Young Diplomats

Corona Virus: The Most Serious Crisis Facing Global Trade

Is the world economy close to entering a recession, and is a repetition of the Great Depression scenario that occurred in 1929 imminent? What are the implications of the spread of the Corona virus on global trade? Many questions arise for decision makers, policy makers, research centers and economists after the virus paralyzes the second largest economy in the world.

The world breathed a few days before the beginning of the armistice truce of the US-Chinese trade war, and agreed to implement the first stage of the trade agreement between the two countries, but suddenly it woke up to a new type of war that seemed more dangerous to global growth than its predecessors, which is a “virus” war.

The importance of China lies in being 17% of global GDP, and it comes after the United States in economic strength and its population constitutes 20% and more of the world’s population, and is considered the largest source of goods in the world, as it is also the largest oil importer, and it has a major impact in the movement of heads International money and investment, one of its main engines and striking force is the industry, which in recent years has turned into a factory for the world, and its products invade every home. The Chinese miracle has succeeded in transforming the country’s economy from fragile rentals under a totalitarian system to a successful capitalist economy during less than 40 Years, today’s China companies are brawling groups The US intercontinental and control without exaggeration in the world’s food and clothing and devices used by the beginning of the game to cheap electrical appliances and automotive devices and mobile phone and communications technologies of the fifth generation.

Corona’s Repercussions On Global Markets

The heat of the Corona virus is beginning to appear on the movement of trade and supply chains in the world, asset prices, and consumption in China and the world, which has threatened to decline global output growth this year, and expectations suggest that Chinese growth will decline from 6% currently to below 4% in the first quarter of the year Ongoing 2020.

A bleak picture, and a pessimistic view of the future of the world economy during 2020 … The spark of the crisis will erupt in China, which is considered a difficult number in the global output. What are the likely scenarios of what is happening and the most prominent sectors affected by the new virus war.

The effects of the virus were directly reflected on the stock markets, commodity and mineral trade, travel and global tourism. Chinese stocks lost about $ 700 billion of their value after a long vacation that lasted with many factories closing their doors, isolating cities and imposing travel restrictions, which fueled concerns about global supply chains.

Although the Chinese authorities took precautionary measures to seek to reassure investors, including pumping $ 173 billion in the financial system and reducing interest, in an effort to help companies, banks and individuals, who were affected by the outbreak of the new Corona virus, the positive effects of this move did not appear directly on the markets that were quick to register Sharp declines, and it seems we will see new chapters of the repercussions of the crisis, pending the discovery of a vaccine that can control the virus.

The repercussions of the virus crisis have spread to global factories and companies, as a large number of global car manufacturers, including Hyundai, Tesla, Ford, PSA Peugeot Citroen, Nissan, and Honda Motor, have announced the suspension of work in some of their factories in China as a result of the epidemic. In China as well as Airbus aircraft manufacturing that halted the final assembly line of its aircraft in Tianjin.

The German company, Adidas, for the manufacture of clothes and sports equipment, also announced that it would temporarily close a “large” number of its warehouses in China. More than 30 airlines have suspended flights to China, which means that the isolation and economic impacts of the disease are on the rise.

The performance of primary commodity markets was not better, especially coffee, which fell by nearly 22% from its highest levels recorded in future contracts for coffee on the London Commodity Exchange, given that China is one of the major coffee importers in the world, and this sharp decline came after the closure of the global “Starbucks” chain More than half of its 4,300 branches in China

Copper, silver, palladium and iron ore fell, as gold continued to trickle out of swarm, rising as a safe haven in global crises.

Despite optimistic reports of an imminent end to the virus at the end of the first quarter of this year, estimates indicate that the global economy will incur losses of $ 160 billion this year as a result of Corona, and this figure is expected to escalate if the spread of the virus is prolonged without eliminating it.

Losers and winners:

Ambiguity prevails over what the Corona crisis will lead to, and it seems US President Donald Trump, who emerged victorious a few days ago by forcing China to sign a trade agreement is in a critical position today, because the boom of US exports to China does not seem imminent as expected, which prompted Larry Kudlow, economic advisor To the White House to hasten to confirm that the virus will delay the expected prosperity of US exports to China as a result of the first stage of the trade agreement between the two countries.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde seemed more realistic to put forward when she said the virus was exacerbating economic uncertainty. “While the threat of a trade war between the United States and China has diminished, the Corona virus adds a new layer of uncertainty,” she said.

European countries, led by Germany, the third largest world economy, will also be affected by the current situation. The decline in Chinese demand will lead to a disruption in the movement of its exports, and therefore the European output is expected to decrease as a result of the Chinese crisis. The same is true for other countries of the world that have close export relations with China, and therefore there are no winners from the virus crisis except the pharmaceutical sectors in the world and the monopolists of its industry, while the sectors of tourism, transportation and logistics are facing real crises.

Perhaps the great disruption in the US-China trade agreement presents an opportunity for emerging countries, especially the Latin American countries, because the trade agreement signed in January was providing goods movement of up to 200 billion dollars, and this can be said that hopes to maintain export rates for the US market are recovering Today with the Corona virus disaster, especially Brazilian or Argentine soy exporters.

Other countries will enter the list of those affected by the virus, especially the major exporters in the steel market, as China today represents about 50 percent of the global demand for steel, and exporting countries such as Russia, South Korea or even Turkey could be affected if prices continue to decline and weak demand.

For the Arab region, China is the largest oil importer in the world after the transformations witnessed by the American market as a result of the expansion of shale oil production, so any change in China’s oil consumption will have a major impact on the global energy market. An economic report showed that Chinese demand for oil decreased by 20%, as the disruption of supply chains prompted the largest oil refining company in China to reduce production by about 12% during the month of February. In practice, this means that the oil exports of the Arab region, which is considered the most important strategic commodity, will be greatly affected if the disease continues to spread, making it difficult for the Arab producing countries to avoid the effects of a deep recession that could sweep the world.

