Categories
CSS Notes CSS Optional subjects

Recent Trends in Anthropological Thought

How perspective of Anthropology can be used to study global trends like global warming erosion of biodiversity? (CSS 2017)

RECENT TRENDS IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHT

At the outset to point out that although this seeks to describe the development of theories in anthropology since 1950, it is necessary, in order to put this in a proper perspective, to review the past in brief. It shall also be necessary to look at the developments in other disciplines, particularly in linguistics, because they came to provide the basic ideas on which much of the progress in anthropology in recent times largely depends. Anthropological thought has always progressed along two mutually exclusive paths and based on two basically different principles materialist and ideological. The materialists consider that the aim of anthropological study is to find out the basic law that governs the development of society and culture. Among the earlier exponents of this line of thought were Morgan, Tylor, Fraser, Spencer etc. The School of Evolution stood for scientific study of society and culture. In recent times, Cultural Ecology, Ecological Anthropology, Cultural Materialism etc. subscribe to this view.

Categories
CSS Notes CSS Optional subjects

Role of Human Resource Management in Organizational Performance

Role of Human Resource Management in Organizational Performance

What is Human Resource Management?

Human Resource Management (HRM) is the function within an organization that focuses on the recruitment of management and providing direction for the people who work in an organization.

The HRM department members provide the knowledge, necessary tools, training, administrative services, coaching, legal & management advice and talent management oversight that the rest of the organization needs for successful operation.

HRM functions are also performed by line managers who are directly responsible for the engagement, contribution and productivity of their reporting staff members. In a fully integrated talent management system the managers play a significant role in and take ownership responsibility for the recruitment process. They are also responsible for the ongoing development of and retention of superior employees

Organizations also perform HRM functions and tasks by outsourcing various components to outside suppliers and vendors. The tasks those are most frequently outsourced take HR time and energy away from the HR activities that provide the most strategic value to the company. This outsourcing most frequently involves payroll functions but vendors and external consultants can help an organization with HRM in many ways. Specifically, many HR departments outsource background checking, benefits administration, training such as sexual harassment training, temporary staffing, employee handbooks, policy manuals and affirmative action plans.

HR practitioners in a small business who have well-rounded expertise provide a number of services to employees. The areas in which HR maintains control can enhance employees’ perception of HR throughout the workforce when they believe HR considers employees to be its internal customers and renders services with that in mind.

Categories
Articles International Relations Pakistani Newspapers

Is Trump at war with the West? (By Ishaan Tharoor)

JUST one day after his stunning comments in Helsinki, President Donald Trump attempted to backtrack. In the Finnish capital, standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a news conference, he had cast doubt on the conclusions of US intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Back in the White House on Tuesday, however, Trump argued that he had simply misspoken; he read out a statement saying that he did, in fact, accept that Moscow attempted to sway the vote. At least for a moment.

`Could be other people also,` he added in the very next sentence. `A lot of people out there.

Not many people in Washington were convinced by Trump`s about-face. Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly called into question his own government`s investigations into Kremlin interference and dismissed the growing body of evidence linking that intrusion to his election win including a comment from Putin himself . Since the remarks in Helsinki, moreover, he had been interviewed by Fox News and made no mention of misspeaking. Even his attempted clarification on Tuesday was apparently self-edited into something more defiant.

Nor did Trump say anything about Russia`s 2014 annexation of Crimea or its role in buttressing the violent excesses of the Syrian regime.

That timidity stood in contrast to his sweeping criticism of America`s Nato allies in Brussels last week. To many Trump critics, his performances in both cities capped a year and a half of both tacit and overt attacks on the transatlantic alliance.

Trump`s behaviour was that `of a man who wants the alliance to fail`, wrote New York Times columnist David Brooks.

`His embrace of Putin was a victory dance on the Euro-American tomb.

`The Russian President was effectively given a free pass by a sitting US President to continue his hybrid war against the West,`wrote Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister. He called on European liberals to rally against Trumpism and its proxies, pointing to a former Trump adviser`s efforts to boost far-right populists on the continent. `The battle is now on to defeat Steve Bannon`s sick dream of a right wing populist revolution in Europe and a retreat to the murderous nationalism of Europe`s past,` he wrote.

