Art Exhibition at RPC

 Dareecha & Research and Publication Centre cordially invite you to a show of paintings 

"Aisa ho to kaisa ho" 

Curated by Faiza Gelani & Ishrat Shaheen 

Manager: Mian Ahmed

The Exhibition comprises some of the most talented young artists' work.

Opening: April 1, 2022, 5:00 pm onwards.

The show will continue till April 3, 2022, timings 11:00 am to 8:00 pm.

Venue: Research and Publication Centre, 2nd Floor, 65 Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC) (on Facebook)

Business Recorder Column March 29, 2022

Bizarre, desperate ploy

 

Rashed Rahman

 

As these lines are being written, the National Assembly (NA) is meeting to take up the no-confidence motion of the opposition against Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan. The outcome is still a few days away, so we will have to wait and see what happens. All that can be said at this point is that the numbers game seems to have tilted, perhaps irrevocably, against Imran Khan.

On the eve of the NA session, Imran Khan’s ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government held a rally as a show of strength in the Parade Ground, Islamabad. The government had boasted this would be a million-strong rally. However, the estimates from various sources put it at thousands, but certainly short of 100,000. Nevertheless, it seemed an impressive show, with the PTI supporters full of noisy enthusiasm.

What was not clear is what the PTI hoped to gain from this show in terms of the no-confidence motion battle inside the NA. The answer was provided by none other than Imran Khan himself in his 106-minute harangue. What he said however, seemed bizarre and reflected signs of desperation. Imran Khan ascribed his current set of problems, including the possibility of having to leave office, to an ‘international conspiracy’ to oust him because of his ‘independent foreign policy’. As ‘proof’, he waved a piece of paper at the rally, claiming it could not be shared publicly as that would not be in the country’s interest. However, he offered to share it with the media off the record and to finally reveal its authorship and contents at the appropriate time. Not content to leave it at that, he once again threatened the PTI dissident MNAs if they voted against his government, claiming in the same breath that the dissidents would return to the party fold once they learnt the contents of the letter he tantalisingly waved at the rally. Perhaps predictably, he then went on to claim that the conspiracy against his government involved foreign funding to wean PTI loyalists and coalition allies away. Not one to waste any opportunity to insult his opponents publicly, Imran Khan repeated his disrespectful description of the opposition leadership as ‘three stooges’ and ‘three rats’.

Bizarre as all this sounds, the best was yet to come. Imran Khan likened his troubles to the fate Zulfikar Ali Bhutto suffered because of his independent foreign policy. He castigated the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in general, and its chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in particular, for joining hands with Bhutto’s murderers. Amongst the latter he included Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and said Bilawal should be ashamed at becoming a pawn in this game of foreign funded unity with the murderers of his maternal grandfather. Bizarre, inaccurate and desperate as this line of reasoning sounds, it is not unfamiliar. Every government in trouble in our history has claimed a role against it by the ubiquitous ‘foreign hand’. It is the resort to playing the nationalist/patriotic card, although it has shown little success in the past, and is unlikely to have much to show now or in the future.

Inevitably and predictably, the opposition, particularly the PPP, lambasted Imran Khan for daring to even bring the name of Bhutto on his ‘crass tongue’, let alone comparing himself with the late leader. They painted Imran Khan’s speech as a ‘farewell address’ and a clear indication that the incumbent PM would be prepared to let the country burn to save his skin. Their last word on the speech though was that it was the rantings of an ‘unhinged mind’ and certainly bizarre, even tragi-comic.