After the drop in oil prices in the beginning of February, approximately 18% of its peak recorded in January, the technical committee of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) whose Arabs are the main members of a meeting in Vienna to study the effects of the virus outbreak on demand, hastened to recommend the committee meeting to the next ministerial meeting The organization has an additional production cut of 600,000 barrels per day, to be added to the previous cuts, which means restricting global oil supplies in the next stage with declining demand as a result of corona and stockpiles in importing countries

Regardless of the fact that the Arab and Gulf countries are producing and exporting oil, they will be affected by the emerging virus as a result of the global emergency resulting from the paralysis that affected the Chinese economy.

And the effects caused by the Chinese virus will cast a shadow on the gas exporters in the world as well, as the prices of natural gas futures contracted in the American dealings, as Bloomberg News indicated the decline in gas prices after the spread of the Corona virus in China, which disrupted the global trade movement, which threatens US exports of liquefied natural gas are upset as prices for immediate fuel contracts in Europe and Asia drop.

Tom Sall, senior vice president of energy trade at INTLFC Stone Financial, said that if China canceled any LNG shipments from its imports due to the virus, this would have a major impact on prices in the US market, noting That, although China has not imported any LNG directly from the United States about a year ago, due to the trade war between the two sides, the cancellation of any shipments will affect prices in the global market and thus the profits of American exporters.

A blow To The Bond Market:

The Chinese virus crisis will also overshadow the global bond market and affect the ability of governments to borrow, as fund managers expect bond issues in hard currency to decline. They believe that the impact of the spread of the Corona virus in China on global economic growth may be reflected in the increase in financing costs for debt issuers, especially in the Middle East, which could curb borrowing.

Chinese financiers are currently the largest player in the debt market alongside the United States, with China wanting to play a greater political role in geographical areas that were for years exclusive to America, as Chinese and Asian investors are today the largest buyers of debt bonds issued by the world’s governments to cover deficits in their budgets.

Conclusion:

Signs of improvement in the performance of the global economy this year seem a distant dream in light of the trade war between the United States and its trading partners, especially in the first quarter of this year, and the Chinese virus crisis has exacerbated factors that negatively affect global growth. Despite the expectations of discovering a vaccine for the disease, it is expected that Chinese growth will record a decline of up to 2%, and this will inevitably be reflected in the global growth, which is threatened with a decrease of half a percentage point due to the current repercussions of Corona.

With factories shutting about 69 percent of China’s manufacturing capacity, it appears that the global industrial sector is entering a severe recession. It should be noted that the uncertainty and uncertainty surrounding the global economy is a large part of it myself as a result of the spread of the disease, but the uncertainty is mainly related to the trade war launched by the United States with its trading partners.

In light of these developments, world trade is expected to face the most serious crisis in its history, and it may lead to the world sliding into a period of great depression that has hit the world economy for years.

The year 2020 is considered a hinge for the global economy to get out of the bottleneck or enter into a depression .. The irony here is that the United States that was the cause of the global recession in 1929 and its effects extended until the end of World War II is the same that ignites its crises with China and its trading partners a spark of a new recession has It leads to wars and alliances leading to a new world and economic order.

Resources:

فيروس كورونا: أخطر أزمة تواجه التجارة العالمية

“Moving towards the Sustainable Development Scenario for Asia would require effective concerted climate action across involving all parts of the energy sector’s stakeholders” – Tsewang Nuru Sherpa
A despondent picture of power generation in the world still to these days, has coal standing firmly on top. In a vicious cycle, the very dependence of countries around the world is attributing more opportunities for their level to rise up. Asia, home to more than 4 billion of the world’s population, is absolutely critical in setting up the energy standards to meet the objective of the global 2015 Paris agreement. This region particularly has the highest concentration of greenhouse gas emissions and does not show any signs of decreasing. With the rapid growth in population, the dependence on coal is growing to meet the growing energy demands, and also to position the regions as the global powerhouse in manufacturing. Meeting the challenge of growing energy demands, whilst also decreasing the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions essentially requires a vision of triggering radical shift and behavioral change in moving towards a low-carbon pathway. UN’S Economic and Social Council for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) has stated that over 80 percent of global coal power capacity is under construction is in this region and has further warned that Asia’s current dependence on coal is completely at odds with the Paris Agreement to combat climate change.
Many countries in Asia, especially countries in south and southeast Asia undoubtedly are among the world’s most vulnerable countries, with a large growing population succumbing to the high climate risks. Currently, the warming level of 1°C and associated ramifications manifested in the retreating of glaciers, drought, and heatwaves have been experienced. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C in accordance with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal will significantly cause reductions in the predicated future impacts and associated risks that would otherwise wreak havoc in the natural environment, threatening the achievement of SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). Moving forward, the existing policy in this part of the world, must take into account both the vulnerability to climate change as well as the urgent need to reduce emissions whilst increasing access to clean and, affordable energy, and meeting the objectives of SDGs. Historically, countries in south and southeast Asia have relied on large-scale fossil fuel-based industries and has been growing unabated.

Pathway for the optimistic energy transformation

With the population in Asia growing exponentially, balancing the requirement for energy-demand and the need for decarbonization is extremely far-fetched from accomplishment. The IEA (International Energy Association) have estimated that in order the for the world to limit global warming to 2°C, 90% of the growing energy-demand across developing nations in Asia must be attributed with low-carbon energy sources, whilst taking the initiative to reduce, remove, and replace the existing high-emitting fossil fuel projects, and demands through electrification of the region’s energy and transportation systems by 2040.