It`s worth asking, even now, whom Trump sees as his enemy. His political campaign was couched in nativist rhetoric against `globalism`, a euphemism for a world of multicultural liberals and business and political elites who he claimed did not have America`s interests at heart.

Since taking power, he has focused such attacks on real institutions the Democratic Party and civil servants he dubs `the deep state` at home, and multilateral blocs such as Nato and the European Union overseas.

More broadly, he has shown consistent apathy for the American-built world order that guaranteed US supremacy for decades.

`In the post-war world, US policy had four attractive features: it had appealing core values; it was loyal to allies who shared those values; it believed in open and competitive markets; and it underpinned those markets with institutionalised rules,` wrote Martin Wolf of Financial Times. `This system was always incomplete and imperfect. But it was a highly original and attractive approach to the business of running the world.

Wolf suggests Trump is bent on rejecting that system, which is often what weare invoking when we refer now to the `West`: `For those who believe humanity must transcend its petty differences, these principles were a start. Yet today the US president appears hostile to core American values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law; he feels no loyalty to allies; he rejects open markets; and he despises international institutions. He believes that might makes right.

Trump may have diminished US leadership in the world,` Russian analyst Maxim Suchkov said to Today`s World View in Moscow last week, `but he still wants domination.

This worldview leads many analysts to suggest that Trump has more in common with autocrats like Putin than with the elected leaders of Europe`s major democracies. For critics of American hegemony, who have long argued that its stated values have little to do with its geopolitical actions, Trump has confirmed their beliefs.

`That reduces the US from being the leader of the free world to being just another grasping great power,` Daniel Fried, a former US diplomat and fellow at the Atlantic Council, said to my Washington Post colleagues David Nakamura and Carol Morello. It `undoes 100 years of America`s grand strategy, he added, `which worked out well for us.

It won the Cold War, because people behind the Iron Curtain were inspired by our ideas and ideals.

Instead, Trump champions another vision. Trump`s conception of the West is cultural, not political. It`s anchored in blood-and-soil rhetoric and anger against immigration. Just last week, he argued in Brussels that new migrant arrivals are `very bad for Europe` because they are `changing the culture`.

A host of mainstream European politicians would disagree, as would the majority of their populations. A new Pew survey of eight Western European countries, published this month, found that 66 per cent of those polled believe immigrants make their societies stronger.

But Trump sees this openness as a weakness. Here again, he makes himself a kindred spirit with Putin, another outsider standing sceptically at the door of the liberal West.

`Until 2014, Russia used to see itself as the easternmost bus stop of the Western world,` Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, said to The Wall Street Journal. `Since then, there has been a fundamental shift and Russia has turned inward. The Russian elite and its leader, Putin, have come to the conclusion that attempting to become part of the West won`t lead to desired results.

This involves an attempt to turn east and cultivate deeper ties with Asia. But it has also seen the Kremlin build links with the same European far-right populists that Trump has celebrated.

Matteo Salvini, Italy`s interior minister and far-right leader, is pushing for the end of EU sanctions on Russia. Putin, meanwhile,has cultivated a global image as a preeminent Christian nationalist leader and is cheered by white supremacists in the United States.

The governments Putin and Trump lead may be at odds, but the two men themselves, argued journalist Leonid Ragozin, are on `the same side of the divide`. They represent `the same strain of a rising global culture: that of viciously xenophobic tabloids, politically biased infotainment TV, tacky showbiz, irresponsible populism, rabid nativism, and oligarchic kleptocracy,` he wrote for BuzzFeed News.

And their bewildered adversaries, now led by a hobbled Europe, are struggling to cope.

-By arrangement with The Washington Post

Courtesy: Daily Dawn

Categories
Articles International Relations Pakistani Newspapers

What will Trump and Putin agree on at Helsinki summit?

[mks_button size=”large” title=”By: Joe Macaron” style=”squared” url=”#” target=”_self” bg_color=”#1e73be” txt_color=”#FFFFFF” icon=”” icon_type=”” nofollow=”0″]

On July 16, US President Donald Trump will meet in the Finnish capital Helsinki a triumphant Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has just secured another victory in the Syrian war and obtained the international recognition he wanted from hosting the World Cup.

