and to pursue a new modernisation plan that will need immigration of skilled and knowledgeable human capital and technology.

China’s ever continuing reliance on energy security with addictive dependence on Saudi oil will continue in the foreseeable future, in which it is cognisant that Riyadh is able to expand its energy influence and regional trade and oil route assurance. In brokering the diplomatic agreement between Tehran and Riyadh, Beijing hopes to grow its global alliance capacity, and to deter Washington’s grip in the region by providing the alternative to the West’s high bar set with restrictive normative criteria imposed. It also has the opening to ride on the alternative to the democratic model that the West has for decades tried to impose on the region to detrimental implications, and in riding on this regional sentiment on the negative fallout of the West’s actions. 

By letting Beijing to broker the diplomatic agreement with Tehran, Riyadh is sending a message to Washington that it has full options and capacities in its policy approach and affiliation, that it is poised to be the leading power in the region, which will have full diplomatic leeway and clout to determine regional direction, in which Beijing is increasingly attracted to.

Riyadh could have done it without a third party involvement, but letting Beijing to take the credit has its own symbolic meaning.

China is increasingly reliant on Saudi Arabia to be one of the top investment destinations and source of energy security, in which Riyadh will hope to receive easier favour with its oil asset card, deriving greater economic and financial benefit from Beijing. Riyadh is also banked upon as a crucial and strategic dark horse and Achilles heel in further cornering and distracting Washington’s options and openings.

Saudi Arabia seeks the strength and capacity of Beijing in new critical technologies including AI, advanced engineering, space dominance capacity and other critical geopolitical empowering tools and security assets including precision guided missiles and on cyber capacities.

While the US is preoccupied with Ukraine and containing China in the Indo Pacific, Beijing seeks to exploit the vacuum in the Middle East with both soft power charm offensive and hard power projections and postures.

China wanted regional goodwill, and to seek greater confidence and trust from regional players in which it cast its bet on Riyadh to be the most powerful regional power. While Riyadh will continue to depend on Washington for its primary security and defence support, it will have greater chips and cards now to exert more pressure on Washington to roll back policies or approaches that will harm Riyadh’s future regional ambitions. Riyadh will capitalise on its huge capital in determining the buying option for Washington’s arms and weapons, and to play its controlling power over OPEC in influencing the depth and direction of Washington’s internal political calculations and economic projections. 

While Indo Pacific remains the main theatre of strategic importance, the Middle East continues to venture into its own rebuilding process, courting the best long term returns to individual and regional interests.

At a time when an estimated 3,897 people — including children — have been killed in 117 mass shootings in just three months in 2023 and another 5,280 people have died by suicide in the same period, the US State Department released its “2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” touting itself as the savior of human rights while slandering and smearing countries it deems as rivals or unfriendly.

The Biden administration, according to the report, has placed human rights “at the center” of both domestic and foreign policy. Covering hundreds of pages on how other governments have “jailed, tortured, or even killed” political opponents, human rights defenders, and journalists, the report kept silent on the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives due to mass shootings, police brutality, and racism discrimination.

The preamble of the report, which was issued on March 20, states, “For nearly five decades, the United States has issued the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which attempt to present a factual and impartial record on the situation of human rights around the world. The reader quickly learns that approximately 198 countries and regiins were considered. The US was one of them, right? Obviously not. Why? Because it aspires to serve as the world’s “human rights judge”.

While keeping an eye on everyone else, the US may have lost focus on its own domestic human rights situation. In its annual country reports on human rights practices, the US always points the finger at other countries with an arrogant attitude while ignoring the numerous systematic human rights violations occurring right here at home, including violence, crime, racism, unemployment, homelessness, and the human rights issues of immigrants.

Shouting slogans of rights and freedom, Washington declares itself a champion of democracy, affirms its adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and pledges to do everything in its power to make the world safer, democracy stronger, and human rights more protected. Nonetheless, despite widespread protests against George Floyd’s murder, it appears that little has been done by the US to denounce the grave violations of human rights that were deliberately left out of the State Department’s annual report.

Domestically, the US police, despite having much more advanced technology and better training facilities than their developing counterparts, have been killing more than a thousand people each year without due process of law. In 2022 alone, the self-proclaimed democratic country saw a record high of 647 mass shootings that have left 44,329 people dead, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Statistics from the non-profit research group Mapping Police Violence show that law enforcement in the US killed 1,239 people in 2022, an average of three deaths per day. These serious human rights issues perhaps explain why the U.S. chose not to evaluate itself.