If the PM’s speech is analysed objectively, what it suggests between the lines is that Imran Khan knows the game is up and is preparing for what is to come after he is ousted through the no-confidence motion. He has threateningly said from time to time that he will be even more dangerous for his opponents out of power than he has been while in office. The opposition may feel on the other hand that they have braved the worst at Imran Khan’s hands over the last three and a half years. Street power may not quite work for Imran Khan this time round as it did in earlier years, particularly his extended dharna(sit-in) in Islamabad after the 2013 general elections that brought Nawaz Sharif back to power. The missing ingredient now is the backing of the establishment, which had plumped for building up Imran Khan and the PTI from 2011 onwards and finally bringing him to power through the controversial 2018 general elections. But in his case as is the case of most of our civilian elected governments, bringing favourites to power has never really worked out according to the establishment’s wishes or plans. On the contrary, each time the dynamics of power have brought the civilian incumbent up against the establishment on one issue or the other, leading to the departure of that particular civilian setup. No civilian PM since 1988 (after General Ziaul Haq departed this vale of tears) has completed his/her full term. Even when a party’s government has managed a full term, the PM has been changed by the powers that be (Yousaf Raza Gilani in the 2008-2013 PPP government, Nawaz Sharif in the 2013-2018 PML-N government, both ousted by the Supreme Court).

One can only hope and pray for the sake of our stumbling system and the country that the current ‘hands off’ wisdom seemingly permeating the establishment’s thinking becomes a permanent norm, since the track record of its manipulations speaks for itself. There is no alternative gentlemen to letting the political process play out if Pakistan is to at last achieve the goal of a normally functioning democracy, albeit an elitist one at this stage of our troubled history.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Column March 22, 2022

The slippery slope of Pakistan’s politics

 

Rashed Rahman

 

While controversy rages against Speaker National Assembly (NA) Asad Qaiser’s delaying the calling of the NA session on the no-confidence vote beyond the constitutionally laid down 14 day period, some good news may be counted in the Islamabad High Court’s forbidding political rallies in the Red Zone of the federal capital. Fears had been voiced, including by the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, that government and opposition rallies at the same venue (D-Chowk) or even in close proximity could lead to a physical clash. That at least seems to have been prevented (at least for now). The Islamabad authorities, according to the latest reports, are examining alternative rally sites for both protagonists.

Meanwhile the Speaker NA’s action has stirred a veritable storm of protest by the opposition, including, but not confined to, calls for charging him with violating the Constitution under Article 6 (treason). The Speaker pleaded force majeure because of the OIC conference but not many people are buying this. The perception is widespread that the Speaker is once again acting as a Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) loyalist by trying to delay the no-confidence vote as long as possible. This may still not be enough to save what increasingly looks like the sinking ship of the PTI government, given not only allies’ seeking greener pastures, but even ‘dissident’ PTI MNAs declaring their intention to vote against their government.

Given the leaking support of the government, it makes little or no sense for it to be intending to approach the Supreme Court on two points: does disqualification mean for a lifetime, and can dissidents cast their vote on a no-confidence motion? If the government had any idea of constitutional provisions and parliamentary conventions, they would have realised that this is a futile exercise per se, and the judicial outcome in any case will probably arrive too late to help their cause. Asad Umar has attempted to put a moral gloss on the PTI’s motives by arguing this petition would end ‘sale and purchase’ (of MNAs) and end the influence of ‘easy money’ in politics. Judging by our past experience and track record, this can only politely be dismissed as a fond hope.

Despite Article 63(A) of the Constitution empowering party leaders to unseat MNAs voting against the party whip, the present crisis and its inner dynamic reassert the depth and longevity of our culture of slippery politics. In genuine parliamentary democracies, MNAs cannot under any circumstances be prevented from voting according to their preferences (‘consciences’ seems inappropriate in our case). However, in such democracies, the moral pressure on dissidents to then resign, leave their previous party and seek election as independents or from the platform of another party is undeniable.

In our flawed democracy, such high moral ground is wanting. The basic reason is the consolidation of patronage politics since the 1980s (General Ziaul Haq). ‘Electables’ are the staple of such a politics. Enjoying electoral support in their constituencies because of their pledge, if elected, to transmit patronage downwards to their voters, they become the most sought after commodity by all parties. The effect of a house full of such seasonal migratory birds is that when a ruling party runs into trouble or is approaching the end of its term, these opportunist MNAs seek better deals wherever available either by pressurising their own parties for better terms and privileges, or, if this fails, negotiating with rival parties with an eye on coming elections.