In the midst of severe climate complications exacerbated by the intensive exploitation of fossil fuel, there is a silver lining in Asia. The IEA further reports the doubling of renewable energy capacities in Asia between 2013 and 2018. One of the major economies of the world, China has the world’s largest fleet of wind and solar plants; therefore, it is among the most important suppliers of non-fossil fuel-based clean energy and technology. Similarly, India has set an ambitious priority to invest in building renewable energy capacity to lessen coal usage. BP Statistical Review of World Energy also has reported china owning 72% of the world’s solar photovoltaic module production; while the US has only had 1% and Europe with 2%. In addition, China also leads in the hydropower and excluding hydropower, currently has somewhere around one-third of the world’s installed renewable capacity. With the advancement in the electrification of transportation and the rising demand for renewable energy solutions, china has been paving the path forward by producing two-thirds of the world’s production for the lithium-ion batteries, used extremely for the electric vehicles (EVs).

Even small nations like Nepal is finding alternatives to its fossil fuel dependence. Nepal has huge technical potential to generate electricity from renewable energy sources as it is richly endowed with hydropower, the solar, wind, and other biogas forms. Among them, hydropower with an estimated 83,000 MW potential gives more hope and opportunities. Exploring the usage of decentralized renewable energy supply systems, such as micro-hydro, solar PV, biogas, and improved cooking stoves, can lead the country to a greener future with feasible and environment-friendly supply options.

Stronger policy and climate framework are of utmost importance

Historically, implementing climate change policy measures for mitigation and prevention have been perceived as being in conflict with the objectives of economic amelioration. The energy and climate change policies can have a significant influence on altering the increasing trend of fossil fuel consumption in Asia.  However, most parts of the developing Asian energy market are regulated and owned by state-owned enterprises. With no significant change in exciting policy, Asia’s energy demand is expected to have an increasing curve by 60% by 2040, holding accountable for the region’s 12 percent rise in global energy use (IEA). Asia is relatively endowed with rich renewable resources and is expected to rise in consumption significantly. But, without stronger policy frameworks for the role of renewables in power generation, the energy rise will only reach 30% by 2014, as per the reports of IEA. Renewables such as Wind and solar energy are expected to grow, while hydropower and bioenergy including biofuels, biomass, biogas, and bioenergy derived from other waste products – would remain the predominant of Southeast Asia’s renewables portfolio.
Yet, irrespective of the urgency of climate concerns, the pace at which the existential energy transition will happen is uncertain, with consumers discouraged to incorporate environmentally sound options and cleaner sources of energy. Moving towards the Sustainable Development Scenario for Asia would require effective concerted climate action across involving all parts of the energy sector’s stakeholders. The solutions despite many debates are underway.

NATO turned seventy last year having been a stalwart of Western stability and peace since 1949. Its membership has grown from twelve to twenty-eight even affording former USSR countries the privilege of joining, much to their and our benefit.

Donald Trump persists in his demand for fairer spending across the board – an argument that has finally started to be heard for the sense it holds. Only five of the twenty-eight members are meeting the 2% GDP commitment. Until this issue is solved, NATO cannot move forward for money, not security, dominated summits these days. While this talk is worrying, Emmanuel Macron has added to the bonfire of anti-NATO rhetoric this week claiming the organisation is “brain dead”. What does this actually mean? The disbandment of NATO would be a move that the West would come to regret in a very short space of time.

Why? Because NATO’s irrelevancy in the twenty-first century is borne of a fallacy that the threat faced in the Cold War ended in 1991. It didn’t. Russia has not ceased its aggressive foreign policy: the annexation of Crimea, belligerency on the UN Security Council, poisoning ex-Kremlin spies on other nation’s sovereign territory and the manipulation of electoral behaviour around the world proves a very real challenge in dealing with Moscow. Since 1949, NATO and the USSR/RF have always found themselves on opposing sides of the same debates.

Donal Trump is right to question if the collective defence principle at the heart of the alliance can be justified if members do not step up and meet the humble 2% guideline for spending commitment. A reassurance by Europe and North America to defend your country should it be attacked by an outside force is a progressive, multilateral and liberalist defence initiative that should be heralded for the peace it has maintained since its inception. A 2% GDP commitment for the military support of the entire North Atlantic region seems to me great value in an uncertain and volatile era for international relations.

In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, for whom Russia sits as a direct neighbour, the threat of Russian aggression is a very real worry. Not just for government officials and political parties but equally so for ordinary working men and women for whom the age of Soviet control is still a fresh memory.

NATO and the European Union work well together but we must not assume that either share the same function. The EU is an evolving project that shapes its own future. NATO remains the same principled organisation it always was that responds to a world around it. What’s more, talk of the EU adopting NATO’s appeal is dangerous. An EU army would, and maybe will, see a European superstructure occupy military power on the continent while at the same time excluding non-EU NATO members, specifically Canada and North America. The two must remain separate, but close given the expansion of the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy framework.

If NATO blinks first, Putin will, as too will the rest of the world, see a weakness in Western military and political solidarity. NATO must begin to look outwards to the unstable environments in Africa, Russia and the Middle East instead of using its summits looking inwards playing a blame game with its own members.

European Union a group of 28 European countries finally lost one of its most powerful & strong members United Kingdom on 31st January after a long hustle. European Union has been an intergovernmental organization for over 45 years. Initially, it was an economic cooperation group named as Europe Economic Cooperation (EEC). EU aims ease of doing business, regional cooperation, tax-free trade deals & free people movement across all of its member countries. This brings Europe as a single market for all businesses along with a strong socio-economic & military cooperation to combat against any war situation in or outside Europe again.

