Young Diplomats

Introduction

 Iraq’s military said on Wednesday that 22 missiles were launched on the Ain al-Asad air base that houses U.S.-led coalition troops in the western Anbar province and a base in the Iraqi Kurdish capital Erbil, causing no casualties.

Two of the 17 missiles targeting Ain al-Asad did not go off, it said in a statement. The five on Erbil all targeted coalition headquarters. There were no casualties among Iraqi forces, the military said.

“Iraq was subjected between 1:45 and 2:45 this morning of 8 January 2020 to bombardment by 22 missiles; 17 missiles fell on Ain al-Asad air base including two that did not explode … and five on the city of Erbil that all fell on coalition headquarters. No casualties among Iraqi forces were recorded,” the statement said.

Towards an escalation ? 

Are we heading towards an escalation ? The situation is indeed more than alarming. Moreover, the situation is now in the hand of Russia. As an ally of Tehran, Moscow has the power to worsen the situation. If Vladimir Putin decides to support Iran at all costs, it has to be said that escalation will happen. 

However, if Moscow is eager to calm down its ally, global war can be avoided. The underlying question is the following one : is Russia ready to wage a war with the US ? 

Introduction

The United States “underestimated” Russia’s support for Venezuelan ruler Nicolás Maduro and is studying how to respond to Russian actions, a senior U.S. official said Monday.

“We are closely studying Russia’s role, and we will not allow the level of support we have seen in recent months without responding,” the U.S. special envoy for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, told reporters.

Abrams said Russia’s economic involvement in Venezuela grew last year, as the Maduro regime has become more isolated. According to the diplomat, Russian companies handle about 70 percent of Venezuelan oil, after the United States imposed sanctions on the imports of fuel from Venezuela.

The official also referred to the support Maduro is receiving from the Cuban government, with about “2,500 Cuban intelligence agents” operating in various security and military agencies in Venezuela.

Is there a strong Russian support ? 

“We underestimated the importance of the Cuban and Russian support for the regime,” Abrams said, “the two most important pillars of support for the regime and without which it wouldn’t be there, it wouldn’t be in power.”

The self-criticism of U.S. policy towards Venezuela comes a day after Maduro further fueled political chaos in the country by trying to appoint a new president of the National Assembly, without the necessary votes, and by forcibly preventing the entry to the Assembly building by the majority of deputies from the opposition parties.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said those actions followed “democratic procedures,” but they drew condemnation from the United States, the European Union, and most Latin American countries.

Juan Guaidó, the legitimate president of the National Assembly, was re-elected in a later session outside the Assembly building, and with the presence of the majority of the deputies.

He is still recognized as the legitimate president of Venezuela by the United States and more than 50 countries.

On Monday afternoon, Vice President Mike Pence called Guaidó to congratulate him on his re-election and reassure him of President Donald Trump’s commitment to the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.

In the 10-minute call, no future sanctions against the Maduro government were discussed, said a source with knowledge of the conversation who asked not to be identified because of not being authorized to speak publicly about the content of the call.

Abrams said Sunday’s actions did not change the direction of U.S. policy, centered on finding “a political solution” to the crisis.

Despite concerns voiced by many Venezuelans, frustrated by the failed efforts to oust Maduro, Abrams said Sunday’s actions showed the weakness of the Venezuelan ruler, who had to resort to military force to try to end Guaidó’s leadership.

The official also said that the U.S. will send additional help to the National Assembly this year and is studying how to support the free press in that country.

“We’re looking at positive and negative things we can do,” Abrams said. “Congress has voted a fair amount of money to help the democratic opposition in Venezuela, and we will be thinking of ways to use those funds.”

Abrams also said additional person-specific and economic sanctions could be coming but he did not offer details.

During his remarks, Abrams singled out statements from Argentina and Mexico as evidence that left-leaning governments across Latin America who are not in lockstep with U.S. policy toward Venezuela did not support Maduro’s actions on Sunday.

“It was very interesting that on the same day, without hesitation, both of them called what happened yesterday in Caracas unacceptable and rejected it, and I think that’s quite striking,” Abrams said. “Maduro must be asking himself today, do I have any allies left? He is left with Cuba, Russia, China, and a few odd dictatorships around the world. He is losing his support not only on the right, not only on the center, but on the left in Latin America.”