The Russian president will seek to exploit the growing rift between the United States and the European Union and the intensifying Iranian-Israeli rivalry to achieve his two main goals: Break Russia out of international isolation and become the sole kingmaker in Syria.

But in pursuing a deal with Trump, Putin poses the biggest threat to the legitimacy of his US counterpart domestically and internationally. The US establishment and intelligence community largely believe that the Kremlin favoured him in the 2016 US presidential race and an investigation into alleged Russian interference is still ongoing.

At the same time, Trump is confronted with an increasingly disgruntled group of allies who are wary of Russia’s aggressive posturing. That he will be meeting Putin right after attending the NATO summit in Brussels and visiting the UK (which has just had a major diplomatic crisis with Moscow), will not please any of them.

A history of Helsinki summits

The choice of Helsinki as the venue of the summit is not coincidental. The Finnish capital has hosted leaders of the two superpowers for important talks on two other major occasions.

In September 1990, a month after Iraq invaded Kuwait, US President George H W Bush met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Helsinki to discuss the crisis in the Gulf.

Preoccupied with the dissolution of the Eastern bloc after the fall of the Berlin Wall and with a Soviet Union on the verge of collapse, Gorbachev was negotiating from a position of weakness. Bush wanted his commitment to implementing sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s regime and he got it, in exchange for support for his counterpart’s reform plans. In March 1997, US President Bill Clinton met Russian President Boris Yeltsin to discuss a range of security and economic issues, including nuclear disarmament. At that summit, the Russian president had no trump cards to play.

The economic situation in Russia had been persistently deteriorating while the government was waging a highly unpopular war in Chechnya. Badly needing US financial support and backing, Yeltsin decided to concede to the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe in return for Russia’s integration in the global economy with US help. For that disastrous decision, he was labelled a “US puppet” by his opponents.

On July 16, President Trump will meet President Putin, but this time around, it seems, the roles have been reversed. The US president is facing a growing legitimacy crisis at home, where he is perceived as “a Russian puppet”, while his Russian counterpart has been dealt a powerful hand.

The Trump-Putin deal

This will be the fourth meeting between the two leaders since Trump took office in January 2017. They met twice during the July 2017 G20 summit in Germany and once on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit (APEC) summit in Vietnam last November.

Since they last met, Trump succumbed to domestic pressure and took a number of anti-Russian measures, including approving lethal weapons sales to Ukraine in December, expelling Russian diplomats from the US in March, striking the Syrian regime and imposing additional sanctions on Russian officials in April.

Putin, too, upped the ante by giving a provocative speech on March 1, issuing unveiled threats of an arms race with the US. Then, after his re-election, he took advantage of the simmering US-EU trade war and the Iran nuclear deal crisis to re-engage with France and Germany, while also negotiating with Israel on key points of concern regarding the Syrian war.

Trump will give up Syria to Putin the way Gorbachev left Iraq to Bush in 1990.

Putin’s actions left Trump with no choice but to move up the meeting and send his national security adviser John Bolton to Moscow to set it up.

The US president plans to meet alone with his Russian counterpart and his translator, triggering concerns in the US and Europe regarding what he might concede if left alone in the room.

But despite these fears, no real breakthrough in US-Russian relations should be expected until Special Counsel Robert Mueller finalises his investigation. Lifting US sanctions on Russia, recognising its annexation of Crimea, and pulling US troops out of Eastern Europe are all off the table for the Helsinki summit; Trump’s hands are tied by US domestic politics. The only issue on which he can concede to lure in the Russian president is the Syrian war. Trump will give up Syria to Putin the way Gorbachev left Iraq to Bush in 1990.

The prerequisites for this deal are already in place. Trump’s closest ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is scheduled to meet Putin on July 11, just five days before the Helsinki summit; this will be their third meeting this year.