The strong demand for Brexit was mooted by the United Kingdom’s independence party (UKIP) origin in 1993. Later, it was broadly supported by many Big Leaders like – UKIP’s Chief Nigel Farage & Conservative Party’s Boris Johnson. Lastly, it came to the conclusion with the 2016 Referendum, when U.K voted to leave EU by 51.89% votes. Though, the Referendum result showed a huge regional disparity, where England & Pales voted in favour of Leave. On the other side, Scotland, Northern Ireland even London voted for not to leave the EU. Thus significantly, the decision of Brexit witnessed a major antithetical approach because 51.89% voted to leave the EU, 48.1% voted to stay with the European Union.

Here’s an interpretation of facts that incited U.K to leave EU. One of the major reasons behind leaving the EU was its membership fees around 13 Billion pounds that the U.K had to pay, and used to get only 7 Billion pounds in returns. This is what majorly burdened U.K to mooted upon EU exit. Similarly, U.K struggled with its own rights of making laws for their own country as the law-making powers was being managed by EU parliament. That proved as a major loss to the U.K because of the internal matters of Britain such as – fisheries laws or port business used to directly manage by the EU parliament instead of U.K government. Unscrupulously, big numbers of immigrants started entering in the U.K because of EU member country which legalizes free inter-state movements of people, goods & services.

U.K & Germany suffered the most with immigrant problems as being developed countries it attracts to immigrants. Most of them are Syrian & African immigrants. As per the latest records, U.K granted citizenship to over 3 lacs immigrants & they want to limit this to only 1 lakh maximum annually. Red tape has also been a major obstacle between U.K & EU as U.K aggrieved with EU’s long procedures which unfolds further delays in development & blighted U.K pace badly. U.K perceives it can move swiftly without EU as Britain has the potential to be a self-supercharged economy like Singapore.  Thus, these were primary reasons which put the onus on the U.K leave the European Union.

This would be a better move, if U.K can join the European Economic Area (EEA) to save the further slowdown in economy & balance the damage due to Brexit. This will affect Globally as the U.K was a gateway to enter Europe for the Big Businesses, that is no more now. The Road is not easy for Mr Boris Johnson ahead.

The results in the recent General elections in both Ireland and the UK, you can take clear messages and hope if you are an Irish person who believes in the power of the whole of Ireland to self-govern. Sinn Fein won the popular vote in the most recent Irish election and came short to Fianna Fail by 1 seat. Leo Varadkar admitted that the people had spoken and it was down to Mary Lou-Mcdonald and Sinn fein to form the next government. Gracious in defeat but a defeat we knew was coming. They received big backlash for soaring crime rates in the country, a housing crisis and the burning question of the Brexit process. Unity in complete honesty was never a big campaign push from the left in this election, which maybe came at their benefit. Martin Mcguinness and Gerry Adams always brought the foundations of their campaigns back to a United Ireland and radical social reform. This was difficult for many people to get onboard with, especially people who don’t see them as outstanding pragmatists, only as IRA advocates. Regardless of the reasons for the outcome, the outcome means that the people spoke loudly about anti-austerity measures but Unity was brought into the question. This leaves challenges for the UK and I will break down the 2 reasons why.

 

The first reason which has consumed all about economic and political discussion in the UK for years is Brexit. First of all, it is official… we have left the EU. We however still do not know in what form this will be. The withdrawal agreement has not been agreed in contrast to what the Tories may have you think and it is still highly possible that on the 31st of December 2020, we leave with no deal. This may well be fundamental to the decision of the Irish people about whether to join with the North or if the North wish to remain in the Union. Of course there are political and religious reasons as to why the North are still in the Union and the republic aren’t. However, it is very difficult to prioritise ideology and religion over your socio-economic situation. If the UK leaves the EU with a no-deal outcome it is without question disasterous for the UK and I could explain in detail why that is but I haven’t got enough hours left in the day. To summarise, food shortages and inflating commodities. The socio-econimc situation of the very people who voted for Brexit will get worse. Not even to mention the implications for EU citizens who reside in the UK and in what capacity they get to stay. This propels the case of independance in Scotlands case or Unity in the Northern Irish example (Both remain voting areas which is essential to the argument). Following on from this, there has always been a consensus that the UK is really England centric and the policy is aimed at pleasing the London elite and funding the pockets of big business owners. The austerity measures hit the working class and low income areas hardest as these are the people that rely on them most. The media did an exceptional job as portraying this to be down to the EU, not decisions taken by the UK government.The curtain is starting to unveil and the truth is starting to be displayed, and it isn’t pleasant viewing. Lets take another viewpoint, if the UK agree to a free trade agreement with the EU and the United States etc. Brexit isn’t positive in any way, but this is without doubt the best case scenario for all parties. The cause for unity or referendum suffers because it again comes down to how much people have in their pay packets each month.This displays how essential the next 12 months is.

 

Every decision made by a political party these days is party political first and then beneifical for the people second. Boris Johnson would have never left the EU for love nor money 5 years ago and these personalities drive party opinion in 1 way or another. The vital part of this all comes down to this, the party in government is called the “Conservative and Unionist party”. If Brexit and the austerity measure enabled by this government contributes to the dissolve of the union they were created to support, it would be politicsl suicide. Hence why they cannot allow under this majority governemnt to give Scotland another referendum. Ireland is a whole other story however. The Northern Irish parliament (Stormont) was closed in 2017 when the DUP propped up the UK government when they needed to form a coalition. This meant all affairs related to Northern Ireland were dealt with in the House of Commons. The lack of funding to these areas and the denial of the peoples wishes to remain in the EU was staggering and it seemed to be that once the Tories had given the money to the DUP they would role over for any decision they asked them to. Whether it be the Irish border issue or public sector spending cuts, the DUP stepped aside to allow what was essentially a Tory majority government. When the Northern Irish election occured early this year, the youth and remainers put a big middle finger up to the establishment and ousted their majority. Stormont reopened and NI could yet again govern NI. With a Republican majority in the North the unity question is yet again thrown where it wasn’t even considered in the build up to the campaign.