Source

This article has been published on another website, here’s the link : https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article239014483.html

2019 was a year of demonstrations and protests. But what was even more noticeable is that many of these demonstrations were led by children. Never before have children been such a large force of politics. And never again will children be ignored in political discussions.

The most obvious example of this is the School Strike for Climate rallies led by Greta Thunberg. Even so, this goes to show the testament of youth to raise an issue that they will have to endure that older generations will not.

But there are other examples of this. Following the Parkland Shooting, survivors David Hogg and Emma Gonzales led a “March for Our Lives” rally calling for stricter gun control.

Aside from climate and gun violence, there were general calls to end corruption and address global inequality. Notably in Chile, Iraq, Ecuador, France, and Lebanon. And again, many of these demonstrations were led by youth, such as in Chile, were many students joined protests immediately after their daily classes ended and they were let out of school.

The youth are now a force in the world. And they will use it to their advantage in a way that has never been seen before in human history.

Introduction

The United States conducted an airstrike Thursday near the Baghdad International Airport, killing the head of Iran’s elite Quds military Force, the Pentagon said.

“At the direction of the president, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force,” the Department of Defense said in a statement.

The department accused Soleimani of developing plans to attack U.S. diplomats and service members in the Middle East and held him and the military force he oversaw responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. and coalition service members and wounding thousands more.

The department also said Soleimani had approved the recent attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and orchestrated the Dec. 27 attack on a northern Iraqi military base in which a U.S. contractor was killed.

“This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” the department said. “The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

Towards a ” harsch revenge “? 

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei condemned the airstrike and vowed revenge for Soleimani’s death.

“Harsh revenge awaits the criminals who have the blood of [Soleimani] and other martyrs of last night’s incident on their hands,” he said in a statement, the semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported.

President Hassan Rouhani said his death will double the resolve of Iran to stand up to “U.S. greed and defend Islamic values.”

“There is no doubt that the great nation of Iran and the other free nations of the region will take revenge on this horrible crime from criminal America,” he said in a statement.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad urged American citizens to leave the country “immediately.”

“U.S. citizens should depart via airline while possible, and failing that, to other countries via land,” it said on its website.

The IRGC confirmed Soleimani was killed in U.S. airstrikes along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, Iranian state-run Press TV reported.

In a statement, the IRGC said U.S. helicopters targeted vehicles near Baghdad International Airport.

Three rockets were fired near the air cargo terminal, burning two vehicles and wounding a number of people, the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s Security Media Cell said in a statement on Facebook that accompanied photos of wreckage on fire.

“The U.S.’ act of international terrorism, targeting and assassinating General Soleimani — the most effective force fighting [Islamic State], Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda — is extremely dangerous and a foolish escalation,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said in a statement, referring to various terrorist groups active in the region. “The U.S. bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.”

Following news of Soleimani’s death, President Donald Trump tweeted a picture of the American flag.

Is Iraq the new battelfield ? 

Trump designated Iran’s secretive elite military force as a terrorist group in April and has been putting both diplomatic and economic pressure on the Middle Eastern country, which the United States accuses of conducting attacks through proxies to destabilize the region.

The attack comes hours after U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned Iran that continued attacks against U.S. forces would be met with a military response.

“To Iran and its proxy militias: We will not accept continued attacks against our personnel and forces in the region,” Esper said in a statement. “Attacks against us will be met with responses in the time, manner and place of our choosing. We urge the Iranian regime to end their malign activities.”

He later told reporters that the United States is prepared “to exercise self-defense, and we are prepared to deter further bad behavior from these groups, all of which are sponsored and directed and resourced by Iran.”

For two days rioters attacked the U.S. Embassy in Bah, retreating after U.S. troops fired teargas to disperse them. In response, the Pentagon has deployed about 750 additional troops to the Middle East.

Esper told reporters Thursday they will be reinforcing U.S. facilities and protecting personnel.

“And, obviously, they have the capability to perform other missions as well as need be,” he said.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said further attackers on the U.S. Embassy would be running “into a buzz saw.”

The attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was in response to the United States conducting airstrikes late December on locations belonging to the Iran-back Iraqi paramilitary group Kata’ib Hezbollah, during which at least 25 people were killed and 51 were injured.

On New Year’s Eve, Trump told reporters from his Mar-a-Lago resort that he didn’t want war with Iran.

What do Iraqis think ? 

“I want to have peace,” he said. “I like peace. And Iran should want peace more than anybody. So, I don’t see that happening. No, I don’t think Iran would want that to happen. It would go very quickly.”

