The political crisis over the disputed territory of Kashmir escalated Wednesday when Pakistan said it would downgrade its diplomatic ties with India, expel the Indian ambassador and suspend bilateral trade with its regional rival.

Indian authorities have clamped a complete shutdown on Muslim-majority Kashmir as the Hindu-led nationalist government in New Delhi scrapped the region's statehood and special status, including the right to its own constitution.
As the security lockdown by Indian troops continued in Kashmir for a third day, hundreds of migrant workers began the long trek back to their villages in northern and eastern India.

The Kashmir region is divided between India and Pakistan, and is claimed by both. The two nuclear- armed neighbors have fought three wars, two of them over control of the mountainous region since they won independence from the British in 1947.
Kashmir is India's only Muslim-majority state and most people there oppose Indian rule. Insurgent groups have been fighting for Kashmir's independence from India or its merger with Pakistan since 1989.

The Indian government has shut off most communications, including internet, cellphone and landline networks, with Kashmir. Thousands of additional troops were sent to the already heavily militarized region out of fear the government's steps could spark unrest.
In response to India's action, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told parliament that it will expel the Indian ambassador, and the Foreign Ministry later said India has been informed to withdraw the envoy. The decision came at a meeting of Pakistan's National Security Committee led

by Prime Minister Imran Khan and attended by the heads of the armed forces and senior government officials.
Khan told the meeting that his government will use all diplomatic channels "to expose the brutal Indian racist regime" and human rights violations in Kashmir, the government statement said.

Khan also directed Pakistan's armed forces to remain on maximum alert.

Islamabad also said it will review other aspects of its relations with India. It said it will ask the U.N. to pressure India to reverse its decision to downgrade Kashmir from a state to two separate territories. The region also lost its right to fly its own flag and make many of its own decisions.
Pakistan said it would continue extending diplomatic, political and moral support for people living in Kashmir and their "right of self-determination." Pakistan has long called for people in the Indian- controlled part to be allowed to vote on whether they want to sever ties with India.
Sharat Sabharwal, a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan, played down Islamabad's moves, calling them "very symbolic measures."
"Downgrading of diplomatic ties has happened in the past. You maintain your (diplomatic) missions, but at a lower level. The contacts are on. As far as suspending trade ties with India is concerned, India already has withdrawn most-favored-nation status to Pakistan and imposed customs duties of 200% on Pakistani products. Pakistan will be hurting itself as it needs machinery and other products from India," he said.

Earlier, Pakistani lawmakers in a joint session of parliament denounced the action on Kashmir by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The changes include lifting a ban on property purchases by nonresidents of Kashmir, opening the way for Indians outside the territory to invest and settle there. The Muslim population worries that such measures would change Kashmir's demography, culture and way of life.

Qureshi said he feared "genocide and ethnic cleansing" by India in Kashmir. "God willing, one day Kashmir will become Pakistan," he said.
The lawmakers later unanimously approved a resolution condemning the action, saying that as a disputed territory, no change in its status could be made by New Delhi under U.N. resolutions on Kashmir. It also asked India to reverse the changes, lift an indefinite curfew and release all detainees in Kashmir.

India has accused Pakistan of arming and training insurgents fighting for Kashmir's independence from India or its merger with Pakistan. For its part, Pakistan denies the charge, saying it offers only diplomatic and moral support to the rebels.
In the city of Jammu, the winter capital of Jammu and Kashmir state, workers carrying their belongings tied in bedsheets crowded a railway station as they sought to leave the region on trains bound for Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand in India's north and east. Some complained their Kashmiri employers didn't pay them their salary as security forces imposed tight travel restrictions over the weekend and asked them to leave their jobs.

Laborer Jagdish Mathur said many people walked or hitched rides on army trucks and buses from Srinagar to Jammu, a distance of 260 kilometers (160 miles).
"We haven't eaten properly for the past four days," Mathur said, adding that he didn't have money to buy a rail ticket to his village in eastern Bihar state. "The government should help me."

Surjit Singh, a carpenter, told a New Delhi TV broadcaster that he was returning home because of the security lockdown.
Every year, tens of thousands of people travel to Kashmir from various Indian states seeking work, mainly in masonry, carpentry and agriculture. Whenever the security situation deteriorates, they return home.