 

This year is more important than the Tories think, Ireland have demonstrated that they will not be walked over when it comes to Europe and people have seemed to prioritise EU memebrship over backwards views on sectarianism and the “us vs them” mentality. If Brexit goes the way we think it will, you may see the dissolve of the union and combustion of the Conservative party before our very eyes. It is the job of the left to put up firm opposition, but government is not as far from our reach as the most recent election may imply.

It can definitely be said that today’s social media is the best tool for creating, spreading and growing disinformation to confuse and manipulate targeted individuals or groups. Spreading disinformation is a great social problem during crisis. One of the latest cases is Coronavirus when so much disinformation appeared stirring public discussion and even causing panic. This disinformation was spread by different groups and individuals who had different goals, but all of them have one thing in common and that is to mislead. Misleading information isn’t something new. There have been many cases of misleading information throughout history. This tactic has been used by rulers, governments, intelligence organizations, and other individuals and groups.

 

Spreading disinformation on social media has become so complex that is hard to determine who are the adversaries and do they have hidden agendas. It’s a real challenge for each side to identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses. The “attackers” are researching all possible blind spots and biases and selecting which ones to use against their adversaries. So, social media offers a great selection of means to accomplish the goal and that is to influence a certain behavior of the target group. In this context, tech companies are largely responsible when it comes to spreading disinformation, primarily from the management of social media companies. Different social media companies use different mechanisms to fight the principal goal of disinformation – confuse, divide, suppress and erode. So, some of them ban a certain type of online discourse, some not. But, all of them decide what’s allowed in online political discourse. Fake news, conspiracy theories, doctored images – everything is used to accomplish the main goal.

 

Disinformation is the weapon of digital war and social networks are the main “area” where that war is fought. There are many actors that participate in this war. First, nation-states that are influenced, governments that influence and are influenced by their adversaries and other groups, NGOs, government groups and, finally, citizens who are exposed the most because most of them have and use at least one social media profile. So, digital war is very efficient and cheap. The only weapon is psychological, propaganda. This propaganda is more or less aggressive, depending upon the source. So, there are strong headlines and articles aimed towards someone or something, but also, there are more subtle messages.

 

No matter if the campaign is aggressive or not, an individual, group or an organization uses these campaigns to interfere in the affairs of the adversary. So, it definitely makes a democracy fragile. The best example is the European Union which needs to respond to these attacks in the right way and whose democracy needs to strengthen.

 

So, examining closer the present situation, it can be said that social media contains so much different information and sources. Many of them lack accuracy. Many people still don’t verify information and don’t check facts, so there is definitely a need for a better, stronger fighting plan against disinformation. The other interesting thing is that these campaigns can very cheaply and effectively have cultural influence, especially on nations and states. One state can view the other very wrongly and that can alter their relations, especially economic and other types of cooperation.

Introduction

In Idlib, the Turkish counteroffensive is on the march. At least this is the message that Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to imprint in the minds of Syrian President Bashar el-Assad and his Russian godfather, Vladimir Putin.

On 5th of February, seven soldiers and a civilian of the Turkish army were killed in the last rebel province in north-western Syria. The Turkish Head of State issued an ultimatum to the Syrian regime: to withdraw, before the end of the month, from all the areas of Idlib. If Damas doesn’t withdraw, they will face a military operation from Ankara. The death of five more Turkish soldiers in the regime’s firefights on Monday brought the timetable to an abrupt end.

The Turkey-Russia agreement

“We are determined, by the end of February, to push the regime back outside the Sochi agreement, beyond our observation posts. We will do the right thing, without hesitation, on the ground and in the air,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday.

The Russian-Turkish Sochi agreement, signed in September 2018, was supposed to make Idlib a “demilitarized zone”. Turkey had pledged to evacuate jihadists from the Hayat Tahrir al-Cham group, formerly affiliated to al-Qaeda. A few hundred Turkish soldiers, deployed at 12 observation posts, were to guarantee a ceasefire between pro-Ankara rebels and forces loyal to Damascus.

But Sochi’s promises were never kept and the regime’s offensive, which began at the end of April 2019 with the support of the Russian air force and pro-Iran militias, has in recent days led to a direct confrontation between Turkish and Syrian soldiers. “As of today, if our soldiers deployed at our observation posts or elsewhere are attacked, we will strike the regime’s forces everywhere, regardless of the Idlib borders or the Sochi agreement,” President Erdogan said Wednesday.

9000 Turkish soldiers on the spot

The likelihood of an uncontrolled escalation is increasing by the hour: in Idlib, Turkey has mobilised more men, vehicles and weapons than in all its previous incursions into Syria. Some 9,000 Turkish troops are believed to be there. The vast majority have crossed the border in recent weeks. This massive deployment is all the more risky because the Turkish military – some of whom are already surrounded by loyalist Syrian forces – have no air cover in case of aggression, or to support their counter-offensive. The airspace over Idlib is controlled by Moscow, which prohibits Turkish aircraft from flying there. Why, then, is Recep Tayyip Erdogan exposing his army to such perils? What is his strategy in Idlib?