The US “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” have been a tradition for almost 50 years. It’s interesting to note that the countries the US considers to be its strategic adversaries are always those who are accused of repression, coercion, arbitrary detention, and inhumane treatment. Any state that refuses to submit to Washington’s dictates is ruled by an authoritarian regime that mistreats its people and endangers democracy, thus covering its violation of those nations’ sovereignty with a moral veil. But, despite widespread domestic demonstrations, Washington’s allies have always been portrayed as being committed to upholding human rights.

America’s historical trajectory shows that it has always viewed human rights as a tool for hegemony and uses it selectively as an excuse to label countries as “human rights violators. Under the pretext of defending human rights, the US invaded Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, but all of these war-torn countries suffered the murder of innocent civilians and catastrophic infrastructure destruction. We must not overlook the fact that the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University came to the conclusion that the American-led invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan may have resulted in up to 250,000 civilian deaths. It is important to keep in mind how the US has “respected” other countries’ human rights.

“The UNHRC’s Resolution 47/9 emphasizes that “human rights dialogue should be constructive and based on the principles of universality, indivisibility, objectivity, non-selectivity, non-politicization, mutual respect, and equal treatment.” Sadly, the US does not uphold the common international standards or guarantee human rights from a fair and impartial standpoint when promoting human rights diplomacy and managing human rights matters. It always exercises double or even multiple standards.

The US exaggerates the human rights situations in developing nations and other “unfriendly” countries in its annual country reports while underplaying or omitting similar problems in its allies. The question is raised as to why the United States has always acted as a silent bystander about the human rights violations in Israel and Egypt, where the military dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi toppled the democratically elected government and seized power. From 2008 to 2018, the United States provided 60% of Saudi Arabia’s total weaponry acquisitions. Since then, similar weapons have been used in the invasion of Yemen, killing around 2.5 million people, including roughly 10,000 children. Does this not support the violation of human rights?

Critics argue that the annual report has nothing to do with human rights but is a tool to malign rivals and coerce other countries. In the case of Bangladesh, the fact that the report is the product of current regional and international politics will come as no surprise to anyone aware of the rapid changes underway in the Indo-Pacific region. Bangladesh is becoming an increasingly important player in Asian geopolitics, especially when it comes to the competition between China and the US. Bangladesh is consequently dealing with terrible human rights politics.

However, it doesn’t necessarily suggest that Bangladesh does not have any cases of human rights violations. Human rights challenges are faced just like those in any other country in the world. The point here is to understand how the US blatantly exercised double standards by exaggerating the global human rights realities to advance its global strategy. The “human rights issue” can be used to criticize, threaten, or sanction a country if it adopts a policy that goes against the interests of the US government at a certain point. It reveals that the strategic politics of the United States have a greater weight than actual human rights indicators in the process of preparing this country report.

Ali Akbar Rouf, Researcher and and Columnist, UK

The Indian armed forces are facing a disturbing trend of growing numbers of suicide deaths among its personnel. According to a report published in ‘The Times of India’, 1,100 Indian defence personnel died by suicide between 2010 and 2019, with the Army recording 895 suicides followed by 185 and 32 in the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Navy, respectively. These numbers are alarming and have raised concerns about the mental health of Indian soldiers and their training and professionalism. The increasing suicide rate in the Indian army is not just a matter of concern for the Indian military but also a human rights issue.

The trend of suicide deaths in the Indian armed forces seems to be increasing with time. Between 2014 and 2021, the Army reported 591 cases of suicide, Navy 36, while the Air Force recorded 160 such cases. Indian armed forces have been losing over 100 soldiers every year due to non-combat reasons, with one soldier dying nearly every third day by either suicide or an attack by a brother soldier. These numbers point towards the need for immediate measures to address the root causes of this growing problem.

Various reasons have been cited behind these episodes, including long working hours, separation from families, lack of job satisfaction, poor living conditions, low morale, and lack of motivation, among others. The study conducted by the United Service Institution of India (USI) reported that suicide cases are on the increase due to increasing severe stress emanating from operational and non-operational assignments. Moreover, the pandemic has further worsened the situation by adding to the stress levels of the armed forces personnel.

The Indian armed forces have always been considered professional. However, the increasing numbers of suicide deaths among its personnel are indicative of poor training and professionalism in the ranks. Lack of motivation is cited as the driving force behind these episodes, which exposes the need for immediate measures to address this issue. The Indian army needs to improve its training and ensure that its soldiers receive the required level of motivation to keep them going in stressful situations as soldiers with mental health problems can create havoc for society and are danger to human rights regime.