Prime Minister Imran Khan appears not to understand this tragic flaw in our political dynamic. We have heard him declare repeatedly during his three and a half years in office that he will not be blackmailed by his own members of parliament, even if he loses power. That now seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The ‘rules’ of our political culture are clear: either you play the game and keep your members (and thereby their voters) satisfied or lose out. That is the Hobson’s choice that permeates the evolved political culture of our benighted country.

The even more important factor in the political survival equation of any government is the role of the establishment. Imran Khan’s ascent to office through the 2018 general elections has been dogged since day one with charges of rigging. The fact that the combined opposition was unable to budge the powers that be on this issue reflects the establishment’s past backing for its favoured dispensation. That relationship broke down last year, starting with the fiasco of the appointment of a new ISI chief and ending (by now) with open speculations about Imran Khan’s desire to replace the present Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Bajwa, who hitherto was publicly perceived as standing solidly behind Imran Khan. It is no accident then, that the TV news channels and print media are abuzz with talk of the newfound ‘neutrality’ of the establishment. The PTI’s consistent losses in by-elections and the half completed local bodies polls indicate the establishment’s having abandoned the ‘same page’ and instead adopted a ‘hands off’ policy. This implies the PTI has been left to its own devices. Given the penchant of the PTI government to repeatedly shoot itself in the foot, the implications seem quite clear.

Unfortunately, Imran Khan and the PTI have rendered the political narrative so toxic and abusive in their unrelenting attacks on the entire opposition that there is little or no chance of any negotiated modus vivendi between the two sides. One says this without any intent to whitewash the opposition’s character. White-collar crime, summed up neatly in the PTI narrative as ‘corruption’, is hard to root out in developed societies let alone in our flawed structures. The whole National Accountability Bureau (NAB) drive against the opposition leadership has ended up as a damp squib. In the absence of a credible outcome, the PTI’s anti-corruption narrative has lost lustre by now, even if urban legend believes there is no smoke without a fire.

The chances are, despite the PTI’s attempts to delay the inevitable, Imran Khan and the PTI’s days in office seem numbered. Whether he can make good his promise to be even more ‘dangerous’ if removed, which implies or translates as: if I am going down, I will take the whole ship (system) down with me. Brave fighting words as these may be, everything depends on the establishment’s view whether going back to the old opposition parties is a better choice than wholesale breakdown.

Last but not least, although the opposition has enjoyed a surfeit of riches in the form of the failures of the PTI government to lambast it with, with resonance amongst the people, they have yet to announce any policies that would differ from Imran Khan. That may mean more of the same: economic dependence on the outside, with attempts to repair ties with the US-led west and strengthen those with China, while wrestling with the fallout of the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, a victory that threatens not only our isolation, but arguably enhanced terrorism. Welcome to the new-old.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Column March 15, 2022

The Ides of March

 

Rashed Rahman

 

Some well wisher should have advised Prime Minister Imran Khan to take heed of the warning to Julius Caesar regarding the Ides of March in Shakespeare’s play. In its absence, things appear inexorably to be going south for the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government. Critics would say with some satisfaction: not a moment too soon. Three and a half years into its term, few would argue against the perception that Imran Khan’s government has proved its own worst enemy.