Protests over the Indian government's actions broke out in Kargil, a Muslim-majority border city in Ladakh that identifies culturally with Kashmir. India and Pakistan fought a war there in 1999.
The mountainous area comprises three regions: Hindu-majority Jammu, Muslim-majority Kashmir, and heavily Buddhist Ladakh, which borders Tibet to the east and the Chinese territory of Xinjiang in the far north.
Kargil's religious and political organizations condemned the Indian government for acting "without the consent from the people." Schools and shops were closed Tuesday, and streets were empty except for a group of demonstrators who marched and shouted slogans decrying the separation of Ladakh.

Sheikh Sadiq Rajai, chairman of the influential Imam Khomeini Memorial Trust, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that India's move was "an attack on our identity. This decision will disempower our people."

Former Kargil lawmaker Asgar Ali Karbali called the move to divide the region "a black day in the history of India." Karbali said he doesn't accept the decision and that others in Kashmir won't either.
Residents of Kargil worried the decision could lead to a flood of people from outside the region overtaking their pristine landscape.

"Our jobs are in danger. Now people from India will come here and settle. Our jobs will go to them. We were never consulted before India took this decision," Ghulam Mustafa said.

China’s white paper on defence 2019 has said that it is striving to promote security and stability along the India-China border and has created what it termed ‘favourable conditions’ to resolve the Dokalam standoff in 2017. The reference to Dokalam in the white paper was more tongue-in-cheek seeing that China has continued to reinforce its infrastructure and troops not far from the standoff

site. The standoff began when Indian troops objected to the PLA building a road close to the narrow chicken’s neck corridor.
First, relating to the back down at Dokalam in 2017. After the 74-days standoff the Chinese realized that this time around they had bitten off far more than what they could chew as opposed to incursions elsewhere over the decades, notably Depsang. The attempt to build the road to the Jampheri Ridge which would allow them to overlook the Siliguri Corridor would not have been allowed by Indian commanders at any cost. A confrontation would have been disastrous for the Chinese as the Indian positions on the East Sikkim watershed overlooking Dokalam were so formidable that the Chinese troops would not have stood a chance. The pull back was a military
necessity and not a conciliatory attempt. In addition, the statement that ‘Beijing was striving to promote security and stability along the India-China border (emphasis added) is a travesty of facts, adding insult to injury.

What are the facts as they obtained on the ground as the white paper went into print. China continues to claim Arunachal Pradesh as part of China, calling it South Tibet. It objected to the visit of the Dalai Lama sanctioned by the government of India and that of a former prime minister. All this happened after 2005. Before that no such claim had been made. On a visit to Vietnam at a South China Sea conclave in Hanoi a few years ago, during a meeting of the author with the Vice Minister, the latter mentioned that China had added to its claims in the Spratly Islands and the Paracels in the same year.

For all practical purposes China has taken over the Northern Areas of Jammu & Kashmir – Gilgit and Skardu – sending in thousands of armed troops, reckoned at a division plus, under the guise of securing the infrastructure for CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) in addition to thousands of Chinese labourers and engineers. The area as China knows is disputed and claimed by
India. Additionally, it is reportedly paying for a Pakistan army division in Baluchistan to kill Baluchs – citizens of Pakistan - in order to protect its corridor to Gwadar. The Baluch people have accused China of outright grabbing as a large settlement for 150,000 Chinese settlers – virtually a Chinese colony – is coming up.

The inroads into Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal are not being considered in this paper. The government of India is being given to understand that China is likely to settle the border question that has been lingering for decades as priority. A settlement that the Indian government can accept seems unlikely, unless China makes major concessions in return for unacceptable quid pro quos. The military asymmetry between the two is such that only the stronger side can make concessions. The weaker side has no such options. Assuming for a moment that a settlement does take place what intrinsic value would it hold for the Indian military on the border whose threat perception would not be diminished an iota unless China were to simultaneously renounce all claims to Arunachal Pradesh. It would be naïve for any military set up to do so.

China’s occupation of Tibet is complete. No nation in the world questions it. The situation in that benighted country is so hopeless that over 150 Tibetan monks and nuns have self-immolated. The Chinese have not eased up any of the controls on the captive nation. Their memory has been dulled to the fact that Tibet for over a millennium had blown nectar on diaphanous wings of gossamer to the Chinese people after the Nalanda masters first introduced Buddhism into Tibet. What has China done in return? It has not honoured the 17-Point agreement with the Tibetan representatives Lama

for granting autonomy to the rump TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region). Up to that time Chinese troops had not arrived in Lhasa. It has killed and incarcerated over a million Tibetans many of whom still languish in concentration camps exposed to inhuman torture. In return for the nectar that rolled down from on high over the ages it has spewed millions of gallons of poison on the Tibetan plateau. The defoliation and desecration of the Third Pole that plays a very big role in the climate balance of the world has seriously undermined the livability of people on the Indian subcontinent.