It is worth noting that the suicide rate in the Indian Army works out to just about half of India’s rate of 16.5 suicides per 100,000 people. However, this is no consolation for the Indian army, and it should take immediate steps to address the issue. The government should invest in better mental health facilities and counseling services for its armed forces personnel. The Indian army should also take measures to improve the living conditions of its soldiers and ensure that they have adequate job satisfaction.

One of the main reasons behind the growing number of suicide deaths in the Indian armed forces is the lack of motivation among the personnel. Indian armed forces are known for trampling human rights but even after committing war crimes and crimes against humanity many personnel feel demotivated due to a lack of opportunities for career advancement and a sense of stagnation in their roles. Many also feel that their hard work and dedication are not recognized or rewarded adequately, leading to frustration and disillusionment.

Another reason behind the increasing number of suicide deaths is the high-stress levels that personnel have to deal with in their day-to-day lives. From long working hours to extended periods of separation from their families, the nature of the job takes a toll on their mental health. This stress is compounded by the fact that many personnel are deployed in conflict zones or areas with high security risks, where they have to deal with constant threats to their lives.

Moreover, the culture of stigma surrounding mental health issues in the armed forces also plays a significant role in the growing number of suicide deaths. Many personnel are reluctant to seek help for fear of being seen as weak or unfit for duty, leading to a sense of isolation and despair.

The lack of professionalism and accountability in the armed forces is also a contributing factor to the problem. Many personnel feel that their concerns and grievances are not taken seriously by their superiors, leading to a sense of frustration and helplessness.

The rising number of suicide deaths in the Indian armed forces is a cause for concern and requires immediate attention. The root causes behind these episodes need to be addressed, including the lack of motivation, high-stress levels, stigma surrounding mental health issues, and lack of professionalism and accountability. The armed forces need to take steps to provide better opportunities for career advancement and recognition, as well as improve the mental health support services available to personnel. It is essential to create an environment that fosters a sense of belonging and support for those who dedicate their lives to serving the country.

Umar Moiz Sheikh is a peace activist with masters in security studies from University of London, currently pursuing his PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies; reach out for any queries at umarsheikh90@proton.me.

On the evening of March 21, Malaysian prime minister Anwar Ibrahim began his publicly unannounced trip to Saudi Arabia. Early on, people in the know around Putra Jaya weren’t too sure whether it was a private or official visit. The timing wasn’t right as it was the beginning of Ramadan, the Muslim fasting month. It was mooted, Anwar and his wife were travelling to perform the Umrah. It was also thought their daughter Nurul Izzah, travelled by a commercial flight to joint her parents to perform the Umrah.

Upon arriving in Jeddah in the morning of March 22, Anwar was greeted at the Jeddah International Airport by Jeddah’s governor, Prince Saud bin Abdullah. This was the first sign that Anwar’s visit to Saudi Arabia was a working visit, rather than a private visit. 

On March 22, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release stating that Anwar’s visit was the result of an invitation of His Royal Highness Mohammed Salman bin Salman Al Saud, and Crown Prince and prime minister, Mohammed Salman bin Abdullah. The press statement went further stating Anwar would have audiences with his Majesty the King and Crown Prince and prime minister. 

The visit came on top of Anwar’s announcement in February, after foreign minister Zambry Abdul Kadir met with his counterpart Faisal bin Farhan in Riyadh, that Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have agreed to finalize talks on establishing a Saudi Arabian-Malaysian Coordination Council to take the bilateral relationship to the next level.

Consequently, there were some expectations of an historic announcement that might be made during Anwar’s visit. 

It appeared, Zamby had set things up for his boss to have a major media ‘coup’ during his visit. The Malaysian media seemed to pick up interest, where all Anwar’s meetings were reported on an hourly basis. However, as the duration of the visit was coming to an end, there was still no meeting, or even dinner (breaking of fast), with His Majesty King Salman and the Crown Prince/prime minister.

On Saturday afternoon March 25, it became clear there would be no meeting. A report from Bernama said the scheduled meeting with His Majesty the King and Crown Prince/prime minister could not take place because of a change in their scheduling during the beginning of Ramadan. 