Latest reports say the session of the National Assembly (NA) to consider the no-confidence motion against the PM moved by the combined opposition is likely to be called on March 21, 2022 and voting on the motion is likely to be conducted on March 28, 2022. If only it were that simple. The PTI has ‘ordered’ all its MNAs to absent themselves from the session, with a threat in the very next breath that any PTI member violating this instruction will be unseated under the defection clause (Article 63-A of the Constitution). The only problem is, can a party compel its members not to attend an NA session, and that too one in which a no-confidence motion is to be discussed? If the ruling PTI manages to have this directive implemented, it would establish a new parliamentary precedent of a no-confidence motion being discussed and carried or defeated in a house sporting empty treasury benches. The other problem is that the PTI spokespeople seem to be ignoring the fact that the defection clause only kicks in, and is adjudicated by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) within 30 days after a notice is sent to it, after the vote, not before, the latter tantamount to a pre-emptive move that would deny the PTI members to vote according to their conscience, as is the parliamentary norm and principle. Any such member unseated by the ECP has the right to appeal before the Supreme Court (SC), retaining his/her seat until the appeal is decided. This implies his/her vote on the no-confidence motion remains valid regardless.

If the ruling PTI seems rattled, the opposition too appears close to losing some of its marbles. Appeals to the SC Chief Justice and the ECP to intervene and prevent the PTI from ‘banning’ its members’ attendance seems a stretch, as does the argument that such an action could see the PTI leadership being charged under Article 6 of the Constitution (treason). The only saving grace appears to be some still sane opposition voices arguing parliament should safeguard its own rights, not the judiciary, the latter argument the latest manifestation of the wholesale judicialisation of politics of the past few years.

Complications abound galore. The Speaker of the NA, Asad Qaiser, has made himself even more controversial than usual by openly dismissing the chances of the success of the opposition’s no-confidence motion at a rally in Lower Dir the other day, even before the session has been officially called! We live in interesting times indeed. This development has predictably elicited the opposition’s response of no confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker and challenging his credibility and standing to preside over the no-confidence motion session.

Imran Khan appears to be under pressure from all these developments. His penchant for abuse of opponents has reached new heights (or lows). Now the three main opposition leaders have earned from him the description “rats”. Even Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain has felt compelled to advise the PM against the use of such language for political opponents. The Chaudhries’ Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) has smartly positioned itself centre-stage in this crisis. Having failed to persuade its coalition partner PTI to surrender the Punjab Chief Ministership to Chaudhry Pervez Elahi (currently the Punjab Assembly Speaker), the PML-Q seems to have succeeded in getting a commitment from the opposition Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) that Elahi will be given the slot after Usman Buzdar is ousted (presumably as Act II of the federal no-confidence drama). It stands to reason then that the PML-Q would want the present Assemblies to complete their tenure so that Pervez Elahi can at least enjoy the remaining one and a half years in the Chief Minister Punjab’s seat. Reports say Nawaz Sharif prefers the ouster of the present setup entire straight after the no-confidence vote while Shahbaz Sharif is inclined to accept Pervez Elahi’s preference as the price for Imran Khan’s ouster. What boggles the mind though is how Pervez Elahi will manage the Punjab Assembly with a hostile PTI majority?

While the PML-Q is seen tilting towards the opposition, the other two PTI coalition allies, Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) and Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) seem still undecided, at least till all three minor coalition partners have had a chance to hold mutual consultations, which appear imminent. If all three switch sides, the PTI government will fall. If even two switch sides, the PTI government will fall (all other things being equal).

Imran Khan’s call for a PTI rally at D-Chowk while the no-confidence motion session is on, and the opposition’s (so far rhetorical) response to hold its own counter-rally at the same venue could risk a violent confrontation that could destabilise the entire existing political structure. What might follow some such development beggars the mind. Imran Khan seems bent on a confrontation if he and his government are ousted.

Interesting times indeed. 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Column March 8, 2022

Turn of the tide?

 

Rashed Rahman

 

On both sides of the political divide, the season of rallies, processions and long marches seems to have arrived. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of the opposition alliance Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), must be ruing the fact that he seems to have been left out of this ‘torrent’. It may be recalled that the PDM, on the verge of launching its (then) united long march was hamstrung by internal differences, especially between the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the rest of its PDM allies over the best strategy and tactics for the campaign to unseat Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan. These differences over the best course of action, i.e. prioritising the street (a long march) or parliament (a no-confidence motion), eventually led to a parting of the ways between the PPP and PDM.