Russia is engaging the Israeli prime minister, aiming to repeat the Deraa scenario in Quneitra province near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Trump seems fine with the idea of ultimately removing US troops from the al-Tanf area on the Jordanian-Iraqi-Syrian border in return for keeping Iranian forces and their proxies away from southwest Syria. Trump’s endgame is not Syria. What he ultimately wants is for Putin to remain neutral in the US diplomatic offensive on Iran. The White House hopes Russia will follow through on the initial agreement with Saudi Arabia and OPEC and increase its oil output to compensate for the drop in Iranian oil exports caused by the reimposition of US sanctions. This move would diminish the effect of the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal on international markets and minimise a potential negative impact on the US economy ahead of mid-term elections in November. Moreover, Trump is also attempting to outmanoeuvre the Europeans in their rapprochement with Moscow by offering Putin to rejoin the G7.

And it already seems that the agreement between the two leaders is solidified even before they met. Russia is passively watching as the EU states scramble to save the nuclear deal with Iran, while the US has done nothing to help the Syrian opposition factions it once supported against the Russian and Syrian regime operation in Deraa. Apart from that, the aftermath of the summit will also give an indication of how relations between Washington and Moscow will develop in the near future. Will a direct line of communication be re-established, most notably on arms control negotiations? Will the Russian ambassador in Washington have more access to US officials moving forward? Will the US establishment become more receptive to engaging Moscow without tangible shift in Russian policy post-Helsinky summit? If there is a change on one or more of these fronts, it could bring more dynamism into US-Russian relations.–AL JAZEERA

Printed in: Daily The Nation  

Categories
Articles Current Affairs International Relations Pakistani Newspapers

The autonomy of US failure in Afghanistan

The autonomy of US failure in Afghanistan

[mks_button size=”medium” title=”By: Durdana Najam” style=”squared” url=”#” target=”_self” bg_color=”#1e73be” txt_color=”#FFFFFF” icon=”” icon_type=”” nofollow=”1″]

Will Afghanistan savour peace? The three-day truce between the insurgents and the Afghan security agencies, on the occasion of Eid, has been celebrated as proof that the estrangement between the Afghans has the potential to meltdown.  However easy the meltdown of estrangement may seem, the reality is that for the Taliban, and all those fighting for an Afghanistan free from the clutches of the foreign force, the road to peace passes through tough terrain.  A passage the US and its partner, both within and outside Afghanistan, are loath to travel.  In retrospect, Afghanistan has been made a difficult country not only because the war against terrorism was a wrong attempt to ouster the Taliban, but also because the US policies after the invasion went terribly wrong. The US has pursued its vested interest rather than the interest of Afghanistan or the region. Below is the brief anatomy of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how.

1.    The distraction of US interest

The US invaded Afghanistan on the assumption that it posed an existential threat to International security. The offshoot of this assumption was that if the west did not intervene the mad mullah would get hold of the nukes in Pakistan and destroy the world.  None of the assumptions were true, and we saw that, as soon as, the Al-Qaeda was pushed out and the Taliban government was toppled Afghanistan became just one of those 20 countries that should have concerned the west.  It so happened because the US neither had the power nor the knowledge or legitimacy to transform Afghanistan. The least the US could have done to justify its presence in the region was to maintain a light military presence and generous developmental projects.  The matter was made worse when the Iraq war was started, and Afghanistan was left with the CIA that drowned the country in money to produce more thugs.

Categories
Articles Current Affairs International Relations Pakistani Newspapers

Singapore Summit – Challenges and Prospects (By: Beenish Altaf)

Despite mutual optimism, analysts on both sides are of the view that it is too early to call it a win-win summit


[mks_button size=”medium” title=”By: Beenish Altaf” style=”squared” url=”#” target=”_self” bg_color=”#0066bf” txt_color=”#FFFFFF” icon=”icon-user-female” icon_type=”sl” nofollow=”0″]

A country that was once strongly frowned upon, that was reason for the heightened global concern for nuclear buildup, is now being appreciated for its diplomatic panache to the extent that the US decided to change its decisions favouring that state. President Donald Trump, just a day ago, reversed its decision of military exercises with South Korea by calling it a “waste of money”.