Several Democrats criticized the airstrike not only over its legality as Congress was not involved in the decision making but that it may instigate further attacks against the United States.

Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House committee on foreign affairs, said in a statement Friday that Soleimani “had the blood of Americans on his hands” and that he won’t “grieve his death” but his death may turn him into a martyr and entice retaliation.

“We are now again on the brink of direct confrontation in the Middle East,” Engel said. “Tonight’s action represents a massive escalation in our conflict with Iran with unpredictable consequences.”

Also, Trump ordering the strike without consulting with Congress raises “serious legal problems” and is an affront to its powers, he said.

“Even if this strike was in self-defense, no current congressional authorization covered it and the president needs to notify Congress within 48 hours pursuant to War Powers Resolution,” he said. “The law requires notification so the president can’t plunge the United States into ill-considered wars.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called the airstrike an “assassination” and questioned the rationale of conducting the mission to deter future Iranian attacks without considering the consequences of doing so.

“One reason we don’t generally assassinate foreign political officials is the belief that such action will be more, not less Americans killed,” he said. “That should be our real, pressing and grave worry tonight.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., criticized this idea, stating Iran has attacked the United States for years “because they believe our threats of retaliation was idle talk.”

“Some are so blinded by hatred of Trump that they argue he has done something sinister,” he said on Twitter. “It’s crazy. Total derangement.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted a video of Iraqis allegedly dancing in the streets in celebration of Soleimani’s death.

“Iraqis — Iraqis — dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that Gen. Soleimani is no more,” he wrote.

Source

This article was published on another website here’s the link : https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/World-News/2020/01/02/US-kills-top-Iranian-general-in-Baghdad-airstrike-Khamenei-vows-harsh-revenge/6991578024432/

 

China’s ‘Go-Global’ Media

China has revolutionized itself as one of the leading powers in the century. With its industrial and economic expansion, the country has set its foot across various sectors in the world. Efforts have been taken to counter the everlasting ‘Chinese Threat theory’ significant within Western media, through soft power strategies such as Nation branding; which is a practice to build favorable perspective of a nation through beneficial relationship building and positive publicity, China has been branding itself as having an ‘affable rise from the East’ through active cultural, traditional and media projections. Chinese media houses and their subsidiaries have played a major role in transforming the dismal attitude of ‘Brand China’ to an affluent one to its client states.[1] In 1999, China established the ‘Go-global’ policy which encouraged Chinese firms to invest abroad. As policy progressed, in 2015, under the leadership of Chinese Premier Xi Jinping ‘Belt and Road initiative’ was launched which saw an increase in the role of China in global media.[2] State owned channels such as CCTV, Xinhua news agency and China Radio International were rebranded and relaunched in the global media. CGTN (China Global Television Network) which is the international operation of CCTV, to enhance its global presence in languages such as English, Arabic, French, Spanish and Russian. Official apps and social media accounts of the channel were launched on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. In terms of Radio, China Radio International (CRI), is now present in more than 70 countries stations with 18 internet radio services. ‘China Plus’ which is CRI’s global transmission network for news and events of have been a significant mouthpiece fir it across the world.[3] In print media, sponsored editorials in western newspapers such as The New York Times, London Times, and Washington Times. Other initiatives such as ‘China Watch’ have been added as supplement along with many popular newspapers.

China has also involved in ‘mergers and acquisitions’ with prominent media houses to expand its influence around the world there by ‘borrowing boat to reach the sea’. ‘XEWW 690’, a Mexican Radio station that streams across United States, was acquired by New York’s H&H Group in association with Chinese state controlled television network Phoenix media.[4] In Africa, China being the pioneers to invest in technology and infrastructure through ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, has dominated the communication and broadcasting sector. The transformation of television broadcast from analogue to digital was undertaken by ‘Star Times’ a satellite broadcast provider backed by the Chinese firms which provides subscription at economical rates. A combination of Chinese and African Channels with State’s propaganda has dominated the offering. African journalists are trained under Chinese media institute leading to an influx in the number of voices for brand China’s positive affiliation.[5] Control over newsmakers and their ownerships has facilitated controlled reporting style which often hinders contrary viewpoints. China’s efforts to ‘buy out’ and expand their media houses as prominent and credible organisations has helped in building a neutral and thus a favourable opinion regarding the Asian giant. This has also helped in reshaping the international media environment through journalism that re-draws the world information order.[6] The efforts taken by the English during the world wars to control the dissemination of news had ensured vast public support for the wartime effort[7]; in a similar way China has also effectively utilised its ‘going global’ policy to appeal to people of its client states to increase their trustworthiness and legitimising its presence in the world as an better alternative to the existing powers.

