Css 2019

Log In

Q2: John Mearsheimer blames the United States for the ongoing Ukraine Crisis. How do you assess this crisis? Support your argument by drawing empirical evidence from the conflict scenarios.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Mearsheimer’s Core Argument: NATO Expansionism and Western Hubris
  3. Timeline and Empirical Phases of the Ukraine Crisis
    • 2014 Euromaidan and Crimea Annexation
    • Donbas Conflict (2014–2022)
    • Russia’s Full-Scale Invasion (2022)
  4. Evaluating US and Western Responsibility
    • NATO Enlargement and Russia’s Security Fears
    • The Minsk Agreements and Western Ambiguity
    • Military Aid and Intelligence Support to Ukraine
  5. Russia’s Strategic Calculus and Agency
    • Domestic Politics and Putin’s Ambitions
    • Military Doctrines and Neo-Eurasianism
  6. Competing Theoretical Lenses
    • Realism (Mearsheimer, Waltz)
    • Liberalism (Democracy Promotion, Institutional Failure)
    • Constructivism (Identity, Norms, Historical Narratives)
  7. Assessment: Shared Responsibility or Strategic Miscalculation?
  8. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The Ukraine crisis is among the most consequential geopolitical events of the 21st century. While Western narratives overwhelmingly blame Russia’s aggression, renowned realist scholar John Mearsheimer controversially argues that the United States and its NATO allies bear substantial responsibility for the conflict. In his words:

“The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
— John Mearsheimer, Foreign Affairs, 2014

This essay assesses the Ukraine crisis through empirical developments, critically evaluates Mearsheimer’s argument, and considers broader theoretical and strategic implications.

  1. Mearsheimer’s Core Argument: NATO Expansionism and Western Hubris

Mearsheimer, a leading proponent of offensive realism, asserts:

  • The post-Cold War expansion of NATO eastward violated implicit assurances given to Gorbachev in 1990.
  • The 2008 Bucharest Summit—where NATO declared that “Ukraine and Georgia will become members”—crossed a red line for Russia.
  • Western support for Euromaidan (2014), the overthrow of Yanukovych, and promotion of democracy was perceived as a Western-orchestrated coup.
  • Hence, Russia’s actions, including the annexation of Crimea and war in Donbas, are defensive and rational in strategic terms.
  1. Timeline and Empirical Phases of the Ukraine Crisis
  2. 2014: Euromaidan Uprising and Crimea Annexation
  • Protests in Kyiv led to the ouster of pro-Russian President Yanukovych.
  • Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014, claiming to protect Russian-speaking populations.
  • The West imposed economic sanctions, and NATO bolstered its eastern flank.
  1. 2014–2022: Donbas War
  • Russia supported separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk.
  • The Minsk I & II Agreements (2014, 2015), brokered by Germany and France, failed due to violations by both sides.
  • The conflict killed over 14,000 people even before 2022.
  1. 2022–Present: Full-Scale Invasion
  • On February 24, 2022, Russia launched an all-out invasion.
  • Key developments:
    • Siege of Kyiv (repelled)
    • Occupation of Mariupol and Kherson (later recaptured)
    • Over 500,000 casualties combined (military and civilian) by 2024
    • 12 million displaced (UNHCR)
  • West responded with massive military aid ($75B+ from the US), sanctions, and political isolation of Russia.
  1. Evaluating US and Western Responsibility
  2. NATO Enlargement
  • Since 1999, 14 countries joined NATO, moving the alliance closer to Russian borders.
  • Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (post-2014) became de facto NATO partners.
  • Mearsheimer and even Russian liberal scholars (e.g., Sergey Karaganov) claim this triggered Russia’s insecurity complex.
  1. Undermining Neutrality
  • Ukraine’s move towards EU Association Agreement and NATO drills blurred its neutral status.
  • From 2014 onwards, the West began arming and training Ukrainian forces, including advanced systems like HIMARS and Patriot missiles.
  1. Failure of Diplomacy
  • Minsk Agreements lacked clear enforcement.
  • The West rejected Russian security proposals (Dec 2021) demanding NATO halt expansion and withdraw forces from Eastern Europe.

Thus, from a realist lens, Western expansionism ignored Russia’s legitimate security interests, provoking a backlash.

  1. Russia’s Strategic Calculus and Agency

While the West shares responsibility, Russia is not blameless.

  1. Putin’s Ideological Agenda
  • Putin described Ukraine as an “artificial state” in his February 2022 speech.
  • He views Ukraine’s Westernization as a civilizational betrayal.
  • The war serves domestic goals: consolidating power, suppressing dissent, and restoring imperial prestige.
  1. Neo-Eurasian Doctrine
  • Influenced by Alexander Dugin, Russian strategic thought envisions a Russia-led Eurasian order countering Western liberalism.