“Turkey is forcing Russia’s hand,” says Emre Kürsat Kaya, a researcher at the Centre for Economic and Diplomatic Studies (Edam) in Istanbul. “It wants to find with Moscow – and perhaps, indirectly, with Damascus – a global and permanent agreement, not only on Idlib but also on the control of all the regions in northern Syria” where the Turkish army is present. That is what is at stake here. For Ankara, it’s not just a question of blocking the flight to its borders of the three million civilians from Idlib. Indeed the country is already struggling to accommodate more than 3.6 million Syrians. It is also a question of not giving up any ground – psychologically and physically – vis-à-vis Moscow and Damascus.

The eternal fear of the Kurds

“It is clear that after Idlib, Syrian forces will focus on the regions of previous Turkish operations such as the Euphrates Shield (between Jarablous and al-Bab) and the Olive Tree (Afrin),” explains Emre Kürsat Kaya. “Turkey does not want above all to create a precedent of retreat” and be forced, in the end, to abandon its protectorates in northern Syria, which are primarily aimed at preventing the establishment of an autonomous Kurdish region.

In recent days, discussions in Ankara between Turkish and Russian officials have ended without result. A Turkish delegation is due to travel to Moscow shortly to resume negotiations. In the midst of his anti-Damascus tirade, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had this sentence with little emphasis: “From now on, we will no longer turn a blind eye to […] fanaticism, treason, provocations […] by mavericks within the opposition groups who offer the regime a pretext for its attacks”. A toughening of the Turkish army against Idlib’s jihadists? Perhaps this is the quid pro quo Recep Tayyip Erdogan is offering Vladimir Putin.

The small monarchy is the only African state to recognize the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) as legitimate, resisting continuous pressure from Beijing.
The Kingdom of eSwatini is a state in southern Africa located between South Africa and Mozambique. Known until 2018 as Swaziland, it is probably among the least mentioned and internationally known countries. In reality, the monarchy ruled by King Mswati III “boasts” two particular records: it has the highest percentage in the world of people living with AIDS/HIV (27.3%) and is the only state on the African continent which internationally recognises the Taiwanese government.
eSwatini remained alone in May 2018, when Burkina Faso decided to break diplomatic relations with Taipei and recognize the People’s Republic of China. Such bank changes are very frequent: there are 94 countries that had previously supported Taiwan and then recognised the Beijing government. Decisive was the victory of the Chinese Communist Party against the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (which took refuge on the island of Formosa, Taiwan) in the long civil war that ended in 1950. In fact, in the following years an increasing number of states broke diplomatic relations with Taipei. Another important factor that attracts countries, especially developing countries, to mainland China is the extraordinary economic growth of the Asian giant over the last few decades. China has become the second world power. It is difficult to resist Chinese investment and the economic benefits it brings, especially in the poorest regions of the world. The fundamental condition for doing substantial business with Beijing is not to recognise Taiwan internationally. This is why 23 African states, for example, have severed all diplomatic ties with the Taipei government in recent decades: they did not want to miss the Chinese train that brings infrastructure, opportunities and development.

The small eSwatini, instead, seems determined to continue the relationship that has bound him to the Republic of China since 1968 (the year of the Kingdom’s independence). King Mswati III, during a visit to Taipei in June 2018, made a promise to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen: “[…] I also want to make a commitment that, whatever the challenges, we will always be together. You know we’re friends for better or for worse. We’ll always be friends.” He also stressed his hope that “the world will one day realize the things to which your country has contributed immensely”. The spokesman of the Swaziland government, Percy Simelane, added that Taiwan “has been with us since independence and has contributed greatly to the socio-economic development of our country”. At the end of the meeting an agreement was signed which called for increased cooperation between Taiwan and eSwatini in the fields of economy, trade, technology, investment and environmental protection. It also aimed to facilitate partnerships and improve the well-being of the populations of both countries.
The latter is only one of many agreements between the two states. In March 2019, eSwatini Health Minister Lizzy Nkosi and Taiwanese Ambassador Liang signed a $12.7 million six-year memorandum of understanding on improving health care. “President Tsai”, a note from the Taiwan Embassy in Mbabane claims, “wants the people of eSwatini to benefit from Taiwan’s successful experiences and reap the benefits of better services and a strong public health system. This approach is an irrefutable proof of Taiwan’s love and solid reputation as a force for a true, true friend and partner in prosperity”. Progress in health is crucial for the African state. As already mentioned, it counts the largest number of HIV-positive people in the world. A record definitely to be erased.
A month later, in April, the Memorandum of Understanding on Economic Empowerment of Women was signed. The agreement, signed by the foreign ministers of the two countries, aims to “empower women in the informal sector without access to guarantees and therefore unable to access credit financing”. The Memorandum states that both countries have a “desire to deepen their friendship and strengthen their cooperation through joint efforts to support the welfare of women in the eSwatini Kingdom”.
It appears that the partnership between the Mbabane monarchy and the Taipei government is solid. More recently, King Mswati III spoke at the Conference on Climate Change (Madrid, 2–13 December 2019). Concluding his speech in favour of the battle against climate change, he took the opportunity to mention his Asian friend, excluded from the conference because it is not a member of the United Nations: “the Republic of Taiwan has been very instrumental in addressing climate change issues. Our prayers are for Taiwan’s admission and for the world to recognize the steps it has taken and admit it in such forums”.
Despite everything, looking for some commercial data on eSwatini (WTO data, 2017), it turns out that the Republic of China is not a major partner for the Kingdom. Most exports go to neighbouring South Africa (69.4%), followed by Kenya (5.4%), Nigeria (4.7%), the European Union (4.3%), Mozambique (3.3%) and the rest of the world (12.4%). In terms of imports, South Africa is again the main partner (77.6%). The second source of eSwatini imports is China (6.6%), the ally’s antagonist, while Taiwan is lost in the “rest of the world” entry. This is not too surprising. The economic gap between the two Chinas is significant, with Beijing being the second largest country in the world for nominal GDP, behind the United States, while Taipei is the twenty-first (IMF data, 2018–2019). In addition, China is ranked twelfth for foreign direct investment stocks, with Taiwan chasing nine positions further back (CIA World Factbook data, 2017). Despite the dynamic economy and good trade performance, Taipei government cannot compete with the Chinese giant. The tentacles of Beijing extend everywhere and use “soft power” to achieve economic hegemony and political influence over other countries.
Will the eSwatini Kingdom be able to resist Chinese courtship and fulfill the promise of loyalty made to Tsai Ing-wen? Hard to believe. Since 2005, China has invested more in Sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions of the world ($197.2 billion, American Enterprise Institute data). It is the main partner of the African continent, surpassing the United States in 2009. Trade volume increased from $10 billion (2000) to $126.9 billion (2010), to $160 billion (2011), to over $200 billion (2012). The volume of investments has grown from $50 million (2001) to almost $1 billion a year in recent years. In addition, Africa is now China’s second largest market for overseas employment contracts and projects and the fourth largest destination for foreign investment. Investments focus on agriculture, production, communication and mainly infrastructure areas such as irrigation systems, roads and bridges, railway construction, hydroelectric power plants, etc.
Beijing’s power and economic attractiveness have created a domino effect over time. Each year, at least one state decides to close diplomatic relations with Taipei (in 2019, Solomon Islands and Kiribati) and recognize only and exclusively the government of mainland China. Soon, despite agreements and promises, it could also be eSwatini’s turn.

