Connect with us

South Asia

Pakistan-United States relations: mutual mistrust continues

Published

on

On July 21st, the US Defense Secretary James Mattis stated that the Pentagon will not make the remaining military reimbursements to Pakistan for the fiscal year 2016 as he believes that Islamabad had not taken sufficient action against the Haqqani network.

The United States had allotted $900m in military aid to Pakistan under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), a US Defense Department program to reimburse allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-terrorist and counterinsurgency operations. The country has already received $550 million through this fund; however, after the latest statement from the US defense department, $50 million will be withheld. This is not the first time the Pentagon has decided not to make military reimbursements. Last year, the Pentagon withheld $300 million of funds for Islamabad for not acting against militants fueling violence in Afghanistan.

Relations between the United States and Pakistan have remained low over the past decade, with US officials vexed by what they term as Islamabad’s unwillingness to act against the Haqqani network. The relations reached the nadir point after the newly elected President of the United States declared to harden his approach towards Pakistan to crack down on terrorists launching strikes in neighboring Afghanistan. The possible responses from Trump’s administration in this regard is could include expanding U.S. drone strikes and perhaps eventual downgrading the Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally.

What is Haqqani Network?

The Haqqani Network is an Islamic nationalist insurgent group that emerged in the early 1970s in Afghanistan. Though the group was originally formed to overthrow Mohammad Daud Khan, a former Afghani Prime Minister who seized power in a 1973 coup, after the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1978, the focus of the group has remained to outcast the Soviets from their land. While working with the CIA and ISI during the cold war in the 1980s, the Haqqani network has played a formidable role in combatting USSR. Later in the 1980s, Haqqani Network played an important role in the growth of Al Qaeda and became a component of the Taliban, which emerged in the early 1990s from a network of madrassas in the tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

After the American invasion and the collapse of the Taliban government in 2001, the Haqqani network relocated its headquarters to North Waziristan, Pakistan, where it regrouped with Al-Qaeda and Taliban to fight against the government of Afghanistan and the US-led forces of NATO. Afghan officials and international terrorism authorities consider it the most lethal terrorist group in Afghanistan. It has been declared responsible for some of the deadliest violence in the country, including attacks on embassies in Kabul, the Afghan parliament building, local residents and U.S. military bases.

US and Pakistan’s row over the Haqqani Network:

The United States has repeatedly blamed Pakistan for providing ‘safe heavens’ to the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and has deliberately not done enough to oust then out despite the Operation  Zarb-e-Azb and Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad, which are meant to disrupt militant sanctuaries from North Waziristan. The US also views Pakistan as the most influential external actor affecting Afghanistan’s stability and the outcome of the missions in this war-torn country. Former US top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen has also stated in 2012 that the Haqqani network was a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Pakistan has repeatedly rejected the US claims and has emphasized that it has taken indiscriminate and all out action against terrorists. The Foreign Office of Pakistan has contested the US claim, insisting that most of the militants fled to Afghanistan after Pakistan’s successful Operation Zarb-e-Azab and Operation Radd-ul-Fasadd in the tribal areas. Foreign Office has further rebutted the US charges, emphasizing that media reports have confirmed that a considerable number of leaders and senior commanders of the Haqqani network and other terrorists have been killed in Afghanistan. Pakistan has further defended itself by arguing that it has done a great deal to help the United States in tracking down terrorists and has suffered hundreds of deaths in Islamist militant attacks in response to its crackdowns.

Is the current US policy towards Pakistan plausible?

The US current shift in policy towards Pakistan might actually be drastic for the Pakistani military, because it would probably translate into major reductions in military assistance and arms sales. Furthermore, if US decide to downgrade the Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally, it will affect Pakistani establishment relations with the US defense, which might be devastating for the stability of Afghanistan. The US continues to have troops in Afghanistan, and in fact the Trump administration is poised to send more. So long as the US has troops in Afghanistan, it will need to depend on Pakistan to provide supply routes for US troops. Taking a harder line against Pakistan would likely prompt Pakistan to shut down these supply routes, obliging the United States to use more circuitous and expensive routes. This could make the US war effort in Afghanistan even more difficult than it already is.