Thus, the invasion reflects imperial ambition as much as security concern.

  1. Competing Theoretical Lenses
  2. Realism (Mearsheimer, Waltz)
  • Focuses on power politics, security dilemmas, and balancing behavior.
  • Russia’s actions are seen as rational response to Western encirclement.
  • Ukraine is a buffer state—vital to Russia’s geopolitical depth.
  1. Liberalism
  • Emphasizes institutions, democracy, and rule-based order.
  • Argues Russia violated international law and sovereignty norms.
  • Western support for Ukraine is portrayed as defense of liberal values.
  1. Constructivism
  • Focuses on identity, historical narratives, and norms.
  • Russia and Ukraine have shared yet contested historical roots.
  • The war is partially driven by mutually exclusive identities—NATO-oriented vs. Russian-civilizational.
  1. Assessment: Shared Responsibility or Strategic Miscalculation?

The Ukraine war is a complex tragedy with no singular cause. While Russia bears moral and legal responsibility for violating sovereignty, Western hubris and strategic misjudgment created the conditions for escalation.

  • Mearsheimer’s diagnosis is persuasive in identifying NATO overreach but downplays Russian agency and authoritarian drift.
  • The West misread Putin’s red lines, while Putin underestimated Ukrainian resistance and Western resolve.
  • The war reflects failure of deterrence, diplomacy, and multilateral engagement.

As Pakistani analyst Dr. Moeed Yusuf notes:

“The Ukraine crisis is a sobering reminder of how the erosion of strategic empathy and dialogue creates space for conflict—even among nuclear powers.”

  1. Conclusion

The Ukraine crisis is not a black-and-white morality play—it is a multi-actor security dilemma rooted in strategic insecurity, historical grievances, and clashing worldviews. Mearsheimer’s realism rightly warns of the perils of great power provocation, yet his apologia for Russia is not a full picture.

Peace requires re-engagement, not triumphalism. Both NATO and Russia must learn that expansion and aggression are not sustainable strategies in a multipolar, nuclear-armed world.

The tragedy of Ukraine must become a lesson in restraint, not a precedent for endless confrontation.

Q3: What are the various strands of the Indo-Pacific construct of the U.S. and its allies? What are the options for Pakistan to deal with the significance assigned to India in the Indo-Pacific region?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. The Emergence of the Indo-Pacific Construct
  3. Key Strands of the Indo-Pacific Strategy
    • Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)
    • Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD)
    • AUKUS Pact
    • Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF)
    • Strategic Embrace of India
  4. India’s Role in the Indo-Pacific Order
  5. Strategic Implications for Pakistan
  6. Pakistan’s Policy Options
    • Strengthen China-Pakistan Strategic Ties
    • Diplomatic Engagement with ASEAN, IORA
    • Maritime Security Cooperation
    • Economic Diversification and Naval Modernization
  7. Theoretical Perspective: Realism and Regionalism
  8. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The Indo-Pacific region—stretching from the east coast of Africa to the western shores of the United States—has emerged as the epicenter of 21st-century geopolitics. The United States and its allies have redefined this strategic space to counter China’s rise, protect maritime trade routes, and maintain regional balance.

At the heart of this architecture lies India, positioned as a pivotal partner in securing the region. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities for Pakistan, a country traditionally aligned with China and marginalized from Indo-Pacific groupings.

  1. The Emergence of the Indo-Pacific Construct

Originally conceived by Japanese PM Shinzo Abe, the Indo-Pacific idea was adopted by the Trump administration and formalized under President Biden’s 2022 Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Its objectives include:

  • Upholding freedom of navigation
  • Ensuring regional sovereignty against coercion
  • Promoting open markets and democratic values
  • Balancing China’s maritime and economic expansion
  1. Key Strands of the Indo-Pacific Strategy
  2. Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)

The foundational U.S. vision emphasizing:

  • Open sea lanes
  • Rules-based order
  • Respect for sovereignty
  • Democratic alliance cohesion

Biden reiterated in 2023:

“The Indo-Pacific is the future, and we are all in.”