The UK-Africa Summit, held last January in London, proved to be a policy conundrum. On the one hand, Boris Johnson’s opening speech stated that the country will refrain from investing in coal projects in Africa, a decision whose first implementation actually goes back to 2002. On the other hand, Green MP Caroline Lucas and the Guardian revealed that 90% of the deals concluded during the summit will fund fossil fuel projects. Today Global Witness reports that the Private Infrastructure Development Group, a group raising funds in large part from the Government, has committed over three-quarters of its receipts to similar infrastructure. As the UK carbon budget gets more and more stretched, the two stories point at a systemic issue with advancing knowledge and investment in truly transformative energy solutions.
The decision shows an inherent bias in the government’s perception of Africa’s energy needs, at a time in which mitigation and adaptation strategies against climate change should be the priority. The International Energy Agency data clearly shows that coal will be the least demanded form of primary energy by 2040. On the other hand, highly polluting biomass, oil, and gas remain significant in a continent where an estimated 600 million people have no access to electricity. The outcome of the Summit implies that there is no political will to strengthen the energy network in Africa for the benefit of people living there. Neither is there a long-term plan to invest in alternative energy sources, in line with carbon neutrality targets established through the UK’s cooperation with global partners.
Even when considering increased demand to justify fossil fuel extraction, it is inconceivable to enable dependence on resources whose extraction is detrimental to the social and economic well-being of entire populations. Oil spillages and natural gas flaring in the Niger Delta are only one example of how the scramble for oil and gas is causing ecocide and furthering inequality. Scientific evidence shows how infant mortality has drastically increased in sites affected by spilling, even when accounting for other potential factors. Moreover, 95% of casualties related to climate change events are found in poor and underdeveloped territories such as Sub-Saharan Africa. The UK’s continued engagement with the root causes of degradation on multiple levels is not simply misrepresentation, but an active contribution to social and environmental injustice.
Some critics see the exploitation of Africa’s fossil fuels as the fast track for economic growth at the cheapest price in countries with little support in capital. Such was the reasoning of an annual meeting in the latest World Economic Forum. However, as 2030 approaches, we can no longer believe that industrialisation in such strict terms is the safe bet for all. The devastating impact of the West’s unsustainable economic growth is now visible and mainly concerns the most economically marginalised individuals. Rather than imposing a UK paradigm dating back to the earliest stages of technological progress, it would be worth considering the potential of countries most hit by the climate crisis. Togo and Niger are just two of many nations investing in hybrid systems to electrify villages, and many local authorities in Africa are developing solutions adapted to the surrounding ecosystem.
The fact that only 8% of the funding dispensed during the Summit last week was dedicated to clean energy is a sign that old-standing interests are paramount to the spread of an out-of-date conception of progress. All of that is defended at a time when collective solutions should hold on to reducing inequality and showing sensibility to the specificity of each community. Community projects across the continent, such as CHOICES in South Africa, are a testament to African citizens’ will to reduce their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. They also prove that relevant ideas and ambitions on energy are embedded in an awareness of the local context, to produce tangible outcomes for involved populations.
If the traditional West does not take the lead in financing green ambitions, it will fail in being a trailblazer and defending Africa from what is coming in the future years. Most importantly, it will continue to perpetuate a cycle of impositions and unresponsiveness to the pressures caused by its own choices. Africa can be the field for the politics of innovation. However, it needs a responsible financial effort emanating from those who emit far more than 4% of the world’s emissions, yet are pursuing a design meant to damage everyone in the long term.

Are Turkish-Iranian relations transformed from an alliance of common interests to struggle for regional influence?

Introduction

The Arab region has great economic and strategic importance at the global level. In its interior there are about 62% of the world’s oil reserves, which represents the main source of energy, and represents an area of 10.2% of the world’s area. Large more than 300 million people. That is why it was, and still is, a theater for the various regional and international projects, axes and alliances, which have endeavored and seek to control their interactions and benefit from their potentials, and try to map the political balances in them in a way that achieves the interests of their parties.

And after the region was the object of international competition, other regional parties entered to try to impose their control and influence on the countries of the region, and the most prominent of those parties were Turkey and Iran, who are trying to use the region as a pressure toll in order to achieve their interests with Western countries, and find a place for them within the map of the superpower affecting the world.

