Latest news with #majority-Muslim
AllAfrica
18 hours ago
- Politics
- AllAfrica
Trump burning a diplomatic bridge to Malaysia
President Donald Trump's pick to be the United States' next ambassador to Malaysia has raised more than a few eyebrows in the Southeast Asian nation. Right-wing influencer Nick Adams, a naturalized American born and raised in Australia, is, by his own account, a weightlifting, Bible-reading, 'wildly successful' and 'extremely charismatic' fan of Hooters and rare steaks, with the 'physique of a Greek God' and 'an IQ over 180.' Such brashness seems at odds with the usually quieter business of diplomacy. The same could be said about Adams' lack of relevant experience, temperament and expressed opinions – which clash starkly with prevailing sentiment in majority-Muslim, socially conservative Malaysia. Whereas the US usually sends a career State Department official as ambassador to Malaysia, Adams is most definitely a 'political' nominee. His prior public service, as councilor, then deputy mayor, of a Sydney suburb ended abruptly in 2009 amid displays of undiplomatic temper. Yet far more problematic for his new posting is his past perceived disparaging of Islam and ardent pro-Israel views – lightning rod issues in a country that lacks diplomatic relations with Israel and whose population trends strongly pro-Palestinian. So it was little surprise when news of Adam's nomination on July 9, 2025, prompted angry pushback among the Malaysian public and politicians. Whether or not Malaysia would officially reject his appointment, assuming Adams is confirmed, remains uncertain, notwithstanding strong domestic pressure on Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to do so. But regardless, the nomination marks a turning point in US-Malaysian diplomatic relations, something I have been tracking for over 25 years. In my view, it communicates an overt U.S. disregard for diplomatic norms, such as the signaling of respect and consideration for a partner state. It also reflects the decline in a relationship that for decades had been overwhelmingly stable and amicable. And all this may play into the hands of China, Washington's main rival for influence in Southeast Asia. The US and Malaysia have largely enjoyed warm relations over the years, notwithstanding occasional rhetorical grandstanding, especially on the part of former longtime Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and U.S. President Bill Clinton talk at the White House in 1996. Ralph Alswang/Consolidated Photo: News Pictures / Getty Images via The Conversation Having successfully battled a communist insurgency during the mid-20th century, Malaysia remained reliably anti-communist throughout the Cold War, much to Washington's liking. Malaysia also occupies a strategically important position along the Strait of Malacca and has been an important source of both raw materials such as rubber and for the manufacturing of everything from latex gloves to semiconductors. In return, Malaysia has benefited both from the US security umbrella and robust trade and investment. But even before Trump's announcement of his ambassadorship pick, bilateral relations were tense. The most immediate cause was tariffs. In April, the U.S. announced a tariff rate for Malaysia of 24%. Despite efforts to negotiate, the Trump administration indicated the rate would increase further to 25% should no deal materialize by August 1. That the White House released its revised tariff rate just two days before announcing Adams' nomination – and just over a month after Ibrahim held apparently cordial discussions with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore – only added to Malaysia's grievance. Malaysia may reap some benefit from the new US trade policy, should Trump's broader agenda results in supply chains bypassing China in favor of Southeast Asia, and investors seek new outlets amid Trump's targeted feuds. But Malaysia's roughly US$25 billion trade surplus with the US, its preference for 'low-profile functionality' in regard to its relationship with the US and the general volatility of economic conditions, leave Malaysia still vulnerable. Moreover, trade policy sticking points for the US include areas where Malaysia is loath to bend, such as in its convoluted regulations for halal certification and preferential policies favoring the Malay majority that have long hindered trade negotiations between the two countries. The punishing tariffs the White House has threatened leave Malaysia in a bind. The US is Malaysia's biggest investor and lags only China and Singapore in terms of trade volume. As such, the government in Kuala Lumpur may have little choice but to sacrifice domestic approval to economic expediency. Nor is trade the only source of angst. The White House's pressure on American institutions of higher education is effecting collateral damage on a host of its ostensible allies, Malaysia included. Although numbers have declined since the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, the US has remained a popular destination for Malaysians seeking education abroad. In the 1980s, over 10,000 Malaysians enrolled in US colleges and universities annually. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, numbers stabilized at around 8,000. But after, enrollments struggled to recover – reaching only 5,223 in 2024. Now, they are falling anew. In the first Trump administration, the visa approval rate for Malaysian students remained high despite Trump's 'Muslim ban' exacerbating impressions of an unwelcoming environment or difficult process. Now, economic uncertainty from trade wars and a struggling Malaysian currency, coupled with proliferating alternatives, make the comparatively high expense of studying in the US even more of a deterrent. Yet what propelled Anwar's administration to announce that it will no longer send government-funded scholarship students to the US – a key conduit for top students to pursue degrees overseas – was specifically the risks inherent in Trump's policies, including threats to bar foreign students at certain universities and stepped-up social media screening of visa applicants. Clearly, Malaysia's government believes that deteriorating relations with the US are not in its best interests. Yet as the junior partner in the relationship, Malaysia has limited ability to improve them. In that, Kuala Lumpur has found itself in a similar boat to other countries in the region who are likewise reconsidering their strategic relationship with the US amid Trump 2.0's dramatic reconfiguration of American foreign policy priorities. When sparring with China for influence in Southeast Asia, the US has, until recently, propounded norms of a Western-centric 'liberal international order' in the region – promoting such values as openness to trade and investment, secure sovereignty and respect for international law. Malaysia has accepted, and benefited from, that framework, even as it has pushed back against U.S. positions on the Middle East and, in the past, on issues related to human rights and civil liberties. But amid the Trump administration's unpredictability in upholding this status quo, a small, middle-income state like Malaysia may have little option beyond pursuing a more determinedly nonaligned neutrality and strategic pragmatism. Indeed, as the U.S. sheds its focus on such priorities as democracy and human rights, China's proffered 'community with a shared future,' emphasizing common interests and a harmonious neighborhood, cannot help but seem more appealing. This is true even while Malaysia recognizes the limitations to China's approach, too, and resists being pushed to 'pick sides.' Malaysia is, after all, loath to be part of a sphere of influence dominated by China, especially amid ongoing antagonism over China's claims in the South China Sea – something that drives Malaysia and fellow counterclaimants in Southeast Asia toward security cooperation with the US. That said, Anwar's administration seemed already to be drifting toward China and away from the West even before the latest unfriendly developments emanating from Washington. This includes announcing in June 2024 its plan to join the BRICS economic bloc of low- and middle-income nations. Now, the more bridges the US burns, the less of a path it leaves back to the heady aspirations of the first Trump administration's 'Free and Open Indo-Pacific' framework, which had highlighted the mutual benefit it enjoyed and shared principles it held with allies in Asia. Instead, Malaysia's plight exemplifies what a baldly transactional and one-sided approach produces in practice. As one ruling-coalition member of parliament recently described, Adams would be the rare US ambassador with whom Malaysian politicians would be loath to pose for photos. And that fact alone speaks volumes about diplomacy and evolving global strategic realities in the MAGA era. Meredith Weiss is professor of political science, University at Albany, State University of New York This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Express Tribune
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Jinnah foresaw a grim future for Pakistan
The writer is a chemical engineer with interest in Society, Politics & Economy. Contact him at: Listen to article Pakistan, born from majority-Hindu apathy, now suffers majority-Muslim ethnic apathy, a tragic comedy. Durkheim (1858), founder of modern sociology, noted mechanical solidarity creates superficial unity but deeper apathy, explaining our socio-political chaos and economic decline. Recent conflict with India showed tactical wins using Chinese tech, but it didn't end hostilities, and more conflicts to follow with pauses. It is, however, troubling to see apathy in Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and parts of Sindh regarding military victory signifying anemic national cohesion. This demands a revisit to Jinnah's original goal for Pakistan: save some, not all, Muslims in India. He united willing Mohajirs and unwilling Bengal, Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan under his vision of a modern democratic state. Sadly, his Pakistan was quickly captured and system was subverted for some while masses and smaller provinces suffered. Mohajirs reduced to "second class citizens" and their political leadership twisted into clown for everyone's amusement. Ironic for descendants of those who fought British Raj (1857) and made Pakistan possible (1947). Still! Redemption lies restoring integrity and moral values not going after material gains, Jinnah's