  1. Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD)

A strategic forum involving:

  • US, India, Japan, and Australia
  • Focus: military exercises, cyber defense, vaccine diplomacy, and maritime surveillance
  • Seen as a soft containment bloc against China
  1. AUKUS Pact
  • A trilateral defense alliance: Australia, UK, and US
  • Focus: Nuclear-powered submarine sharing, AI, and cyber security
  • Marginalizes China’s influence in Southern Pacific waters
  1. Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF)
  • A US-led trade bloc involving 13 countries, including India, Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN members
  • Excludes China and Pakistan
  • Aims to shape regional trade rules, supply chains, and digital governance
  1. Strategic Embrace of India

India is viewed as a counterweight to China:

  • Designated as a “major defense partner” by the U.S.
  • Bilateral military logistics agreements (LEMOA, BECA)
  • Annual Malabar Naval Exercises
  • Quad meetings often showcase India’s centrality in Indo-Pacific
  1. India’s Role in the Indo-Pacific Order

India is central to US and Western Indo-Pacific ambitions for several reasons:

  • Geographical Positioning: Controls major Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs) in the Indian Ocean
  • Strategic Alignment: Shares anti-China concerns, especially post-Galwan 2020 clashes
  • Economic Size: 5th largest economy; potential manufacturing alternative to China
  • Military Capability: Expanding blue-water navy, Agni-V missiles, and INS Vikrant-class carriers

As a senior US official said in 2022:

“India is no longer a swing state—it is a cornerstone of the Indo-Pacific strategy.”

  1. Strategic Implications for Pakistan

For Pakistan, the Indo-Pacific tilt toward India has created new dilemmas:

  • Marginalization from regional frameworks (QUAD, IPEF)
  • Increased Indian naval presence in Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf
  • Perception of Pakistan as a China proxy, limiting its multilateral flexibility
  • Risk of India leveraging its Indo-Pacific partnerships to encircle or isolate Pakistan diplomatically
  1. Pakistan’s Policy Options

Despite exclusion from the Indo-Pacific architecture, Pakistan can adopt a pragmatic, multi-dimensional strategy to safeguard its interests.

  1. Deepen China-Pakistan Strategic Partnership
  • Reinforce CPEC Phase-II, expanding into technology, agriculture, and maritime sectors
  • Collaborate on Gwadar’s naval and trade development
  • Engage with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to create Eurasian alternatives
  1. Strengthen Maritime Diplomacy
  • Proactively engage with IORA (Indian Ocean Rim Association)
  • Expand ties with African littoral states, ASEAN nations, and Middle East navies
  • Promote Blue Economy diplomacy for sustainable development
  1. Upgrade Naval Power
  • Enhance capabilities of Pakistan Navy via:
    • Frigate acquisitions from China and Turkey
    • Development of Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
    • Protection of EEZ and CPEC routes
  1. Multilateral Balancing
  • Maintain strategic neutrality where possible in great power rivalries
  • Rejuvenate SAARC and engage with Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
  • Promote issue-based cooperation on climate change, counterterrorism, and cyber diplomacy
  1. Economic Diversification
  • Reduce reliance on China by attracting FDI from Gulf, Central Asia, and ASEAN
  • Position Pakistan as a connectivity hub between South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East
  1. Theoretical Lens: Realism and Regionalism
  2. Realism

From a realist standpoint, the Indo-Pacific construct is a classic balance-of-power strategy. The US is balancing China by empowering regional allies like India. Pakistan, as China’s ally, is naturally viewed with suspicion.

  1. Regionalism

Pakistan can adopt “soft regionalism”, focusing on economic integration and non-traditional security with other Indian Ocean countries. Middle-power diplomacy, as used by countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, can serve as a model.

  1. Conclusion

The Indo-Pacific is emerging as the new strategic battleground of great power rivalry, where the US and its allies are investing heavily to shape a rules-based order—with India at its core. While Pakistan is excluded from this order, it need not be isolated.

By pursuing strategic hedging, diversified diplomacy, and maritime capacity building, Pakistan can carve a constructive role in the region, balance Indian dominance, and protect its sovereign maritime and geopolitical interests without direct confrontation.

As former Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar once said:

“Pakistan must play the long game—quietly, strategically, and with its own map of the ocean.”

Q4: Write a detailed note on the evolving domestic political dynamics of Afghanistan in the wake of U.S. withdrawal from the country. Discuss key constraints to Pakistan’s foreign policy towards Afghanistan.

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. U.S. Withdrawal and Taliban Takeover: A New Political Reality
  3. Domestic Political Dynamics in Post-Withdrawal Afghanistan
    • Taliban Governance Model
    • Ethnic and Factional Fragmentation
    • Human Rights and Gender Backlash
    • Rise of Terrorism and Resistance Movements
  4. Constraints on Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Towards Afghanistan
    • TTP and Cross-border Security Challenges
    • Taliban’s Strategic Autonomy and Unpredictability
    • Refugee Burden and Border Management
    • Regional Rivalries and Diplomatic Isolation
  5. Theoretical Lens: Realism and Constructivism
  6. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, ending a 20-year military presence, marked a historic geopolitical transition. The swift collapse of the Ghani government and the return of the Taliban to power dramatically altered the domestic and regional political order. For neighboring Pakistan, this transformation presents strategic opportunities and complex challenges, particularly in crafting a balanced and effective Afghan policy.