In one more of the ironies that are a staple of our politics, it is the PPP that is currently on a long march from Karachi to Islamabad, a journey scheduled to terminate today (March 8, 2022) at D-Chowk, Islamabad. The latter has emerged as the preferred protest venue in the federal capital. However, reports say the Islamabad authorities have yet to give their approval for the intended venue where the PPP long march will end and a possible long sit-in will commence. In familiar mode, the ‘silence’ of the authorities has provoked PPP spokespersons to say they will hold their rally/sit-in at D-Chowk, come what may. It was expected that the PPP’s long march would be assured of an enthusiastic welcome in its (truncated) home base of Sindh, but surprisingly, its reception in its lost base of Punjab has also been very encouraging.

In the meantime, the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) has struck back in reactive mode to the PPP long march. First, PTI leaders engaged in a long march in Sindh from Gothki to Karachi, on the verge now of reaching its destination. Second, PM Imran Khan has embarked on a series of public rallies to answer his opposition critics. On March 6, 2022, he held an impressively large rally in Mailsi, Vehari district, Punjab. Unfortunately, perhaps feeling the heat from a seemingly reinvigorated opposition, Imran Khan returned to his usual rhetoric of abuse and threats towards his political opponents. Sadly, this reduction of political debate to the gutter may well turn out to be the PTI’s most lasting legacy.

Since the political narrative has as a result of this descent into insult got trapped in a binary of accusation and counter-accusation to the detriment of good sense and democratic restrained behaviour, it came as no surprise that the opposition, this time in the shape of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), took Imran Khan to task for his latest utterances and threats, describing it as ‘hysteria’ brought on by the feeling of power slipping from his grasp now that the speculations about the neutrality of the establishment have become daily fare.

The PPP says the no-confidence motion against the PM will be moved on March 8 or 9, 2022. Whether it will succeed is still open to question and doubt. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, leading the charge at the head of the PPP’s long march, has said there is no guarantee it will succeed but considers it necessary to rid the country of the pain inflicted by this ‘selected’, incompetent government. While the PPP and PML-N have attempted to pre-empt an alleged government move to send opposition MNAs abroad as part of official delegations by advising their members not to accept any such invitation, it is not clear what the attitude of the establishment is to the no-confidence move. The track record suggests the danger for the opposition lies in a repeat of the ‘last minute phone calls’ to their members that have brought the opposition disappointment and grief in the past.

Much speculation also centres on the government’s allies on whose small numbers the even smaller majority of the treasury benches in the National Assembly rests. Imran Khan has already visited the Chaudhries in Lahore and is scheduled to meet the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) in Karachi next to ensure the support of the allies in the event of a no-confidence motion seeing the light of day.

These moves reflect a seemingly unprecedented nervousness in the ruling PTI’s ranks. If the establishment has truly turned neutral, the PTI is on its own. It is suffering from a trickle of defections such as Nadeem Afzal Chan returning to the bosom of his mother party the PPP and Sardar Yar Mohammad Rind, the parliamentary leader of the PTI in the Balochistan Assembly, having met Asif Ali Zardari and sparked off thereby the speculations of his desertion to the PPP. Ishaq Khakwani, former president of PTI’s southern Punjab chapter, may well be another candidate for leaving the party if his scathing attack on the government on TV is any guide.

Despite having its hands full with staving off what appears to be a tightening opposition noose around its neck, the PTI government continues to flounder on other issues. The PECA tweak that has elicited universal condemnation, and rightly so, has the government back pedalling furiously to avoid further damage to its image on the grounds of the draconian provisions against the media and government critics. This is just another example of the PTI government’s penchant for shooting itself in the foot. The Sales Tax refunds to the tractor manufacturing sector issue has resulted in one of the largest tractor factories, Millat, shutting down because its refunds have ballooned to some Rs 6 billion, causing it, the management argues, to lose about Rs 1-200,000 on every tractor it sells. Obviously this is not a decision taken lightly, but it reflects the complete mess the government’s handling of the economy has landed the country in. Its effect on agriculture and inflation can only be imagined.