Is Pakistan tilting more towards China and Russia?

In retrospect to the harder US statement, Pakistan might be impelled to deeply embrace China and Russia. Pakistan is already irked by the Trump’s administration cordial relations with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his vows to strengthen ties, combat terrorism, grow strategic convergence and promote free and fair trade with India. Trump on this occasion also directly addressed Pakistan to ensure the detainment of the terrorist and terrorist organizations from its territory. He further called on Pakistan to expeditiously bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai, Pathankot, and other cross-border terrorist attacks perpetrated by Pakistan-based groups. This has not only ignited new fury in Islamabad, but also has imbued in it the feeling of mistrust for the United States as it is influenced by India. In this endeavor, Pakistan has recently turned its face towards world’s next superpower and discernible enemy of the United States, China, and with the world’s most dangerous revisionist powers Russia.

Conclusion

The US-Pakistan relations have always been termed as a “forced marriage plagued by ever-deepening distrust”. Although they teamed up to fight terrorists after 9/11, their mutual trust has been steadily eroding ever since. Pakistan believes that the US policy towards Pakistan is influenced by India whereas, the US believes that Pakistan has been surreptitiously motivating militants against the United States in Afghanistan.

As for the United States, it has to realize that strategic policy in Afghanistan cannot be dealt with through a merely transactional relationship with Pakistan. There is a need to build a strong strategic relationship between the both countries for which both countries have to take a step forward. The United States needs to understand and acknowledge the security concerns of Pakistan as it has a strategic importance for Washington for stable relations with Afghanistan and India.

Pakistan, for its part, must understand that if it wants a strategic relationship, it will have to earn it. While national interests may diverge in some cases, but where it is possible, Pakistan needs to bring its policies closer to those of Washington, especially when it comes to addressing America’s core security concerns. Jihadists have to be dealt with without distinction not only for America’s sake, but also Pakistan’s as well. It is crucial that Pakistan explains its position and policy responses on this issue unambiguously and effectively from the high echelons of the civil-military leadership.

Maria Amjad has graduated from Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore, Pakistan, with a Political Science degree. Her interests include the history and politics of the South Asian region with a particular interest in India-Pakistan relations. The writer can be reached at mariaamjad309[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Major Challenges for Pakistan in 2022

Published

on

Pakistan has been facing sever challenges since 1980s, after the former USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. The history is full of challenges, but, being a most resilient nation, Pakistan has faced some of them bravely and overcome successfully. Yet, few are rather too big for Pakistan and still struggling to overcome in the near future.

Some of the challenges are domestic or internal, which can be addressed conveniently. But, some of them are part of geopolitics and rather beyond control of Pakistan itself. Such challenges need to pay more attention and need to be smarter and address them wisely.

Few key areas will be the main focus of Pakistan in the year ahead. Relations with China and the US while navigating the Sino-US confrontation, dealing with Afghanistan’s uncertainties, managing the adversarial relationship with India and balancing ties between strategic ally Saudi Arabia and neighbor Iran.

Pakistan has to pursue its diplomatic goals in an unsettled global and regional environment marked by several key features. They include rising East-West tensions, increasing preoccupation of big powers with domestic challenges, ongoing trade and technology wars overlying the strategic competition between China and the US, a fraying rules-based international order and attempts by regional and other powers to reshape the rules of the game in their neighborhood.

Understanding the dynamics of an unpredictable world is important especially as unilateral actions by big powers and populist leaders, which mark their foreign policy, have implications for Pakistan’s diplomacy. In evolving its foreign policy strategy Pakistan has to match its goals to its diplomatic resources and capital. No strategy is effective unless ends and means are aligned.

Pakistan’s relations with China will remain its overriding priority. While a solid economic dimension has been added to long-standing strategic ties, it needs sustained high-level engagement and consultation to keep relations on a positive trajectory. CPEC is on track, timely and smoothly progress is crucial to reinforce Beijing’s interest in strengthening Pakistan, economically and strategically. Close coordination with Beijing on key issues remains important.