This essay analyzes the evolving domestic political landscape of Afghanistan post-U.S. withdrawal and identifies the core constraints limiting Pakistan’s foreign policy options toward its war-torn neighbor.

  1. U.S. Withdrawal and Taliban Takeover: A New Political Reality

The Doha Agreement (2020) and the rapid U.S. military exit culminated in the Taliban’s seizure of Kabul on August 15, 2021. The Taliban proclaimed the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but without international recognition or a comprehensive political roadmap.

Contrary to expectations of inclusivity or reform, the Taliban reverted to centralized religious rule, prompting concerns about human rights, terrorism, and ethnic disenfranchisement.

  1. Domestic Political Dynamics in Post-Withdrawal Afghanistan
  2. Taliban Governance Model: Theocratic and Unilateral

The Taliban have ruled with a clandestine, clerical elite led by Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada. Decision-making is opaque and concentrated in Kandahar, away from the capital Kabul.

Key characteristics:

  • Absence of inclusive governance (no ethnic or political representation)
  • Suspension of the Constitution, civil rights, and democratic processes
  • Rule by religious decrees rather than formal institutions

UNAMA (2023) noted:

“Afghanistan remains devoid of legal structures, judicial independence, or institutional transparency.”

  1. Ethnic and Factional Fragmentation

Afghanistan remains deeply divided:

  • Pashtuns dominate Taliban ranks
  • Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks feel excluded
  • Former Northern Alliance groups are reorganizing under National Resistance Front (NRF), led by Ahmad Massoud

This ethno-political imbalance threatens long-term unity and stability.

  1. Gender Backlash and Human Rights Crisis

The Taliban’s rollback of women’s rights has been swift:

  • Girls’ education banned beyond grade 6
  • Women restricted from employment, mobility, and public life
  • Journalistic freedom curbed; civil liberties suppressed

As per Amnesty International (2023):

“Afghanistan under the Taliban is the most repressive country for women globally.”

  1. Terrorism and Resistance Movements

Security has deteriorated due to:

  • Islamic State–Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) attacks on mosques, embassies, and minorities
  • Taliban’s inability (or unwillingness) to curb cross-border groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
  • Rising influence of warlords and militias in the north

This multipolar violence threatens internal order and external peace.

  1. Constraints on Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Towards Afghanistan

Despite ideological overlap and past cooperation, Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban regime has become increasingly strained. Several internal and external factors limit Islamabad’s ability to shape Afghan policy.

  1. TTP and Cross-border Security Threats

The TTP, responsible for hundreds of attacks inside Pakistan, has found safe haven in Afghanistan. Despite Pakistan’s repeated demands, the Taliban have refused to act decisively, citing tribal affinities and intra-jihadi linkages.

According to PIPS (Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies), TTP attacks rose by 73% in 2023, many traced to Afghan soil.

This undermines Pakistan’s internal security and public trust in Afghan policy.

  1. Taliban’s Strategic Autonomy and Diplomatic Independence

While Pakistan helped facilitate Taliban negotiations and provided logistical, political, and medical support, the Taliban now pursue independent foreign relations:

  • Warm ties with India, Iran, and Qatar
  • Refusal to adhere to Pakistan’s policy preferences, including on TTP
  • Disregard for Durand Line demarcation and border fencing disputes

Former diplomat Riaz Muhammad Khan notes:

“Pakistan overestimated its leverage over the Taliban and underestimated their desire for independent legitimacy.”

  1. Refugee Pressure and Border Management

Pakistan already hosts over 3 million Afghan refugees. New influxes post-2021 have:

  • Strained health, education, and security infrastructure
  • Triggered political backlash and calls for repatriation
  • Led to border closures and skirmishes along Chaman and Torkham

These humanitarian and security costs limit open-door diplomacy.

  1. Regional Isolation and Global Non-recognition

Pakistan’s Afghan policy is also constrained by:

  • Taliban’s lack of international legitimacy
  • Pressure from Western and Gulf partners to withhold recognition
  • Pakistan’s own limited diplomatic capital, economic crisis, and global image

This results in a balancing act between principle, pragmatism, and regional expectation.

  1. Theoretical Lens: Realism and Constructivism
  2. Realism

From a realist lens, Pakistan seeks strategic depth, border security, and denial of Indian influence. However, the Taliban’s strategic behavior illustrates that even ideological allies act in self-interest, not deference.

  1. Constructivism

The Taliban’s refusal to toe Islamabad’s line stems from identity-driven motivations: Pashtun nationalism, Islamic governance norms, and anti-imperialist narratives. These shape policy autonomy beyond Pakistan’s influence.