The acceleration of Chinese presence in global media seems to have built a ‘voice from Asia’[8]. Debates over recent the trade war and relationship of the Chinese Mainland with their allies have been given greater importance in international news coverages due to the inhibition of the Chinese news media.[9] The political inclination of countries that have been taking active part in the Ancient Silk road revival project towards has changed the world information flow from being one way which is from the west to an ‘alternative east’ challenging western constructs. Chinese media houses in Europe and Unites States have been actively endorsing a positive image building exercise through their supplements, editorials and its propaganda channels in order to persuade investors and therefore their common public to support its diaspora and also their foreign FDI[10]. Chinese media in Asian region is focused towards cultural exchanges and reviving historical relationships through economic expansion. In Africa and some Asian states, Beijing has dominated the market with technology and infrastructure investments making them a primary stakeholder in the management of the flow of information in these regions which has largely silenced the western critical view, parallel to the decades where ‘west’ the focus of the world news order was[11]. On a whole, China’s expansion into global media has played a major role in positive brand publicity of the nation which has helped the dragons to build a strong affiliation with its allies and increasing impressing the western players.

 

 

 

 

[1] China’s state media and the outsourcing of soft power. (2015, July 15). Asia Dialogue. Retrieved December 30, 2019, from https://theasiadialogue.com/2015/07/15/chinas-state-media-and-the-outsourcing-of-soft-power

 

[2] Yang, V. (n.d.). How Chinese media is going global. World Economic Forum. Retrieved December 30, 2019, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/08/how-chinese-media-is-going-global/

 

[3] He, L., Wang, R., & Jiang, M. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of China’s nation branding with data from social media. Global Media and China, 205943641988553.

 

[4] Bill-Gertz. (2019, October 11). Mexican Radio to Beam Chinese Propaganda. Washington Free Beacon. Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved December 30, 2019, from https://freebeacon.com/national-security/mexican-radio-beam-chinese-propaganda/

 

[5] Hruby, A. (2019, August 13). In Africa, China Is the News. Foreign Policy. Retrieved December 30, 2019, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/13/in-africa-china-is-the-news/

 

[6] Cook, S. (2018, December 16). The Globalization of China’s Media Controls: Key Trends from 2018. – The Diplomat. for The Diplomat. Retrieved December 30, 2019, from https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/the-globalization-of-chinas-media-controls-key-trends-from-2018/

 

[7] Macdonald, F. (2016, October 24). Culture – The psychological tricks used to help win World War Two. BBC. BBC. Retrieved December 30, 2019, from http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20161021-the-psychological-tricks-used-to-help-win-world-war-two

[8] Gunia, A. (2019, March 25). China: Interference in Foreign Media is Growing, Report Says. Time. Time. Retrieved December 31, 2019, from https://time.com/5557951/china-interference-global-media/

[9] Lim, L., & Bergin, J. (2018, December 7). Inside China’s audacious global propaganda campaign. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved December 31, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping

[10] Marsh, V. (2018). Re-Evaluating China’s Global Media Expansion. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 13(1), 143–146.

[11] China is ramping up its media abroad – and not just in Chinese. (2019, July 3). The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 31, 2019, from https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2019/0703/China-is-ramping-up-its-media-abroad-and-not-just-in-Chinese

 

Introduction

Turkey has submitted a bill to parliament to allow it to deploy troops in Libya, as the conflict there intensifies.

Turkey is allied with Libya’s UN-backed government, which is based in the capital, Tripoli.

The move, which comes earlier than expected, marks an acceleration of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s plans.

The Libyan government has been fighting an insurgency by forces under Gen Khalifa Haftar based in eastern Libya.

The forces of the warlord – who is backed by Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and others, including what is believed to be a force of Russian mercenaries – have been trying to capture the capital city.

The Tripoli-based government receives aid from Turkey, Qatar and Italy.

The call of the GNA

Last week, President Erdogan said his government would seek parliamentary approval to deploy troops to Libya after the Government of National Accord (GNA) requested support.