Turkish project
Turkey is trying to enter the Arab region from many different ways, most notably the historical way by trying to revive the time of the Ottoman Empire, which is clearly shown in the drama it exports to the Arab world in its various forms, as well as portraying itself as an Islamic model at the same time following the secular approach in Thinking and defending the Islamic religion and Arab sanctities, taking advantage of that Palestinian crisis, and its successive developments, as well as its continuous attempts to penetrate and extend influence within the Iraqi and Syrian lands, taking advantage of its participation in the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates with Both countries, and do not forget that there is a common Arab-Turkish desire not to establish a Kurdish state in the Syrian north or Iraqi lands, as this could cause more tensions and conflicts in the hot region, meaning that Turkey is trying to portray itself as a maker of peace and economic cooperation with Islamic history. Modern European thought, and at the same time, economic and political power capable of assisting Arab peoples to achieve their dreams for a better future.

Iranian project
When we pronounce the word Iran, the first thing that rushes to  minds is the Shiite tide and the Iranian leadership’s attempt to play the role of the sole representative of the Shiites in the region and the protector and the preservation of that faith from its elimination by the countries surrounding it .. Rather, the Iranian authorities are trying to communicate with the different Shiite parties in the Arab world, Establishing a communication bridge with it to use it as a pressure tool against its countries and also as a point of negotiation if necessary, as well as its support for Shiite regimes and movements that play political and military roles at the same time as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, Shiite movements in Iraq, and the Houthi movement in Yemen as an attempt to control the systems of these countries, and indirectly extend its influence and the use of these parties as a means to negotiate with the United States of America as well as European countries.

Cooperation or competition !!
Although the Turkish and Iranian projects differ in the way they reached their main purpose in the Arab region, they share the same goal, which is controlling the Arab countries for their national interests, so we can infer that clearly through the Iraqi field, as both countries share that they want to prevent The return of the rise of the Iraqi state to prevent the emergence of any Iraqi regional influence again, as well as prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state that will cause them internal crises and possibly risks to the authority of Erdogan and Rouhani, as well as No incursion of any armed terrorist elements to their lands through the Iraqi and Syrian borders, but at the same time they may differ in a number of other points such as relations with the Israeli side, as Turkey has strong ties and common interests with it unlike Iran, as well as the broad Turkish relations with the United States of America And NATO, in contrast to the Iranian crisis in relations with those parties.

Hot tensions
Although it seems to some that the Turkish-Iranian relations are in harmony and mutual harmony, they have sometimes been strained, and we see this in the Syrian field through Turkish support for the Syrian armed opposition, which caused a dispute with Iran, a close friend of the Syrian regime and its military and political ally, and it fell Bashar Al-Assad was a primary Turkish goal to control the Syrian field, which means breaking Iranian influence or at least limiting it in the region. This point was one of the most prominent scenes of hot tension between the two contries during the past years that followed the Syrian revolution, but the desire of both  to end the presence The Kurdish entity of their borders reduced that tension, fearing that the West would use that card to cause internal political tensions in Turkey and Iran.
We do not lose sight of the Turkish support for Iran after the imposition of international sanctions against it, which is represented in the statements of the Turkish Foreign Minister,” Jawish Oglu “, when he said that “the proposal to buy oil from any country other than Iran is to cross the border.”

vision
Turkish-Iranian relations are expected to develop further if the American and European pressures on Turkey as well as Iran increase, so that they are both a common ally of the other against external attempts aimed at undermining their control over the reins of affairs in the region, which Turkish and Iranian leaders know will be issued to their countries in the form of crises striking Their internal front, but the opposite may happen and that cooperation turns into hot conflict and bickering, in case the superpowers try to give the green light to Turkey, which is the closest political ally of the United States of America, NATO and Israel to lead the region For the next stage.

Conclusion:
The Turkish-Iranian relationship after the period of the Arab uprisings since 2011 has developed significantly, and in some interests it has come close to reaching a common alliance with a number of issues in the Arab region, the most prominent of which is the resistance to any attempts to establish a Kurdish state beside the borders of the two countries, as well as their incursion in various methods in neighboring countries such as Yemen, Iraq and Syria and trying to control the regimes or support specific movements and groups that serve their strategic interests.

However, that cooperative relationship was not without some attraction, and attempts to compete in calm and indirect ways between them in order to appear as the dominant and leader of the hot issues in that region, Turkey is trying to manipulate its regional control with the United States of America and Europe, especially when it receives Syrian immigrants and provide residence camps To them, as a card of pressure and a threat in charting the path of its external interests with the superpower, while Iran is trying to reduce the pressure on it, and the American and international sanctions imposed against it by indicating its increasing influence in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, which could be used it, if it was forced to do so to ignite the region in multiple conflicts that threaten American and European interests in it, but … what is common between them here is the use of opposition and rebel groups and internal conflicts in the countries of the region in order to tighten their control over the reins of government in these countries, and also to ensure the continuation of the state of conflict in the region to ensure their domination.

Resources

https://www.ecssr.ae/reports_analysis/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%8A /
https://afaip.com/%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%8A-%D9%80-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5/
Stephen Larrabee and Alireza Nader, Turkish-Iranian Relations in a Changing Middle East, National defense research institute, RAND Corporation, 2013.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR258/RAND_RR258.pdf
Firas Elias, Iran’s High Strategic Value for Turkey, The Washington Institute, July 17, 2019.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/irans-high-strategic-value-for-turkey
Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, After the “Middle East”: Turkey and Iran in a New Region, JETRO-IDE ME-Review Vol.6, Mrach 2019 .
https://www.ide.go.jp/library/Japanese/Publish/Periodicals/Me_review/pdf/201808_01.pdf