  1. Conclusion

The post-U.S. withdrawal era in Afghanistan is marked by Taliban authoritarianism, ethnic exclusion, rising terrorism, and governance paralysis. For Pakistan, the dream of a friendly Kabul regime has turned into a complex foreign policy dilemma, constrained by security threats, lack of leverage, and regional realignments.

Islamabad must reassess its Afghan strategy with strategic realism, focusing on border security, regional cooperation, and multilateral diplomacy rather than ideological affinity or transactional engagement.

As Moeed Yusuf aptly puts it:

“In Afghanistan, Pakistan must prepare for influence without control, and proximity without harmony.”

Q5: Pakistan is reckoned among the top 10 most vulnerable countries to climate change. What urgent policy measures does Pakistan need to initiate to mitigate the climate effects?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Pakistan’s Climate Vulnerability Profile
  3. Key Effects of Climate Change in Pakistan
    • Extreme Weather Events
    • Water Stress and Glacial Melt
    • Food and Health Insecurity
  4. Pakistan’s Current Climate Policy Landscape
  5. Urgent Policy Measures for Climate Mitigation
    • Climate Governance and Institutional Reform
    • Renewable Energy and Green Transition
    • Water Resource Management
    • Urban Resilience and Infrastructure Reform
    • Ecosystem Restoration and Reforestation
    • International Climate Diplomacy and Finance Access
  6. IR Lens: Environmental Security and Global Governance
  7. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

Climate change has become an existential threat to Pakistan’s national security, development, and survival. Ranked among the top 10 most climate-vulnerable countries in the Global Climate Risk Index (2021) by Germanwatch, Pakistan faces frequent floods, glacial melt, droughts, heatwaves, and cyclones, exacerbated by poor infrastructure and limited resilience capacity.

The 2022 mega floods, displacing over 33 million people and causing over $30 billion in losses, symbolized the urgency of transforming climate policy from rhetoric to readiness.

  1. Pakistan’s Climate Vulnerability Profile
  • Pakistan contributes less than 1% of global GHG emissions, yet suffers disproportionately.
  • It has more than 7,200 glaciers—the largest outside the polar regions.
  • A 170% increase in heatwaves is projected by 2050 (World Bank, 2023).
  • Urban centers like Karachi and Lahore face the Urban Heat Island effect, while rural Sindh and Balochistan face desertification.
  1. Key Effects of Climate Change in Pakistan
  2. Extreme Weather Events
  • The 2022 floods submerged one-third of the country, killing over 1,700 people.
  • Regular cyclones (like Biparjoy) and cloudbursts in KP and GB show rising disaster frequency.
  1. Water Stress and Glacial Melt
  • Pakistan is on track to become water-scarce by 2025, with per capita water availability dropping below 1,000 cubic meters.
  • Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) threaten northern populations and irrigation systems.
  1. Food and Health Insecurity
  • Agriculture accounts for 19% of GDP and is climate-sensitive.
  • Crop yields are declining due to erratic rainfall and heat stress.
  • Rising diseases like malaria and dengue are linked to warming trends.
  1. Pakistan’s Current Climate Policy Landscape

Key frameworks include:

  • National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) – updated in 2021
  • Ten Billion Tree Tsunami initiative
  • National Disaster Risk Management Plan (NDRMP)
  • Participation in COP28 and UNFCCC frameworks
  • National Adaptation Plan (NAP) in development phase

However, implementation is weak due to:

  • Lack of institutional capacity
  • Inadequate funding
  • Overlapping mandates among ministries
  1. Urgent Policy Measures for Climate Mitigation
  2. Strengthen Climate Governance and Institutions
  • Establish a Federal Climate Commission with executive powers to enforce cross-sectoral policies
  • Create provincial climate authorities for localized adaptation
  • Integrate climate risk into public investment and planning frameworks
  1. Green Energy Transition
  • Increase share of renewables (solar, wind, hydro) to at least 30% by 2030
  • Reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels to lower emissions and fiscal burden
  • Promote electric vehicles (EVs) and improve fuel efficiency standards

Example: Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park in Punjab, though underperforming, can be restructured as a model green project.

  1. Integrated Water Resource Management
  • Accelerate construction of water reservoirs like Diamer-Bhasha
  • Implement smart irrigation techniques (drip, sprinkler) to reduce wastage
  • Launch a Glacial Monitoring and Early Warning System (GLOF II) across GB
  1. Urban Resilience and Infrastructure Reform
  • Mandate climate-resilient construction codes
  • Upgrade drainage and flood infrastructure in vulnerable cities
  • Launch green belts and urban forests to cool heat-prone zones

Example: Lahore’s Miyawaki Forests model can be replicated in Karachi, Islamabad.