He had initially said the motion would be submitted to parliament after a winter recess that ends on 7 January, the Associated Press reports. Turkey argues the Libyan conflict could escalate into a civil war and threaten its interests in the country.

The bill will be debated on Thursday, though it is not clear when the law will be voted on. It is expected to be passed as Mr Erdogan’s ruling party is thought to have enough support in parliament to have the motion approved.

The bill allows for the deployment of non-combatant troops, to act as advisers and trainers for the Tripoli government forces against Gen Haftar.

Mr Erdogan previously said Turkey was ready to send troops to Libya if such a request was made by the GNA.

France and Egypt have called for the “greatest restraint” by Libyan and international authorities to avoid escalating the conflict in Libya, a statement from President Emmanuel Macron’s office has said.

UN-sponsored talks on the conflict are set to be held in January in the German capital, Berlin, to try to end the fighting.

Last month, Turkey signed two agreements with the GNA, one on security and military co-operation, the other on maritime boundaries in the eastern Mediterranean.

Critics say the deal would greatly extend Ankara’s territorial claims.

A renewed offensive

The fighting around Tripoli escalated in recent weeks after Gen Haftar declared a “final” and decisive battle for the capital.

In April, he launched a major attempt to seize the city – but his forces met resistance, and they have long been bogged down in Tripoli’s southern outskirts.

Turkey supports the GNA, supplying drones, weapons and trucks to boost its efforts in the ongoing conflict with Gen Haftar’s forces, which control most of the east and south of Libya.

Libya has been torn by violence and division since long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and killed in 2011.

Since then, no authority has had full control and the country is extremely unstable.

Sources

This article was originally published by the BBC. Here’s the link : 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50949841

Introduction 

The “Super-aged” country 

Japan is a “super-aged” nation, meaning more than 20% of its population is older than 65. The country’s total population stood at 124 million in 2018 — but by 2065 it is expected to have dropped to about 88 million. The country’s demographic decline means a shrinking cohort of workers is left supporting an increasingly elderly population in need of healthcare and pensions. Japan isn’t alone in facing falling fertility rates. Germany is a also a “super-aged” nation. And by 2030, the US, UK, Singapore and France are expected to have earned that status. Neighboring South Korea, too, has struggled for years with an aging population, shrinking workforce, and low birth rates. In 2018, the country’s total fertility rate fell to its lowest since records began. The total fertility rate measures the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime. In South Korea in 2018, this dropped to 0.98 — or less than one baby per woman, and a drop from the previous year’s rate of 1.05.

A global momentum ? 

This means 8.7% fewer babies were born in South Korea in 2018 compared to 2017. This record low puts South Korea near the bottom of lowest fertility rates in the world — even lower than Japan, which had a rate of 1.42 in 2018. To put that into perspective, the 2018 fertility rate was 1.72 in the United States. In some African countries, which see the highest fertility numbers in the world, the rate can go up 5 or 6. To maintain a stable population, countries need a fertility rate of 2 — anything above that indicates population growth. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to prevent the population from dropping below 100 million by 2060. In 2017, the government announced a 2 trillion yen ($18 billion) spending package to expand free preschool for children aged 3 to 5 — and for children aged 2 and under from low-income families — and cut waiting times at day care centers. Meanwhile, the South Korean government lowered maximum working hours from 68 hours a week to 52 hours last year, with some experts pointing to the declining fertility rate and its economic consequences as a motivator.

The geopolitical implications 

Demography makes history. It contributes to economics, political power, and of course military capabilities. The declining birth rate of Japan may deeply affect its influence in the decades to come. It has to be said that China and African countries are in a much more comfortable position. Consequently, the declining birth rate is not a global momentum.

Sources

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/25/asia/japan-birthrate-hnk-intl/index.html

The Nigerian Federal government has repeatedly targeted human rights defenders such as the likes of Omoyele Sowore and Agba Jalingo. Sowore has been in detention since August 2019. The reason being that, they have expressed views that criticizes the government and called for a revolution which the government deems to be a threat to the stability of the country. The Department of State’s Services (DSS) has refused to grant bail despite its conditions met. This is clearly an attempt by the government, using security agents and the judiciary, to influence the court’s decision.