Anwar told the media he was disappointed not to meet the Saudi leaders, but had been requested to extend his stay two days for a rescheduled meeting. However, Anwar stated he must return to Malaysia for a buka puasa or breaking of fast with the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, and has a scheduled one-day visit to Cambodia to undertake, so, extension of stay is impossible. 

Consequently, Anwar and his group performed prayers at the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah, and were seen off at Abdulaziz International Airport by Prince Saud bin Khalid Al-Faisal, the deputy governor of Madinah.

What went wrong

At this stage there is no definitive explanation as to why Anwar didn’t meet with the Saudi leadership. We can only surmise the possibilities. 

Diplomatic issues

Some speculate that the scrapping of the King Salman Centre for International Peace (KSCIP) by the previous Pakatan Harapan Government under Mahathir Mohamed was the reason. Anwar’s wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, accompanying him was then deputy prime minister. Another issue was the strain over 1MDB. However, former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin received a very different treatment, and his was home minister under Mahathir. 

However, Middle East expert and Saudi watcher, James M. Dorsey discounts this. From Dorsey’s point of view what happened, or didn’t happen is a ‘mystery’. 

Incompetence and disorganization

Malaysian diplomats last year bungled former prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s visit to the United Arab Emirates to attend a trade expo, where there were no UAE officials to meet with him upon his arrival at the airport.  

It’s very likely similar blunders occurred before Anwar’s visit to Saudi Arabia. There is word that the arrangements were rushed as the trip was planned at relatively short notice. The late release of the press statement seems to indicate poor coordination. 

Sabotage

The most sinister explanation was that this was sabotaged on purpose by some diplomats and/or civil servants who have loyalties towards Muhyiddin and the PN. This is a common modus operandi within the civil service, a Machiavellian action to discredit someone not liked. 

It doesn’t matter whether Anwar’s failure to meet with the Saudi leadership was because of a diplomatic issue, incompetence and disorganization, or sabotage. There must be an investigation into Wisma Putra, to how such decisions were made where both Malaysia’s prime minister and nation lost face in Saudi Arabia. 

Anwar’s disaster in Saudi is already generating political flank from the PN opposition. Mahathir Mohd Rais, PN’s Federal Territories Information Chief said that on Muhyiddin’s visit to Saudi Arabia, back in 2021 that ‘Muhyiddin was greeted at the airport by Crown Prince Mohammed Salman and granted access to the Kaaba, a rare honour reserved for heads of state and eminent Muslim figures’. Rais went on to say that ‘Anwar’s visit raises legitimate concerns about the Pakatan Harapan-Barisan Nasional (PH-BN) administration diplomatic capabilities and impact on the Malaysia-Saudi relationship’. 

Foreign minister Zamby Abdul Kadir must come up with the answers, or resign. If this is the standard of care Malaysia’s diplomats and bureaucrats display, then there must be an immediate purge of these people who have discredited Malaysia. 

Malaysia’s prime minister cannot be humiliated like this.

Murray Hunter’s blog can be accessed here 

Australian expert Dr. David Brewster suggests that Sri Lanka should keep the India-factor in mind even as it uses other opportunities in the Indo-Pacific region to pursue its national interest.

Dr. David Brewster, Senior Research Fellow at the National Security College, Australian National University, says that if Sri Lanka is to have a sustainable foreign policy, it cannot be "neutral" given its geographical proximity to regional power India. 

In his view, it would be prudent for Sri Lanka to factor into its economic and strategic policies, India's sensitivities and interests while it engages with China in pursuance of its national interest. 

Dr. Brewster was speaking to students and staff of the Bandaranaike Center for International Studies (BSIS) here on Saturday on "Australia and Sri Lanka: Building Indo-Pacific Relations." 

Giving a current example, the Australian scholar said it was wrong on the part of Sri Lanka to have envisioned the Colombo Port City project as a financial hub to cater to the Indian market when it should have been quite obvious to it that India would never want to deal with a Chinese financial hub in a region in which it is the predominant power. 

In Dr. Brewster's view, Sri Lanka's policy of juggling China and India had led to its going in for unsustainable Chinese infrastructure projects that eventually contributed to Sri Lanka's landing in heavy foreign debt – debt that lay at the root of the unprecedented financial crisis in 2021-22.  

Brewster suggested that Sri Lanka should explore building ties with the various groupings that have appeared in the Indian Ocean and the Indo-Pacific regions. Australia, he said, has such ties with several countries in the South, South East Asia and beyond. Quad and AUKUS are among them.  