Pakistan wants to improve ties with the US. But relations will inevitably be affected by Washington’s ongoing confrontation with Beijing, which American officials declare has an adversarial dimension while China attributes a cold war mindset to the US. Islamabad seeks to avoid being sucked into this big power rivalry. But this is easier said than done. So long as US-China relations remain unsteady it will have a direct bearing on Pakistan’s effort to reset ties with the US especially as containing China is a top American priority. Pakistan desires to keep good relations with the US, but, not at the cost of China. In past, Pakistan was keeping excellent relations with US, while simultaneously very close with China. When the US imposed economic blockade against China and launched anti-communism drive during the cold war, Pakistan was close ally with the US and yet, keeping excellent relations with China. Pakistan played vital role in bring China and the US to establish diplomatic relations in 1970s. Yet, Pakistan possesses the capability to narrow down the hostility between China and the US.

Pakistan was close ally with the US during cold war, anti-communism threat, war against USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980s, and war on terror, etc. Pakistan might be a small country, but, possesses strategic importance. As long as, the US was cooperating with Pakistan, Pakistan looked after the US interest in the whole region. In fact, Pakistan ensured that the US has achieved its all strategic goals in the region. Since, the US kept distance from Pakistan, is facing failure after another failure consecutively. The importance of Pakistan is well recognized by the deep state in the US.

US thinks that withdrawal from Afghanistan has diminished Pakistan’s importance for now. For almost two decades Afghanistan was the principal basis for engagement in their frequently turbulent ties, marked by both cooperation and mistrust. As Pakistan tries to turn a new page with the US the challenge is to find a new basis for a relationship largely shorn of substantive bilateral content. Islamabad’s desire to expand trade ties is in any case contingent on building a stronger export base.

Complicating this is Washington’s growing strategic and economic relations with India, its partner of choice in the region in its strategy to project India as a counterweight to China. The implications for Pakistan of US-India entente are more than evident from Washington turning a blind eye to the grim situation in occupied Kashmir and its strengthening of India’s military and strategic capabilities. Closer US-India ties will intensify the strategic imbalance in the region magnifying Pakistan’s security challenge.

Multiple dimensions of Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan will preoccupy Islamabad, which spent much of 2021 engaged with tumultuous developments there. While Pakistan will continue to help Afghanistan avert a humanitarian and economic collapse it should not underestimate the problems that may arise with an erstwhile ally. For one, the TTP continues to be based in Afghanistan and conduct attacks from there. The border fencing issue is another source of unsettled discord. Careful calibration of ties will be needed — assisting Afghanistan but avoiding overstretch, and acknowledging that the interests of the Taliban and Pakistan are far from identical. Moreover, in efforts to mobilize international help for Afghanistan, Islamabad must not exhaust its diplomatic capital, which is finite and Pakistan has other foreign policy goals to pursue.

Managing relations with India will be a difficult challenge especially as the Modi government is continuing its repressive policy in occupied Kashmir and pressing ahead with demographic changes there, rejecting Pakistan’s protests. The hope in establishment circles that last year’s backchannel between the two countries would yield a thaw or even rapprochement, turned to disappointment when no headway was made on any front beyond the re-commitment by both neighbors to observe a ceasefire on the Line of Control.

Working level diplomatic engagement will continue on practical issues such as release of civilian prisoners. But prospects of formal dialogue resuming are slim in view of Delhi’s refusal to discuss Kashmir. This is unlikely to change unless Islamabad raises the diplomatic costs for Delhi of its intransigent policy. Islamabad’s focus on Afghanistan last year meant its diplomatic campaign on Kashmir sagged and was limited to issuing tough statements. Unless Islamabad renews and sustains its international efforts with commitment and imagination, India will feel no pressure on an issue that remains among Pakistan’s core foreign policy goals.

With normalization of ties a remote possibility, quiet diplomacy by the two countries is expected to focus on managing tensions to prevent them from spinning out of control. Given the impasse on Kashmir, an uneasy state of no war, no peace is likely to continue warranting Pakistan’s sustained attention.