hallmark. Jinnah knew existential threat posed by PakRaj (British-loyalist feudal-military-bureaucratic trio) to unity among different groups and his founding principle — a country for people. Despite poor health, he acted fast: To fight feudalism, Jinnah chose non-feudal leaders in all provinces. Just months before his death, he disbanded landlord system in Sindh (blocked by court) and pushed land reforms in Punjab (sabotaged by legislature). Jinnah's land reforms died with him. West Pakistan stayed feudal, but East Pakistan implemented land reforms by 1950. Ayub and Bhutto's half-measures failed and no one dare talk about land reform in Pakistan since 1977. Jinnah kept military under civilian rule, fired General Messervy for ignoring him on Kashmir and placed military policy under cabinet control. His death allowed military to regain influence with feudals and bureaucrats — something Jinnah had forbidden. His bureaucratic reforms replaced feudal-backed recruits with merit-based ones. An exam under his watch in February 1948 had only 12% feudal recruits. After his death, English test barriers and vague interviews increased feudal share to 65% by 1965. Jinnah expected a grim future for Pakistan without reforms, and he was right. PakRaj initiated country's capture via malafide actions of Ghulam Muhammad and Iskander Mirza - both ex-ICS officers who carried contempt for politicians and democratic process. Using government-dismissal powers, they destroyed democracy between 1948 and 1958. Later, same provision serves a hanging sword over successive governments until last used by Musharraf in 2007. Mirza's tyranny led to martial law as he remained in power, but immediately replaced by Ayub's military dictatorship under judicial cover provided by Justice Munir — mother of all tragedies which State of Pakistan has yet to see, as its last judicial pillar fell. With that ended checks and balances system letting PakRaj do as it pleases. Institutional failures followed: Ayub's failed idea of basic democracies, Bangladesh's creation in 1971, and cycles of dictatorship and managed democracy — Bhutto, Zia, Benazir, Musharraf, Sharifs, Imran, PDM versions. Each rule made institutional decay worse. Why? PakRaj response has been always in "National Interest" (framed as required); over time they became all powerful entity beyond imagination, meanwhile joined by opportunistic politicians, industrialists, businesses tycoons and enablers. So, they control state and operate unaccountably. Period. It would be unfair not to see their performance accumulated over time, which can be evaluated under Scripture's guidance "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:16). The harvest has been bitter. Governance has collapsed: Pakistan ranks poorly globally — all in worst tiers: Corruption 135, Rule of law 129, Political change 100, Governance 122, among others. Economy is equally damning: FY25 shows growth is just 2.68% (target 3.6%) creating more poverty, which is made worse by an increasing population growing at 2.7% annually. Public debt stands at Rs76.01 trillion (74.60% of GDP) with servicing at Rs9.775 trillion (51% of federal spending). Yet politicians approve their own pay rises while Cabinet expanded — a further arrogant act under misrule. Tax shortfall and mismanagement: Feudal escape taxes. SOE losses Rs851 billion, power sector losses Rs660 billion, elitist IPPs-related circular debt Rs2.5 trillion, UGF Rs190 billion, corruption costs 1.4% of GDP and an unknown amount of tax evasion. Pakistan borrows new money to service old debts — absolutely hostage to IMF and the US. Human cost is staggering: About 44.7% live below Rs2,324/day ($4.20/day) and 16.5% live in absolute poverty below Rs840/day ($3.0/day); actual figures will be higher given old database (2018-19). Even with military victory against India, Pakistan is losing war for human dignity which India is winning — only 23.89% of Indians live below $4.20/day, and just 5.3% live in absolute poverty below $3.0/day (CES 2022/23 data). Future? More of same suffering: development spending stays around 0.9% of GDP, health under 0.9%, education below 0.8% — warranting shameful "education emergency". Despite numerous national and international studies on countries' ailments and state commissions since 1949, PakRaj has set aside most recommendations and arrogantly ignored decades of real failures as country continues to decline. C'est la vie! Surely, PakRaj will not give up its power and privileges, nor can we expect them to; I along with them and masses await the coming reckoning, as John Elia said: Hashar main bataon ga tujhy Jo hashar tu nay kiya hay mera What lies before us is a simple binary decision. Do nothing — Accept PakRaj's fiascos disguised as "success" in governance, economy and battlefield wins at mercy of US/China. Or, Do what must be done — Finish Jinnah's structural reforms. Empower educated middle class, entrepreneurs and professionals. Adapt 21st-century realities — digital governance, global economic integration and climate challenges that didn't exist in 1947. History has proved Jinnah was right. He warned: without change we will remain exposed — fragile, divided and easily ruled. The reality always begs core question — whether Pakistan will heed it before it's too late.