  1. Reforestation and Ecosystem Restoration
  • Scale up Ten Billion Tree Tsunami, particularly in KP and Balochistan
  • Protect wetlands, mangroves, and river deltas
  • Launch community-based afforestation programs with local employment incentives
  1. International Climate Finance and Diplomacy
  • Operationalize Loss and Damage Fund agreed at COP27
  • Secure grants via Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Adaptation Fund
  • Champion climate justice and equity in forums like G77, OIC, and UNFCCC

At COP28, Pakistan demanded compensation for “climate injustice”, reinforcing its case as a climate victim nation rather than contributor.

  1. IR Lens: Environmental Security and Global Governance
  2. Environmental Security

Pakistan’s climate vulnerability is a non-traditional security threat, with direct implications for:

  • National stability (e.g., floods displacing millions)
  • Border tensions (shared rivers with India)
  • Internal migration and urban slum growth
  1. Global Governance

Climate change is a collective action problem. Pakistan must:

  • Integrate into global climate regimes
  • Build alliances with Global South countries
  • Push for technology transfer and carbon justice
  1. Conclusion

For Pakistan, climate change is not a future crisis—it is a present-day catastrophe. The 2022 floods proved that infrastructure, agriculture, and public health are all endangered by inaction. As one of the least emitting yet most impacted countries, Pakistan has a moral and strategic case to lead on climate resilience.

Urgent policy action, multi-level governance, and climate diplomacy must converge to transform vulnerability into preparedness. The cost of delay will not just be economic—it will be existential.

As UNDP Pakistan warned in 2023:

“Pakistan’s survival in the 21st century depends not on its weapons, but on its water, weather, and will.”

Q7: How has India’s scrapping of its constitutional law (Articles 370 and 35A) that grants special status to the Indian-administered Kashmir impacted the legal standing of the Kashmir dispute?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Articles 370 and 35A: Historical and Legal Context
  3. India’s August 5, 2019 Move: Constitutional Revocation
  4. Impact on the Legal Standing of the Kashmir Dispute
    • Undermining of UN Resolutions
    • Violation of Simla Agreement (1972)
    • Rejection of Bilateralism and Democratic Rights
  5. Reaction from Pakistan and the International Community
  6. International Law Perspective on Kashmir’s Disputed Status
  7. Theoretical Lens: Legal Positivism vs. Realism
  8. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government unilaterally abrogated Articles 370 and 35A of its Constitution, which had conferred special autonomous status to Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). This action revoked Kashmir’s legislative autonomy, bifurcated the state into two union territories, and opened the region to non-Kashmiri domicile laws.

This move significantly altered the legal and political status quo, challenging the international standing of the Kashmir dispute as defined by UN resolutions, bilateral treaties, and principles of self-determination.

  1. Articles 370 and 35A: Historical and Legal Context
  • Article 370 was a temporary constitutional provision granting J&K autonomy over internal matters except defense, foreign affairs, and communication.
  • Article 35A, added via a 1954 Presidential Order, allowed the J&K legislature to define “permanent residents” and restrict land and employment rights to them.

These provisions emerged from:

  • Instrument of Accession (1947) signed under conditional terms
  • UN Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) that recognized Kashmir as a disputed territory
  • The Simla Agreement (1972) reaffirming resolution through bilateral dialogue
  1. India’s August 5, 2019 Move: Constitutional Revocation

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government used Presidential Order C.O. 272 and a repeal resolution in Parliament to:

  • Abrogate Article 370
  • Nullify Article 35A
  • Reorganize the state into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
  • Remove legislative and land ownership protections

This was done without consultation or consent of the local legislature (dissolved in 2018) or population, prompting domestic backlash and international alarm.

  1. Impact on the Legal Standing of the Kashmir Dispute
  2. Undermining of UN Resolutions

The UN Security Council Resolutions (38, 39, 47, and 122) recognize Kashmir as a disputed territory awaiting a plebiscite under UN supervision.

India’s revocation:

  • Alters the demographic and legal structure of the disputed region
  • Defies the status quo requirement of UNSC Resolutions
  • Weakens India’s own historic commitment to multilateral mediation

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reaffirmed in 2019:

“The position of the United Nations on this region is governed by the Charter and applicable Security Council resolutions.”