The surprising part in all this has been the pusillanimity of Indian leaders from the time of the first leader Jawaharlal Nehru who handed over Tibet to China on a platter up to the present day. No Indian leader at the top has ever protested at the carnage on the Tibetan Plateau that will increasingly affect the future of South Asian populations and even those of the riparian states of Southeast Asia. No Indian leader has ever remonstrated with the Nepal government at the treatment meted out to the hapless Tibetans who have had to flee their mother country. While China lords it over at will the Nepalese leaders genuflect like vassals.

And now China has come out with the most outlandish claim to the effect that China will decide on the next Dalai Lama; this while the 14th Dalai Lama is alive. He claims that he will live to at least a hundred years. It is to be wondered as to which of the Chinese leaders taking this decision will be at the helm at the time to see it through. It does not matter that they do not care that not a single Tibetan in Tibet or elsewhere will ever accept a Dalai Lama imposed by the hated Chinese government. The Indian government has remained silent. At some stage it has to realize that it cannot be business as usual in the coming years. After the Dalai Lama if anyone has a locus standi on his future incarnation it is the government of India for reasons that are historical, spiritual and emotional for the people of India.

India has a new prime minster, hopefully in a different mould from his predecessors as far as Tibet is concerned. While no Indian leader can even remotely think of challenging China militarily now or in the future they have to remain mindful of the gigantic Chinese military presence and continuing build up of military infrastructure in Tibet when no nation or a combination of nations has the will or the remotest capability to attack the Chinese mainland. The writing on the wall has been read by military leaders in Moscow, notwithstanding the present geo-strategic embrace between China and Russia. The latest Economist (July 27th-August 2nd 2019) on its cover shows the mighty Russian bear pitiably shrunk in size sitting in the lap of an overblown panda. At present Russia retains the ability to prevent China from pushing in troops to bolster BRI activities in Kazakhstan and westwards as in the case of CPEC in Pakistan. However, the outsized military deployment overlooking the Central Asian Republics can only have one purpose; roll westwards into Kazakhstan and beyond or southwards into India, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The Indian Prime Minister’s popular mandate has been taken note across the globe. It is a force multiplier by any reckoning. Wuhan led to a thaw in relations. However, the asymmetry was noticeable. The next summit with the Chinese leader is scheduled for October 2019 in Varanasi, India. Mr. Modi will have to raise questions that he did not raise at Wuhan for real peace and tranquility to obtain on both sides of the Himalayas, even a start to the demilitarization of the Himalayas as an existential imperative. In less than twenty years it will not matter one bit as to which power holds sway across the Himalayas.

The African Continental Free Trade Area, launched in July, is a landmark achievement, aiming to eliminate tariffs on 90% of products covered by intra-Africa trade and thereby spur entrepreneurial initiative and job creation. It envisages many other gains as well, but the hurdles in their realisation cannot be wished away.

Africa’s achievements are often greeted with skepticism. But the operational phase of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) has been commended for its sheer vision and scope. Launched at the 12th extraordinary summit of the African Union (AU) in Niamey, Niger, on 7 July 2019, it has been described as “one of the most emblematic projects of the African Agenda”, “a dream, an old
dream… becoming a reality.”

What does this project entail and when will this dream materialise? At a time when several
important developed economies have turned protectionist Africa’s endeavour to establish the largest free trade area in the world is cause for amazement. Will it succeed in subverting the trend towards unilateralism and restricted trade and overcome the many hurdles before it?

Gains from the Agreement

The AfCFTA reflects the continent’s deep-seated urge for unity as a means to political and economic emancipation. It seeks to create a single commercial space in Africa and is a step towards establishing the Customs Union with a common external tariff regime. Advocates of AfCFTA are convinced that expanding intra-Africa trade will encourage entrepreneurship and job creation, accelerate economic growth and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, including the empowerment of women and youth. The second phase of negotiations will cover Intellectual Property rights, competition and investment.

Comprehensive in character, the framework agreement provides for the liberalisation of trade in goods and services and free movement of capital and people within Africa. With average tariffs at 6.1%, African businesses face higher tariffs when they export within Africa than outside it. The Agreement will progressively eliminate tariffs on 90% of product lines covered under intra-Africa trade.

Intra-Africa trade

So far the level of intra-Africa trade is quite low: 16% of Africa’s trade with the world as compared to the corresponding figures in respect of Latin America (25%) and Asia (nearly 50%).