Does all of the above justify the contention that we are witnessing a turning of the political tide? Government critics and the opposition’s hopes aside, the jury is still out. But this lends national affairs the colour of a country holding its breath for whatever may transpire tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Rashed Rahman: Fragments of a life of struggle – Ep-13

Link to "Rashed Rahman: Fragments of a life of struggle – Ep-13" the concluding thirteenth of a series of 13 episodes on YouTube of my interviews by my son Dr Taimur Rahman on my life and political struggles: Rashed Rahman Ep-13 YouTube

The same route applies to all the other episodes in this series.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC) (on Facebook)

Rashed Rahman: Fragments of a life of struggle – Ep-12

Link to "Rashed Rahman: Fragments of a life of struggle – Ep-12" the twelfth of a series of 13 episodes on YouTube of my interviews by my son Dr Taimur Rahman on my life and political struggles: https://www.youtu.be/hw_iKhEIKXY

If this does not open, type "Rashed Rahman Ep-12 YouTube" and it should be accessible. The same route applies to all the other episodes in this series.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC) (on Facebook)

Correction to Pakistan Monthly Review's (PMR's) March 2022 issue

 Inadvertently, the name of the author of the third article was wrongly posted. The writer is "Taurus".

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC) (on Facebook) 

The March 2022 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) is out

The March 2022 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) is out. Link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com

Contents:

1. Rashed Rahman: The National Question in Marxism – VIII.

2. Prof Akbar Zaidi: Book Review of Eds. Prof Yasmin Saikia and Dr M Raisur Rahman's The Cambridge Companion to Sayyid Ahmad Khan.

3. Imran Barlas: On the conflict created by US-NATO-Europe in Ukraine to target Russia.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC) (on Facebook)

Rashed Rahman: Fragments of a life of struggle – Ep-11 on YouTube

Link to "Rashed Rahman: Fragments of a life of struggle – Ep-11" the eleventh of a series of 13 episodes on YouTube of my interviews by my son Dr Taimur Rahman on my life and political struggles: https://www.youtu.be/TMy6hEX14tw

If this does not open, type "Rashed Rahman Ep-11 YouTube" and it should be accessible. The same route applies to all the other episodes in this series.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (PMR) (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre (RPC) (on Facebook)

Business Recorder Column March 1, 2022

A dangerous crisis

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has raised international concerns about the risks and dangers inherent in such a conflict. While latest news reports say Russia and Ukraine are meeting on the Belarus-Ukrainian border to find a solution to this very dangerous crisis, the outcome, in the light of the fate of the Minsk I and II agreements to find a solution to the internal conflict that emerged between the eastern Ukraine Donbas region and the pro-western regime brought to power through an agitation in 2014, is still uncertain.

Some background may help to clarify the origins of the Ukraine crisis. After the Cold War ended (1989-91), the Soviet Union received assurances from the US-led west that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s (and later Russia’s) difficulties to expand into Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries that became independent in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet that is precisely what NATO set out to do in five consecutive rounds of what came to be known as ‘NATO-creep’. The result was the successor state Russia feeling increasingly hemmed in and its security threatened by advancing NATO’s arrival on its doorstep.

The ‘colour revolutions’ that replaced pro-Russian regimes in Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries in the region were once more seen in action in Ukraine in 2014 when a pro-Moscow regime was replaced by a pro-western one. Russia retaliated to this perceived threat by reclaiming Crimea, a strategic peninsula controlling access to the Black Sea and overwhelmingly Russian populated. Moscow also came out in support of the Donbas region’s breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, also largely Russian populated.