Omoyele Sowore was a political candidate in Nigerian 2019 presidential election. He is the founder of the online news agency, Sahara reporters. Sowore has had quite the experience in activism; He was expelled twice for political reasons and student activism during his study at the University of Lagos. He was also the President of the University of Lagos Student Union Government form 1992-1994. Later on, he was arrested and tortured in 1992 after leading 5,100 students in a protest resulting in 7 casualties and injuries.

Omoyele Sowore was arrested on August 3, 2019 ahead a planned nationwide protest, tagged #RevolutionNow. The arrest was condemned by Nobel Prize winner, Wole Soyinka. On September 24, 2019, he was granted bail by the Federal High Court Abuja on the conditions he surrenders his international passport in 45 hours. The DSS refusal to release Sowore sparked a protest by his wife in New York at the UN Plaza. On December 5, 2019 bail terms were settled, and the court once again, set Omoyele Sowore free. But the DSS stormed the court to re-arrest him. It is either Nigeria no longer respects the law, or the president doesn’t. The DSS as stated by the presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu, does not need approval from the presidency to carry out its duties.

Amnesty International has declared Sowore and other defendants of human rights facing detention, as prisoners of conscience. The United States Department of State has condemned the re-arrest. Other artist such as Falz the bad guy and Davido have condemned the arrest.

The president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, is a member of the All Progressive Congress. You start to wonder how progressive they may be once you begin to factor all the atrocities being committed without any justification such as a recent social media bill, that threatens free speech. Buhari served as the Head of State between 1983-1985, taking power through a military coup d’état. He introduced a policy called War Against Indiscipline (WAI) in 1984 to rid Nigeria of corruption and maladjustment.

President Buhari’s no nonsense policy and the activist historic love for mobilizing protests happened to have crossed path. Although the actions by the government is clearly a violation of the rights of the activist (Sowore), the government justifies that this is the length it will take to ensure stability in the country and any revoke any form of revolution.

In October 2019, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (MFA) joined Twitter. The MFA is responsible for overseeing China’s foreign relations, equivalent to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the United States’ Department of State. However, the account does not act with the same professionalism and respect as it counterparts.

Tweeting in English only, the objective of the MFA is simple; to spread inflammatory anti-American (and anti-Western), pro-Beijing propaganda. The tweets themselves are comparable to the style used by President Trump; short, provocative, and often filled with rhetorical questions.

The accounts first few tweets came on December 2nd, coinciding with Beijing’s announcement it will suspend visits by U.S. warships and aircrafts to Hong Kong, and the MFA wasted no time in targeting Western states.

First on the chopping block was the United States, where after a summary of the Chinese sanctions on five American NGO’s and the ban an U.S warships, the account claimed the sanctions were “due price to pay for inciting separatists activities!”

The next tweet gave its condolences to the victims of the London Terror attacks on November 29th, albeit insensitively, tweeting “but what if the attack happened in China?, Maybe labelled as fighting against repression or police force abuse?”.

Lastly, was an attack on the Australian media regarding allegations made by Chinese asylum seeker Wang Liqiang, who claims to be a Chinese intelligence officer involved in spy operations in Australia. The tweet reads, “those allegations against China, no matter spy cases, infiltration or interference, are just soap operas. Some people would rather buy lies than authoritative information. Absurd and alerting!”.

What is absurd and alerting is that this is a legitimate Chinese first-ranked executive department’s social media page, one that reports directly to the Premier. The creation of the twitter account coincides with Chinese diplomat Zhao Lijian’s promotion to Deputy Director General of the Ministry’s information department. Zhao is well known for his twitter outbursts during his time as Deputy Chief of Mission in the Chinese Embassy in Pakistan, with one particular outburst seeing Barack Obama’s former national security advisor, Susan Rice, call Zhao a “racist disgrace” and “shockingly ignorant”. It appears, however that it is Zhao’s anti-American rhetoric and willingness to defend the Chinese Government that has earned him this promotion. It also seems that more and more diplomats are adopting Zhao’s anti-U.S. and inflammatory approach, with the change in strategy symbolic of China’s recent pivot towards aggressive diplomacy.

The shift towards a more aggressive anti-West rhetoric is in response to growing criticism of the Chinese Communist Party’s handling of the protests in Hong Kong and continued atrocities in Xinjiang. In early December, the Italian Parliament passed a resolution requesting the European Union to investigate the use of police force on Hong Kong protestors. This follows President Trump’s decision to sign into law legislation backing Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protestors and threatening sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for human rights abuse in Hong Kong.