The Australian scholar was not oblivious of the dilemma of small powers in the Indo-Pacific region about choosing sides in a conflict ridden-world. They are wary about the rivalries between the Big Powers playing in their midst, and are afraid of becoming pawns in their game or a battle ground for their fights. 

But while fully acknowledging this, he maintained that no country can ignore realities and follow a perfectly "neutral" policy. The challenge for countries like Sri Lanka is to pursue the national interest in a complex rivalry-ridden regional and global arena. Brewster pointed out that countries, both big and small, are doing precisely this and advised Sri Lanka to follow the example of others.              

Dr. Brewster noted that Sri Lanka has advantages that it can exploit to have a role in the Indo-Pacific region. Besides its geographical importance, it has been having a vision to play a role in global affairs. It was the first to call for the recognition of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace in the 1970s.  

According to Dr.Brewster, the concept of an "Indian Ocean region" has yielded place to the concept of the "Indo-Pacific region" given the fact that Japan, China and Australia are looking West and India and the US are looking East and they meet in an area appropriately named the Indo-Pacific region. It was Japan which first coined the term. 

A phenomenon which has appeared in recent years is the emergence of bilateral and trilateral cooperative arrangements among countries in the Indo-Pacific. According to Dr.Brewster, these have come up in the absence of functioning organizations in the region barring ASEAN.  These agreements are economic and strategic. Sri Lanka too could go for such tie-ups. He specifically proposed Australia-Sri Lanka cooperation using the close relations built over the last 75 years. 

He, however, cautioned that these ties could not be only economic. They have to have a security dimension because the Indo-Pacific region is a contested area among the world's major powers. 

The High Commissioner of Australia, Paul Stephens, who was the chief guest, delineated the close ties existing between Sri Lanka and Australia. He mentioned cooperation to root out drug and human trafficking. Australia is helping improve Sri Lankans' capabilities in the small scale sector and also in bringing females into the labor force to fill the yawning gap. 

Stephens said that Australia is interested in seeing a stable Sri Lanka that would develop into a logistic hub and play a role in keeping the peace in the increasingly contested region.

Sumith Nakandala, Senior Director of the BCIS said that the term Indo-Pacific was coined by Rabindranath Tagore but he saw the region as a "civilizational" unit (rather than a geopolitical unit as it is now).

On March 20, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke at the International Parliamentary Conference Russia – Africa in a Multipolar World, held in Moscow under the auspices of the State Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly. “This conference is undoubtedly important in the context of the continued development of Russia’s multifaceted cooperation with the countries of the African continent. We also consider this event a key part of the preparations for the upcoming second Russia-Africa summit scheduled to be held in St Petersburg in July,” he said.

Concerning education and training, Putin indicated that “cooperation between Russia and African countries in education is at a traditionally high level. Today about 27,000 African students are studying in Russia, including 5,000 whose education is covered by the federal budget. At the same time, the annual quota for state-funded scholarships at Russian universities will be more than doubled.”

Russia’s Ministry of Higher Education has confirmed these statistical figures with this author in an interview. It said that there are currently about 5,000 African students on state scholarship in the Russian Federation. It, therefore, implies that more than 22,000 African students are on contract, their parents and guardians make full payment for their tuition and living in the Russian Federation. Average tuition is $5,000 per year.

It further implies that Russia targets these students to boost its image and public perceptions in Africa. The growing contribution of Russian institutes and universities for training qualified personnel for African countries as part of the current relations is gaining momentum in the emerging new world.  This would, in practical terms, serve as a driver for diverse sectors in Africa. Understandably, Russian education could be an exportable service and/or unique product, and has great market potential if strategically tapped especially for Africa. 

In various ways, Russian educational institutions could open their doors to the growing number of African elites, estimated at 350 million, almost the same size of the United States and double the population size of Russia. As part of the renewed interest in Africa, Russia has been working on opportunities and diverse ways to increase the number of students, especially tuition paying agreements for children of the growing elite families and middle-class from African countries at Russian universities.

Chairman of the State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, was convinced that cultural and educational cooperation could be equally important areas needed to be developed and intensified in Russian-African relations. That Russia could sustain noticeably close relations with African countries by promoting cooperation between ministries and departments and expanding scientic research and engage in exchanges.

Volodin further suggested to continue discussing issues of harmonizing legislation in the scientific and educational spheres, and reminded that hundreds of thousands of African students studied in the Soviet Union and Russia. “There is a rare need to develop Russian education export opportunities, take progressive measures to raise interest in Russian education among foreignersWe can achieve more in these areas, to know each other better and be more open to one another,” he stressed in his speech.