In balancing ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran, Pakistan should consider how to leverage possible easing of tensions between the long-standing rivals — of which there are some tentative signs. With Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman keen to use economic power to expand his country’s diplomatic clout by making strategic overseas investments, Pakistan should use its political ties with Riyadh to attract Saudi investment through a coherent strategy. Relations with Iran too should be strengthened with close consultation on regional issues especially Afghanistan. The recent barter agreement is a step in the right direction.

In an increasingly multipolar world, Pakistan also needs to raise its diplomatic efforts by vigorous outreach to other key countries and actors beyond governments to secure its national interests and goals.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Afghanistan: UN launches largest single country aid appeal ever

Published

on

Displaced families collect water during a harsh winter in Kabul, Afghanistan. © UNHCR/Andrew McConnell

The UN and partners launched a more than $5 billion funding appeal for Afghanistan on Tuesday, in the hope of shoring up collapsing basic services there, which have left 22 million in need of assistance inside the country, and 5.7 million people requiring help beyond its borders.

Speaking in Geneva, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths said that $4.4 billion was needed for the Afghanistan Humanitarian Response Plan alone, “to pay direct” to health workers and others, not the de facto authorities.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi called for $623 million, to support refugees and host communities in five neighbouring countries, for the Afghanistan Situation Regional Refugee Response Plan.

“Today we are launching an appeal for $4.4 billion for Afghanistan itself for 2022,” said Mr. Griffiths. “This is the largest ever appeal for a single country for humanitarian assistance and it is three times the amount needed, and actually fundraised in 2021.”

Needs could double

The scale of need is already enormous, both UN officials stressed, warning that if insufficient action is taken now to support the Afghanistan and regional response plans, “next year we’ll be asking for $10 billion”.

Mr. Griffiths added: “This is a stop-gap, an absolutely essential stop-gap measure that we are putting in front of the international community today. Without this being funded, there won’t be a future, we need this to be done, otherwise there will be outflow, there will be suffering.”

Rejecting questions that the funding would be used to support the Taliban’s grip on de facto government, Mr. Griffiths insisted that it would go directly into the pockets of “nurses and health officials in the field” so that these services can continue, not as support for State structures.

UN aid agencies describe Afghanistan’s plight as one of the world’s most rapidly growing humanitarian crises.

According to UN humanitarian coordination office OCHA, half the population now faces acute hunger, over nine million people have been displaced and millions of children are out of school.

Youngsters’ plight

Asked to describe what might happen if sufficient support was not forthcoming, the UN emergency relief chief replied that he was particularly concerned for one million children now facing severe acute malnutrition. “A million children – figures are so hard so grasp when they’re this kind of size – but a million children at risk of that kind of malnutrition if these things don’t happen, is a shocking one.”

But humanitarian agencies and their partners who will receive the requested funding directly can only do so much, Mr. Griffiths explained, before reiterating his support for the 22 December UN Security Council resolution that cleared the way for aid to reach Afghans, while preventing funds from falling into the hands of the Taliban.

“Humanitarian agencies inside Afghanistan can only operate if there’s cash in the economy which can be used to pay officials, salaries, costs, fuel and so-forth,” he said. “So, liquidity in its first phase is a humanitarian issue, it’s not just a bigger economic issue.”

Stave off disease, hunger

He added: “My message is urgent: don’t shut the door on the people of Afghanistan. Humanitarian partners are on the ground, and they are delivering, despite the challenges. Help us scale up and stave off wide-spread hunger, disease, malnutrition and ultimately death by supporting the humanitarian plans we are launching today.”

Highlighting the need to avoid a wider regional crisis emanating from Afghanistan, UNHCR chief Grandi, insisted that what was needed most, was “to stabilize the situation inside Afghanistan, including that of displaced people who are displaced inside their country. Also, to prevent a larger refugee crisis, a larger crisis of external displacement.”

Nonetheless, Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours had sheltered vulnerable Afghans for decades, Mr. Grandi explained, as he appealed for $623 million in funding for 40 organizations working in protection, health and nutrition, food security, shelter and non-food items, water and sanitation, livelihoods and resilience, education, and logistics and telecoms.