  1. Violation of the Simla Agreement (1972)

The Simla Agreement emphasizes:

  • Bilateral resolution of disputes
  • Maintenance of Line of Control (LoC) without unilateral alteration

India’s move:

  • Changed the territorial structure without bilateral consensus
  • Risked regional escalation, as seen in Pakistan’s diplomatic downgrade and LoC tensions
  1. Rejection of Bilateralism and Local Representation

Revocation happened:

  • Without Kashmiri consent (violating Article 370’s own procedural clause)
  • With prolonged military lockdown, curfews, and internet blackouts
  • Amid suppression of Kashmiri political parties, media, and civil society

This contradicts India’s narrative of democratic federalism and self-rule, delegitimizing its claim of full legal sovereignty.

  1. Reaction from Pakistan and the International Community
  2. Pakistan’s Stance

Pakistan declared the move:

  • Illegal and void under international law
  • Aimed at changing Kashmir’s demography
  • In violation of UN Charter, Simla Agreement, and Fourth Geneva Convention

Pakistan’s response:

  • Downgraded diplomatic ties with India
  • Took the issue to UN Security Council (August 16, 2019)
  • Released new political maps reaffirming claims over all of J&K

PM Imran Khan warned at the UNGA (2019):

“India’s unilateral actions risk war between two nuclear-armed states.”

  1. International Reaction
  • China condemned the move, especially regarding Ladakh, claiming it violated its sovereignty
  • Turkey, Malaysia, Iran, and OIC expressed concern over human rights and legality
  • UNHRC published two reports (2018, 2019) documenting abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir
  • Western governments, though muted, called for dialogue and restraint

However, strategic interests with India prevented strong action by the US, EU, or G7 nations.

  1. International Law Perspective on Kashmir’s Disputed Status
  2. UN Charter (Article 1 and 2)
  • Upholds the right to self-determination
  • Prohibits unilateral alteration of disputed territories
  1. Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)
  • Prohibits demographic changes in occupied territories
  • Article 49 prohibits transfer of the occupier’s population

India’s move to open land rights to outsiders may breach this.

  1. Vienna Convention on Treaties
  • Treaties like Simla Agreement cannot be unilaterally voided
  • Unilateral territorial changes violate international norms of sovereignty
  1. Theoretical Lens: Legal Positivism vs. Realism
  2. Legal Positivism

Under international law, Kashmir remains disputed. India’s internal constitutional changes do not alter its legal status, as its accession and future were conditional and internationally contested.

  1. Realism

India’s actions reflect power politics—altering facts on the ground to consolidate control. Pakistan lacks the material leverage to reverse them unilaterally, reinforcing the importance of diplomacy and multilateralism.

As Christine Fair noted:

“India’s abrogation is more about strategic posturing than legal resolution.”

  1. Conclusion

India’s revocation of Articles 370 and 35A marks a unilateral internalization of an international dispute, eroding the legal, bilateral, and democratic foundations of the Kashmir conflict’s status quo. It undermines the UN framework, violates Simla’s bilateralism, and intensifies regional polarization.

For Pakistan and the international community, the move must not be accepted as fait accompli. Legal standing must be defended through international forums, legal recourse, and sustained diplomacy, lest the principles of sovereignty and self-determination be reduced to irrelevance.

As legal scholar A.G. Noorani observed:

“Abrogation does not end the dispute; it only ends the illusion of resolution.”

Q8: How are international financial institutions i.e., FATF, IMF and multilateral organizations used as tools of coercion and what are options for countries like Pakistan to safeguard their interests?

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Role and Influence of Global Financial Institutions
  3. FATF, IMF, and Multilateral Institutions as Tools of Coercion
    • FATF: Compliance or Political Instrument?
    • IMF: Conditionality and Sovereign Autonomy
    • World Bank/WTO: Aid as Strategy
  4. How These Institutions Impact Countries Like Pakistan
    • Economic Sovereignty Erosion
    • Reputational Harm and Capital Flight
    • Policy Imposition and Delayed Development
  5. IR Theoretical Lens: Realism, Dependency Theory, Institutionalism
  6. Pakistan’s Options to Safeguard Interests
    • Diversifying Alliances and Credit Lines
    • Strengthening Domestic Reforms and Data Transparency
    • Leveraging Regional Institutions (BRICS, SCO, AIIB)
    • Diplomatic Counterbalance and Global South Solidarity
  7. Conclusion
  1. Introduction

International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Financial Action Task Force (FATF), World Bank, and others were founded to promote global financial stability and development. However, in practice, they often operate as instruments of strategic coercion, especially by powerful states aiming to influence the domestic policies of developing nations.

For countries like Pakistan, heavily reliant on external financing and global creditworthiness, the political weaponization of these institutions can deeply affect their sovereignty, economic direction, and foreign policy independence.