This is in the backdrop of a Summit held on June 12, 2018 between the US and North Korea in Singapore. Since the Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong welcomed the meeting open-heartedly, the role of the country, is fairly vital in carrying out parlays among both the leaders, that is, Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump. It is believed to be the first remarkable deal in many years among both the countries. Regarding its agenda, largely denuclearisation has been on the top most priority list in the summit; however, its outcomes could not be assessed before time. Some are anticipating the hopeful outcome seeing it as a good step for building favorable relationship between the US and North Korea, while others are apprehensive of it. Paradoxically, the country habitual of military solutions i.e. the US, is evidently foreseeing a “good feeling” for North Korea this time; with reference to the June’s summit.

Categories
Articles CSS Notes CSS Optional subjects Foreign Articles International Relations Pakistani Newspapers

Are cracks emerging in the Russia-Iran alliance in Syria? | CSS International Relations

Are cracks emerging in the Russia-Iran alliance in Syria?

By: Eric Randolph, Anais Llobet 

Russia’s recent call for foreign forces to leave Syria was seen as a possible turning-point in its tricky alliance with Iran, though analysts say their partnership still has a long way to run.

“With the start of the political process in its most active phase, foreign armed forces will withdraw from Syrian territory,” President Vladimir Putin vowed after meeting his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad in Sochi .

Categories
CSS Optional subjects Foreign Articles

The World in Transition: Relevance of Nation State Concept in the Era of Global Interdependence

The World in Transition: Relevance of Nation State Concept in the Era of Global Interdependence

By Gen. Rajiv Narayanan

**The contents of this piece were presented at the Herat Security Dialogue – VI (13-14 October 2017). Note that references have been omitted here to help with the flow of the text.**

The extant World Order is in a state of flux in this ‘Age of Strategic Uncertainties’, with the US in strategic retrenchment and the EU in an economic slowdown and internal dissonance. In this vacuum a rising, revanchist China seeks to gain more geo-strategic and geo-political space using geo-economic coercion to achieve its phase one of the Chinese Dream – a unipolar Asia within a multi-polar World. China reckons that the ‘Shi’, i.e. the ‘Strategic Construct of Power’, is now flowing in its favour but it opines that this window is narrowing as other Middle and Rising Powers (like India, Japan, Russia, etc.) exert their own ‘Shi’ to carve out their respective space in Asia.

The recent events and trends show that the emerging World Order is tending towards multi-polarity leading to another period of jousting due to the ‘balance of power’. However the world today is very different from the previous centuries wherein such a change was preceded by a bloody carnage from a clash of arms – the ‘Thucydides Trap’. In this flux come other Middle and Rising Powers with their own national interests to guard and expand their influence creating a combustible environment.

Categories
CSS Compulsory Subjects CSS Notes CSS Optional subjects CSS Study Material Pakistan Affairs World General Knowledge

Governor General and Viceroy of Indo-Pak Subcontinent

Governor General of British India (Indo-Pak Subcontinent)

Warren Hastings (1772-1785) | Governor General of British India

  • First Governor General of India. By the Regulating Act of 1773, brought the Dual government system to an end. Zamindars were given judicial powers; establishment of civil and criminal courts in each district. In 1781, he founded the Calcutta Madrasa, for promotion of Islamic studies. He founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal with William Jones in 1784. | Governor General of British India

Sir John Macpherson (1785-1786)

  • He held the post temporarily

Lord Cornwallis (1786-1793)

  • Introduced Permanent Settlement of Bengal (also called Zamindari system). It was an agreement between East India Company and Bengali landlords to fix revenues to be raised from land. He introduced Police reforms according to which each district was divided into 400 square miles and placed under a police superintendent. Introduction of Civil Services in India. | Governor General of British India

Sir John Shore (1793-1798)

  • He followed policy of non-intervention. Introduced Charter Act of 1793 | Governor General of British India
Categories
CSS Optional subjects Foreign Articles World General Knowledge

How Is The Border Between Europe And Asia Defined?

How Is The Border Between Europe And Asia Defined?

Transcontinental countries, mountains, and rivers are part of the physical border between Asia and Europe. However, political factors also play a part in its definition.

Boundaries between continents are somewhat a matter of geographical convention. The number of continents that the Earth is considered to have can range between six or seven, although the count can go as low as four when Afro-Eurasia and Americas are combined as continents. There are only three overland boundaries in existence. These boundaries include the ones between Asia and Europe, between Africa and Asia, and between North and South America.

Overview Of Eurasia