The system of higher education has always been and remains the powerful intellectual resource, generating new ideas and – this is what it was designed for, of course – to offer systematic training of labour for all areas of life in society. This serves as an investment into the achievement of the main target – training professionals that are in demand on the labour market.

Nevertheless, the Russian government is aware of the importance of international recognition of the Russian education system. Russian universities could inculcate diversified cultural tolerance, take advantage of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism – aspects of modern life – which are necessary prerequisites for any success in the now globalized world. 

Taking steps in strengthening the Russia-African multifaceted relations in the education and cultural sphere, Russia’s Ministry of Higher Education has already launched a large-scale educational campaign abroad targeting Africa. The program, which seeks to boost the popularity and improve the position of Russian universities international ratings, will be implemented until 2025.

The federal government scholarships are highly limited, educational institutions are ready to enrol more private students on tuition paying basis from Africa. There are plans to boost the number of African students, but currently, approximately 80% (that is four-fifths) of the total African students are on private contracts in the Russian Federation. 

“The present and the future of Russia-Africa relations is not about charity, it’s about co-development,” stated Evgeny Primakov, Head of the Russian Federal Agency for International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) and also a member of the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. 

The Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum was created and works under the Russian Foreign Ministry. It has, under its aegis, three coordination councils namely business, public and scientific councils. Primakov heads the humanitarian council that deals with education and humanitarian questions for the Foreign Ministry.

While talking about initiatives especially the sphere of education in the relationship between Russia and Africa, and that there are difficulties with air-tickets and financing scholarships allocation to be covered in the budget, Primakov explicitly underlined the changing state of affairs in education and added might be increased in future.

Gordey Yastrebov, a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer at the Institute for Sociology and Social Psychology at the University of Cologne (Germany), argued in an email interview discussion that “education can be a tool for geopolitical influence in general, and for changing perceptions specifically, and Russia (just like any other country) could use it for that same purpose. However, Russia isn’t doing anything substantial on this front, at least there is no consistent effort with obvious outcomes that would make me think so. There are no large-scale investment programmes in education focusing on this.”

Western educational and scientific paradigm embraces cooperation and critical independent thinking, whereas this is not the case with the Russian paradigm, which is becoming more isolationist and authoritarian. Obviously by now, Africa should look up to more successful examples elsewhere, perhaps in the United States and Europe.

In an interview with this author, the representative of Federal Migration Service, Alexander Tolstobrov, has informed that his department has been supporting foreign students from different countries under the new legislative amendment and has since taken adequate measures to make the Russian higher education system more accessible for foreigners.

Now foreign students, by law, have the right to employment and can extend their visas at the request of the university without leaving Russia. These questions relating to student employment and especially simplifying the procedures of issuing educational visas for foreign students were earlier discussed by the State Duma deputies and with Ministry of Higher Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Rossiyskaya Gazeta, a widely circulated Russian daily newspaper, reported as far back in April 2011, a new law passed by both houses of parliament allows the employment of foreign experts as teachers at Russian universities. The law is an attempt to boost scientific, research and cultural exchanges and turn the country into a research hub and a centre of academic excellence. But still, in practice, school authorities are still hesitant in hiring foreign teaching specialists.

Experts from the Center for Strategic Research have remarked that the percentage of Russian Universities on the world market is quite considerably low. Due to this, there’s a need to develop Russian education export opportunities. All these measures will lead to enhanced interest in Russian education among foreigners.

“We are setting some very difficult tasks for Russian universities and expect they will be improving their performance and competitiveness, getting rid of outdated and moribund approaches and be future-oriented. We can achieve a breakthrough and raise the international rating among comity of world universities,” Putin argued during his speech, as far back in May 2019, at the Russian Rectors’ Association, a national public organization that unites more than 700 heads of higher education institutions, in Moscow.

According to 2021 World Education Review, there are currently only five Russian universities rated among the top 100 best higher educational institutions around the world. These are the Moscow State University, Moscow State University of International Affairs, Plekhanov University of Finance and Economics, St Petersburg State University and Baumanskiy Polytechnical University.

Currently, U.S. and U.K. universities are the most highly rated and popular for foreign nationals, so also France and Germany. China’s Peking University took the 25th place. Moscow State University, established by Mikhail Lomonosov, and St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University came 23rd and 61st position respectively among the global university rating, according World Education Rating Review.