In 2016-17, intra-Africa exports saw an increase of 8% thus reaching 16% of Africa’s world exports. Of Africa’s world imports, 13% came from intra-Africa imports.
Top intra-Africa exporting nations are: South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, Ivory Coast, and Morocco.

Top intra-Africa importing nations are South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Namibia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe.
In 2012-14, 75% of Africa’s exports to the world were extractive (oil and minerals), whereas less than 40% intra-Africa trade was extractive.

AU officials claim – based on a 2012 study – that as a result of liberalisation through AfCFTA intra- Africa trade will increase 52.3% by 2022 over the 2010 baseline. But this is questionable, and the projected increase may not take place in the next three years.
The AfCTA, which has only recently become operational and pertains to trade at the continental level, will not impede the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) in performing their task of regional economic integration. The AU recognises eight RECs that have secured progress in market integration in varying degrees.

Coordination of the continental free trade area and activities of the RECs will be necessary and experts point out that the RECs will remain “important implementing partners” as they will be represented in the committee of senior officials in an advisory capacity. “Their role will include
coordinating and measures for resolving non-tariff barriers, harmonising standards and monitoring implementation.”
Trade and other economic ministries of member-states and their business communities will need to shoulder additional and somewhat complex responsibilities as they fulfil their obligations towards both the AfCFTA and the RECs.

Africa’s partners

Africa’s trade partners are now increasingly aware that AfCFTA is a new landmark in the continent’s economic development. It will facilitate the realisation of the shared vision of Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Amina Mohammed, UN’s deputy secretary general, observed that the Agreement demonstrated Africa’s “global responsibility” and the desire to “forge a new path for multilateralism and sustainability”. But, she urged African countries “to move decisively and quickly” during the
transitional period up to 1 July 2020 “to reap the rewards of the historic agreement”,[7] and start implementing what has been agreed to in Phase I besides embarking on negotiations for Phase II.
China is Africa’s largest trading partner and the China Daily, voicing support for the AfCFTA, added that the free trade area would attract more Chinese investment and “open a new chapter for China- Africa trade and economic cooperation.”
Similarly, the AfCFTA is likely to help the United States achieve its new trading strategy to enhance economic ties. Scholarly opinion endorses the view that “Now that many African nations have unified under a single market, trading with the continent will become far easier – and a trade deal between the United States and Africa will help out everyone involved.”

India

Speaking before The Gambia’s national assembly, President Ram Nath Kovind stated on 31 July that this development offered “another opportunity to boost economic ties with Africa”. Earlier, when Suresh Prabhu was minister of commerce and industry (September 2017 to May 2019) he had suggested that Africa and India consider negotiating a free trade or preferential trade agreement to secure closer economic cooperation. Second, the Indian government extended rare grant assistance
– a cheque for $15 million – to Niger to help it host the AU summit where the AfCFTA was formally launched.
As Africa’s free trade area takes shape, India Inc. ought to accelerate its plans to substantially increase and diversify its investments in African countries. Investment-led growth which creates local employment and skill development in Africa should be an essential part of corporate planning.
African leaders have hailed the AfCFTA as a big stride towards securing the vision of the founding fathers. Abdel Fatah El-Sisi, President of Egypt and Chair of AU, saw it as “a remarkable point in the continental regional integration and a natural extension of the joint African action throughout ages
….”, adding though that Africa still had “a long way to bring the agreement in reality and reap its promising fruits”. He also stressed the need “to boost communication with the private sector”.

In similar vein, most observers concede that the Agreement is of considerable significance, but point out that the trade area is not yet a reality. The AfCFTA, which was opened for signature in March 2018, had 54 of the 55 countries of the African Union sign it over a year later, but only 27 countries – about half – have ratified it until now. More countries ought to do so as soon as possible.

Work on tariff concessions, elimination of non-tariff barriers, Rules of Origin and other technical aspects needs to be speeded up. Member-states should resist the temptation to seek long waiver periods and exceptions. The new secretariat, to be set up in Ghana, needs to act.
Expanding infrastructural connectivity, ease of travel by Africans within Africa and better
transportation linkages, will need attention. The challenge for Africa’s governments is to concentrate on such hurdles and unfinished tasks.
Besides, increased infra-Africa trade is not enough per se. Africa has to concentrate on peace- building too, as a senior AU leader pointed out. “It will be a delusion to talk about trade or development without peace and security.”AfCFTA’s launch shows the African governments’ capability: their credibility depends on delivering on promises made.