The crisis then was sought to be resolved through Ukrainian-Donbas separatists’ meetings and agreements hammered out in the Belarus capital Minsk, dubbed Minsk I and II.Minsk I agreed a 12-point ceasefire deal in September 2014. Its provisions included prisoner exchanges, deliveries of humanitarian aid and the withdrawal of heavy weapons, five months into a conflict that had by then killed more than 2,600 people. The agreement quickly broke down, with violations by both sides. Minsk II was the result of representatives of Russia, Ukraine, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the leaders of the two pro-Russian separatist regions signing a 13-point agreement in February 2015. It set out military and political steps that remain unimplemented. The 13 points were, in brief:

1. An immediate and comprehensive ceasefire.

2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides.

3. Monitoring and verification by the OSCE.

4. To start a dialogue on interim self-government for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledge their special status by parliamentary resolution.

5. A pardon and amnesty for people involved in the fighting.

6. An exchange of hostages and prisoners.

7. Provision of humanitarian assistance.

8. Resumption of socio-economic ties, including pensions.

9. Restoration of full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine.

10. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment and mercenaries.

11. Constitutional reform in Ukraine including decentralisation, with specific mention of Donetsk and Luhansk.

12. Elections in Donetsk and Luhansk on terms to be agreed with their representatives.

13. Intensifying the work of a Trilateral Contact Group comprising representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE.

Why did these terms not move things towards a peaceful solution of the Donetsk and Luhansk issue? Because, Russian sources now tell us, these two regions have been under constant attack and bombardment by Ukraine for the last eight years. This has elicited the charge of genocide by Russia President Vladimir Putin, who seems to have finally lost patience in the face of the constant eastward expansion of NATO (including a proposal to allow Ukraine to join the western military alliance), unremitting Ukrainian attacks on the civilian population of Donetsk and Luhansk, and Ukraine’s failure to implement the provisions of Minsk I and II.

While it is necessary and important to understand what motivated Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine however, it may well turn out to be a stretch too far. The invasion of Ukraine to bring an end to the suffering of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk seems excessive, extremely dangerous for European and world peace, and could produce a fallout that would damage the entire globe. Putin’s order the other day to put Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert followed his veiled allusion earlier to visit any interference or intervention in the Ukraine conflict by any other country with unprecedented consequences. Russia and NATO, let us not forget, are both nuclear-armed, with a devastating delivery capacity. The Russian military (despite its misadventure in Afghanistan in the 1980s) is a formidable force. The effects of western sanctions against Russia will be felt throughout the global economy, already under pressure because of the Covid pandemic. Global supply chains and the international financial system will be severely disrupted. Energy will no longer be available from Russia (including the Nordstream Gas Pipeline), producing shortages and devastating price rises. The sanctions, by now one of the ‘favourite’ economic/financial weapons in the west’s armoury, may relegate Russia to global pariah status, but will also impact the authors.

While the world holds its breath, the current round of talks between Russia and Ukraine offer a slim sliver of hope for a peaceful end to this war. Even Russia’s allies (foremost China) have been guarded and cautious in their stances on the issue because, while they may be sympathetic to Russia’s security concerns because of ‘NATO-creep’, they may also hold the view that Putin is attempting to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, a course likely to hurt the wielder as well as the victim and its supporters.

Pakistan has attempted once again to punch above its weight in holding telephonic contacts between our foreign minister and his Ukrainian counterpart, but no one is likely to take this seriously. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s arrival for a visit in Moscow on the day Russian forces began their advance into Ukraine could at best be seen as unlucky timing or at worst as the difficult task of winning economic cooperation from one-time enemy Russia made even more uncertain.

But if Russia can be accused of over-reach in the Ukrainian crisis, the contrast between US-led western bluster and their reluctance to intervene militarily in the light of the grave risks involved and arguably post-Afghanistan fatigue and war-weariness is also glaring. Eyeball to eyeball yes, but NATO seems reluctant to go any further (a cause for a sigh of relief perhaps). Instead, weaponised economic sanctions seem destined to be the US-led west’s option of choice, which may extend beyond the immediate crisis and extract a bigger toll from the world economy.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com