Decades of shelter

No-one should forget “that there is a regional dimension to this crisis, represented by the Afghan refugees but also Afghans with many other ‘stay’ arrangements in neighbouring countries in particular,” Mr. Grandi said, “especially in Pakistan and Iran that have hosted Afghans for more than 40 years, but also Central Asian States.”

Since the Taliban takeover last August, women’s and girls’ rights have continued to come under attack, OCHA noted in a statement, “while farmers and herders are struggling amid the worst drought in decades and the economy is in freefall”.

Rights reminder

On the issue of protecting fundamental rights, Mr. Griffiths underlined the fact that UN humanitarians were continuing to hold “conversations” with Afghanistan’s de facto authorities at a national and sub-national level, on issues such as aid and education access for all.

Echoing that message, UN refugee chief Mr. Grandi noted that humanitarians on the ground were well aware of the importance of stressing the need to protect the rights of minorities and other vulnerable Afghans.

“Our colleagues are there every day, and that’s what they talk about every day; they certainly talk about access, and delivery and needs, but they also talk about women at work, women in school – girls in school – rights of minorities, but it’s that space that we need to preserve.”

Continue Reading

South Asia

Hinduisation of India

Published

on

India’s constitution calls upon its citizens to imbibe the spirit of “scientific inquiry” and humanism”. Oblivious of their constitutional duty, India is still wedded to dogmas. This fact is obvious from the recent calendar “invented’ by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. The calendar is intended to play to the tune of Hindutva ideologues, Bharatiya Janata party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

This calendar claims that the invasion of the Aryan race is a myth. They were a “race indigenous to India”.

The BJP and RSS consider the Aryans to have been indigenous to India and long opposed the dominant ‘Aryan invasion’ theory. The calendar disbelieves that the Aryans came along with the Vedic culture from the Central Asia. That they introduced this culture to the   aboriginals, predominantly the dark -skinned Dravidian race. That the Harappa-Mohenjo-daro civilisations did not predate the Vedic era. Vedic Culture and the Indus Valley Civilisation (7000 BCE – 1500 BCE) were synonymous.

The BJP-led Union government is trying to rewrite India’s history textbooks and “saffronise” education. Hindu right wing claims that the creators of the Vedas always belonged to India. Muslims and Christians are ‘invader’ races with respect to India, as opposed to the supposedly indigenous Aryans.

Similar myths

Museum renamed after Shiva

Yogi Adityanath often showed abhorrence to Moghul icons. He mocks the expenditure of such monuments. He vowed not to spend a penny on even Muslim  graveyards, and by corollary, even mosques. India’s Supreme Court y ruled that a mosque is not necessary for the Muslim mode of worship.  He  renamed the upcoming “Mughal Museum” in Agra after Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Yogi believes that he himself is a scion of the Maratha warriors.

Yogi says “how can Mughal be our heroes?” Thus he is up against 396 of its 1 lakh-plus villages and towns bearing the names of the Mughals. What about   

Bihar with 97, Maharashtra 50, and Haryana 39 villages named after the Moghul? 

About 50 percent of the villages bear standalone names such as Akbarpur, Aurangabad, Humayunpur and Babarpur.  In addition, there are also syncretic names such as Akbar Nivas Khandrika and Damodarpur Shahjahan.

The most common name is Akbarpur of which there are nearly 70 across the country, followed by Aurangabad, which is the name of 63 places.

Since coming to power in 2017, Yogi has renamed several places in the state including  railway junction Mughalsarai renamed as Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Allahabad as Prayagraj, and Faizabad as Ayodhya. The renaming falls  in line with the Sangh Parivar’s ideological commitment to reclaiming the “original” lost glory of India in pre-Islamic times.*

Hyderabad or Bhagyanagar

Hindutva lobby, as led by Yogi, wants to rename Hyderabad as Bhagyanagar, Taj Mahal as “Ram Mahal, Krishna Mahal, or even Rashtrabhakt (patriot) Mahal”. They want to rename Delhi as ”Indraprastha”, Lucknow as ”Lakhanpur”, and Victoria Palace in Kolkata as Janaki Palace

Gyanvapi mosque

 A Varanasi court ordered Archeological Survey of India to  conduct a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque compound adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple to find out whether it was a “superimposition, alteration or addition or there is structural overlapping of any kind, with or over, any other religious structure”.