Foreign governments must be wary of the consequences of provoking Beijing. Thanks to Zhao, Chinese diplomats have come to realise the power social media has in slandering China-critics and combating negative narratives about Beijing. However, should Western nations continue to push back against the Chinese Communist Party, it might not be long until this confrontational and inflammatory approach shifts away from the platform of social media and into real world diplomacy.

Two days out from the British general election and it seems as though the Conservatives will have their victory. Current polls out Boris Johnson six points ahead of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. And yet, as the past few years have shown with the Brexit referendum and Trump’s win in the Presidential election, pollsters have repeatedly missed the mark. Thus, a Conservative majority, while seeming most likely at this stage, is far from guaranteed.

The major parties in this election (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats) have vastly differing manifestos and proposals for Brexit, and the general consensus is that all the parties have become more radical in their aims since the 2017 general election, with the Labour and Conservative Parties diverging from their typically centrist policies.

Corbyn’s policies are widely cited as a throwback to the failed economic policies of the 20th century, with a promises to “rewrite the rules of economy”. Amongst these revolutionary proposals are the nationalisation of rail, water, electricity and mail, enforced transfers of 10% of shares in every big company to workers, and significantly higher taxes for the rich. There is understandable fear emanating from business and land owners, whilst supporters champion its fairness and promises of redistribution of after almost a decade of Conservative government. However, domestic economic policies aside, the prospect of Corbyn as Prime Minister, as an individual critical of NATO’s support of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, who disavows free trade and continues to praise Chavez Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, is one met with considerable apprehension from the other western democracies.

Unfortunately, the alternative prospect of Boris Johnson’s Conservative party forming government is only marginally more hopeful. While the Conservative manifesto is decidedly ‘beige’ in character and certainly does not promise the economic overthrow of Labour’s manifesto, the hard Brexit that will likely ensue under Johnson does not promise a favourable economic future for Britain either. Under Johnson, the Conservatives have shifted from a party of liberal economics and ideas, to a culturally Conservative party that hopes to scoop up the remnants of UKIP’s voting base and the traditionally Labour held seats in the North of England, where the peddling of pro-Brexit rhetoric resonates. Even more troubling is Johnson’s mantra to “Get Brexit done” and formally leave the EU by the end of the transition period in December 2020, which leaves scarcely a year to negotiate Britain’s future trade relationship with the EU, if Britain does indeed withdraw from the EU by the January 31st 2020 deadline. Should Johnson refuse to extend the transition period to allow more time to negotiate, a no-deal Brexit may rear its ugly head again in a year’s time. Moreover, with dissidents purged, the Conservative party is increasingly dominated and at the mercy of the pro-Brexit European Research Group. If the Conservatives were to gain just a small majority, Johnson may be beholden to this hard Brexit faction just as there is a need from temperate  and moderate sentiments with regard to the future UK-EU relationship.

The Liberal Democrats led by Jo Swinson, aside from a fairly radical promise to overturn the democratic Brexit result and ‘stop Brexit’, hold the centre of British politics. The Liberal Democrat manifesto, which along with a pledge to stop Brexit, include taxes on frequent flyers, moderate spending on education, the NHS and social care from higher corporation taxes and a one penny increase on income tax, represents the most moderate and perhaps most realistic policies of all the parties in the election. While the Liberal Democrats will not secure anything near the majority required to form government, let alone stop Brexit (which in this writer’s opinion would be problematic in a myriad of ways), the party may yet provide a critical function to British politics. Should there be a hung parliament, the formation of a coalition, or a less formal ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement, that includes the Liberal Democrats may be able to temper whichever leader comes to power, whether it be the far left policies of Labour, or the far right of the Conservatives. With a government that is at least partially beholden to centrist, moderate views, the radicalism of Corbyn and Johnson may be somewhat curbed.

In an election that promises almost no good outcomes, perhaps the most hopeful prospect would be a scenario that includes a pact, formal or informal, with the Liberal Democrats. If this were to occur in an alliance with the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats as the sole pro-Remain party would not be able to stop Brexit wholly, but they may be able to temper the hard Brexit fantasies of the ERG in the Conservative party and bolster the cause for a close UK-EU partnership on the basis of a deep and encompassing trade deal. Such an outcome represents the best (albeit out of a bad bunch) of Brexit scenarios, and may just pave the way for a return to the centrist, mainstream politics that have been on a hiatus in Britain for the past few years.