Express Tribune
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
New law in Kazakhstan restricts public wearing of face veils
A women, wearing a niqab despite a nationwide ban on the Islamic face veil, gives a phone call outside the courts in Meaux, east of Paris, September 22, 2011. REUTERS/Charles Platiau/Files Listen to article Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signed a law prohibiting individuals from wearing clothing in public places that covers their faces, joining a trend in several Central Asian countries to restrict forms of Islamic dress. The text of the law says clothing that "interferes with facial recognition" will be banned in public, with exemptions for medical purposes, in adverse weather conditions and at sporting and cultural events. The legislation, one in a series of wider amendments signed into law on Monday, does not explicitly mention religion or types of religious dress. Tokayev has previously praised the legislation as an opportunity to celebrate ethnic identity in Kazakhstan, a majority-Muslim country and former Soviet republic. "Rather than wearing face-concealing black robes, it's much better to wear clothes in the national style," he was quoted by Kazakh media as saying earlier this year. Read: Kyrgyz body backs ban on niqab "Our national clothes vividly emphasise our ethnic identity, so we need to popularise them comprehensively." Other Central Asian countries have introduced similar laws in recent years. Police in Kyrgyzstan have conducted street patrols to enforce their ban on the Islamic niqab face veil, according to local media reports. In Uzbekistan, violating the niqab statute carries a fine of over $250. Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon signed a ban on wearing clothing in public that is "alien to national culture."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
01-07-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Kazakhstan bans face coverings in public, new law endorses 'national' clothing
The law says clothing that 'interferes with facial recognition' will be banned in public, with exemptions for medical purposes, in adverse weather conditions and at sporting and cultural events read more Kazakhstan's Prime Minister Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has signed a law to ban people from wearing clothing that covers their faces in public, joining a list of central asian, Muslim-dominated countries to restrict forms of Islamic dress. The law says clothing that 'interferes with facial recognition' will be banned in public, with exemptions for medical purposes, in adverse weather conditions and at sporting and cultural events. However, the legislation does not mention any particular religion or religious dress that the ban has been imposed on. Earlier, Tokayev had hailed the law, saying that it would empower Kazakhstan's ethnic identity, a majority-Muslim country and former Soviet republic. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Rather than wearing face-concealing black robes, it's much better to wear clothes in the national style,' he was quoted by Kazakh media as saying earlier this year. 'Our national clothes vividly emphasise our ethnic identity, so we need to popularise them comprehensively,' added Tokayev. How have face coverings become contentious? Although the face ban has been seen as a progressive step by the government in Kazakhstan, a case in 2023 suggests that citizens of the country do not support such bans. That year, more than 150 schoolgirls in the Atyrau region refused to attend classes in protest against a hijab ban. Similar incidents were reported in other southern regions. Authorities stated that the situation was resolved following consultations with parents; however, uncertainty persisted over the extent of the restrictions, particularly whether they applied to the hijab. 'This principle must be strictly observed in all spheres, including education. School is, first and foremost, an educational institution where children come to gain knowledge. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are a choice and a private matter for each citizen,' Tokayev said at the time, highlighting Kazakhstan's secular identity. Which other countries have banned face coverings? Several Central Asian countries with Muslim-majority populations have enacted bans on face coverings in recent years, citing security concerns and efforts to preserve secular national identities. Apart from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan have all introduced restrictions targeting garments such as the niqab, burqa, and paranja, which obscure the face. These measures often apply to public spaces and government institutions, with officials arguing that such attire is foreign to local cultural traditions and could hinder public safety or facial recognition. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard The Trump administration has escalated a high-profile legal battle with Harvard University by filing an appeal against a federal court order that blocked a presidential proclamation aimed at barring international students from attending the institution. The case has drawn global attention to the US education system, raising concerns about academic freedom, the treatment of foreign students, and the broader implications of immigration policy on higher education. The legal dispute centers on a White House proclamation issued on June 4, which accused Harvard of accepting donations from foreign adversaries, specifically referencing Chinese entities. The administration argued that these "entanglements with foreign countries" posed a national security risk, invoking a 70-year-old law designed to restrict the entry of foreign enemies to the US. This action triggered a lawsuit from Harvard, challenging the legitimacy and motivations behind the proclamation. Court order blocks policy, criticizes administration's rationale US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a strongly worded order blocking the enforcement of the Trump administration's proclamation, pending the resolution of the lawsuit. In her decision, she accused the administration of "misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration's own views," as quoted by The New York Times. Judge Burroughs also criticized the administration's use of international students as leverage, stating it had acted "with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens." She dismissed the national security argument as 'absurd,' according to The New York Times. Harvard's international community at the center of the conflict Harvard enrolls approximately 7,000 international students and scholars each year, including around 2,000 recent graduates, accounting for nearly 25 percent of its student body. The Trump administration's policy threatened their ability to attend classes in person, raising fears of deportation or forced withdrawal. While the case proceeds through the courts, Harvard has begun developing contingency plans. Some students may be able to study remotely or from international partner institutions. The New York Times reported that the Kennedy School of Government is working with the University of Toronto to accommodate affected students. A growing debate over foreign influence and academic freedom The Trump administration's appeal has intensified an ongoing debate over foreign influence in US academic institutions. Citing previous legal precedent, including the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that upheld travel bans for several majority-Muslim countries, the administration is attempting to frame the Harvard case within the same national security context. As the legal process unfolds, the case is being watched closely both in the US and abroad. Critics argue that targeting international students may harm the reputation and global standing of American higher education institutions. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