The decision is preposterous as no evidence was produced before the court to infer that there was a prior existing temple at the site of the mosque.

Ayodhia

Even in the Ayodhya judgment, the ASI excavation was ultimately of no use. The ASI did not find proof that the Babri Masjid was built upon demolition of a temple. No evidence was produced before the court to suggest that there was a prior existing temple at the site of the mosque.

The Kashi Vishwanath Dam project

This dam is the biggest attempt at India’s civilisational restoration since the rebuilding of the Somnath temple.

Why emphasis on Arthashastra by the IIT, Kharagpur?

India  wants to promote teaching of Arthashastra (Chanakya) through prestigious institutes as Chanakya postulates unethical, no-holds barred wars. India trained mukti bahini so-called freedom fighters) and attacked erstwhile East Pakistan when Pakistan least expected it.

The Ramayanas and the Mahabharata wars elucidate various types of yuddha (wars). In ancient India there were three schools of war. Bhishma’s school of warfare belonged to dharma yuddha (ethical or just war). Two other schools, Brihaspati and Krishna’s school of warfare belonged to koota yuddha (all-out war) or maya yuddha (war by tricks or stratagems). There is too much of negative publicity about Islamic jihad (struggle). But, there is little limelight on koota yuddha in India’s history.

Bhishma stressed chivalry and ruled out surprise and deception. But Brihaspati recommended that the king should attack an enemy only if the enemy’s strength is one-third of his own (`Udyog Parva’). He suggested that the king should never trust the enemy or spare him, no matter how old or virtuous he may be.

Keynote of Krishna’s military philosophy was `end justifies the means.’ He laid great stress on deception. `Truth may often have to be sacrificed in pursuit of victory’ (Karma Parva). He advocated use of force to defeat the enemy if he was superior in strength or capability (Shalya Parva). Opportunity once wasted never returns (`Shanti Parva’).

Even the enlightened Hindu and the military writers believe that India’s prosperity during various periods of history, for example during the Maurya and the Gupta periods, rose or fell pari passu with rise or fall of military leadership.

Since partition, the Hindu leaders have put a tab on their innate desire to expose their urge for koota yuddha with Pakistan because of political expediency. India’s confidence-building measures did not contribute to the solution of the Kashmir, or Sir Creek issues. They were dilly-dallying tactics to evade a plebiscite in disputed Kashmir.

Pakistani leaders, including previous prime-ministers and prime-ministers-to-be should take off their blinkers and try to understand how India, through koota yuddha, with like minded countries, is trying to wreck Pakistan’s economy and country.

Concluding remarks

Obviously India wants to erase non-Hindu history. It wants to glorify Hindu warriors to prepare India for a war against its neighbours

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Russia5 hours ago

Neighbours and Crises: New Challenges for Russia

Through all the discussions that accompanied the preparation of the Valdai Club report “Space Without Borders: Russia and Its Neighbours”,...

Development9 hours ago

Competition to Find Solutions to Reduce Overfishing in Coastal Fisheries

The World Bank Coastal Fisheries Initiative – Challenge Fund (CFI-CF) is launching a competition to seek collaborative solutions to reduce...

Africa11 hours ago

Decade of Sahel conflict leaves 2.5 million people displaced

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) called on Friday for concerted international action to end armed conflict in Africa’s central Sahel...

International Law13 hours ago

Omicron and Vaccine Nationalism: How Rich Countries Have Contributed to Pandemic’s Longevity

In a global pandemic, “Nobody is safe until everyone is safe”, – it is more of true with respect to...

Energy News15 hours ago

Canada’s bold policies can underpin a successful energy transition

Canada has embarked on an ambitious transformation of its energy system, and clear policy signals will be important to expand...

Africa17 hours ago

SADC extends its joint military mission in Mozambique

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has collectively decided to extend its force mission mandate in Mozambique for three months...

Reports19 hours ago

Green Infrastructure Development Key to Boost Recovery Along the BRI

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) presents a significant opportunity to build out low-carbon infrastructure in emerging and developing economies...

Trending