  1. Role and Influence of Global Financial Institutions
  • FATF sets global standards against money laundering and terror financing
  • IMF provides macroeconomic support in exchange for structural adjustments
  • World Bank and WTO enforce development policy prescriptions and trade standards

While these institutions present themselves as neutral and technocratic, their leadership, voting structures, and agenda-setting are dominated by the United States, G7 nations, and EU, giving them powerful geoeconomic leverage.

  1. FATF, IMF, and Multilateral Institutions as Tools of Coercion
  2. FATF: Compliance or Political Instrument?
  • FATF grey-listed Pakistan in 2018, citing deficiencies in anti-terror finance controls
  • Though compliance was achieved by 2022 through 34 out of 34 action points, Pakistan remained under scrutiny far longer than similar nations

Many analysts argue that the listing was influenced by geopolitical motives, particularly India’s lobbying and U.S. pressure post-Pulwama crisis.

According to Shah Mehmood Qureshi (2019):

“FATF was used politically to isolate Pakistan and inflict economic pressure under the guise of compliance.”

  1. IMF: Conditionality and Sovereign Autonomy
  • Pakistan has entered 23 IMF programs since 1958
  • Conditionalities often require:
    • Currency devaluation
    • Subsidy removal
    • Tax increases
    • Privatization of state assets

These measures, while economically rational on paper, often lead to inflation, unemployment, and public unrest, as seen in 2023 during the 9th IMF review delay.

IMF’s decisions are influenced by geopolitics:

  • Pakistan’s 2023 bailout approval was facilitated after U.S. backing
  • Countries like Argentina received exceptions that Pakistan was denied
  1. World Bank and WTO: Development Aid as Strategy
  • The World Bank’s Doing Business Index and loan disbursements often align with Western economic preferences
  • WTO trade liberalization pushes developing economies into asymmetric competition, eroding infant industries

Example: Pakistan’s textile sector lost competitiveness due to premature liberalization without parallel infrastructure or energy support.

  1. How These Institutions Impact Countries Like Pakistan
  2. Economic Sovereignty Erosion
  • Policy dictated from Washington Consensus frameworks
  • Governments forced to prioritize creditor demands over public needs
  1. Reputational Harm and Capital Flight
  • Grey/black-listing leads to:
    • Downgraded credit ratings
    • Reduced foreign investment and remittances
    • Declining bilateral trade deals

Pakistan lost an estimated $38 billion in economic opportunities during its FATF grey-listing period (Ahsan Iqbal, 2022).

  1. Policy Imposition and Developmental Delay
  • Cuts in social spending, energy subsidies, and price hikes hurt the poorest segments
  • Reforms are often short-termist, ignoring long-term structural inequality
  1. IR Theoretical Lens
  2. Realism
  • IFIs reflect the interests of powerful states who use them for economic coercion
  • E.g., U.S. has 17% voting power in IMF, giving it a veto over major decisions
  1. Dependency Theory
  • Developing nations like Pakistan are caught in a cycle of debt and conditionality
  • Aid becomes a tool of neocolonial control
  1. Institutionalism
  • While institutions can foster cooperation, their rules are shaped by dominant actors
  • Reform of global governance is essential for equity
  1. Pakistan’s Options to Safeguard Interests
  2. Diversify Economic Partners and Credit Lines
  • Expand trade and credit from China, Gulf States, Turkey, Malaysia
  • Leverage CPEC Phase-II for industrial diversification
  • Tap into AIIB and BRICS Bank for infrastructure funding
  1. Domestic Reforms and Transparency
  • Strengthen tax net, reduce leakages in SOEs
  • Improve regulatory compliance to preempt FATF-style scrutiny
  • Enhance parliamentary oversight over loan agreements
  1. Regional and Multilateral Engagement
  • Use SCO and OIC platforms to oppose biased conditionalities
  • Build consensus for FATF reform and debt justice

Example: Pakistan supported G77 calls at UNCTAD 2022 for debt relief and concessional finance amid climate crises.

  1. Smart Diplomacy and Strategic Communication
  • Create a dedicated economic diplomacy corps in MOFA
  • Use think tanks to shape global narratives
  • Build alliances within the Global South to demand reform of global institutions

As Hina Rabbani Khar stated (2023):

“Pakistan must not only comply with global rules—it must influence how they are made.”

  1. Conclusion

International financial institutions increasingly act as tools of geopolitical coercion under the guise of economic governance. For countries like Pakistan, whose financial dependencies expose them to external pressure, safeguarding sovereignty requires a mix of reform, diversification, and global engagement.

Pakistan must evolve from a policy taker to a policy shaper—one that aligns compliance with national interest, and cooperation with dignity.

As former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali warned:

“Economic conditionality, if politicized, undermines the very development it seeks to promote.”

. . IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 IR II-2023 

You cannot copy content of this pages.