Young Diplomats

Who are the Most High-Tech countries in the world? This is a question that is indeed very interesting. Let’s have a look at it. Here is our top 10.

6/ Canada

Canada has a highly developed technology sector. The Government of Canada strongly encourages sciences and research. The nation specializes in peaceful technologies such as biotechnoloy.  Canada created the wireless interact machines, chip less credit and debit cards and the advanced supersonic twin-engined, Avro Arrow.

5/ United Kingdom

The United Kingdom was the World first modern industrial Nation. British Scientists permitted the discovery of hydrogen. Jet engine, locomotive engine, World Wide Web, electric motor, incandescent light bulb and commercial electrical telegraph were all invented  in the British Territory. Recently the United Kingdom specialized in military technologies include the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle, BAE Systems Taranis. These technologies produced spectacular results on the battlefield in Iraq.

4/ Russia

The Russians launched the first expeditions to the moon and were the first to explore Space. Apart from space technology in which it used to be the main leader before the Americans took the lead, Russia is an heavy producer and inventor of weapons technology and defense systems.  It has one of the best high-tech defense system. It exports defense equipment to many nations in the world. Russia’s S300, S400, S500 and ICBM long range surface-to-air missile systems are very efficient than any other in the world. Recently Russia’s deployed it’s S300 in the Middle East in Syria and was able to deter the most powerful Air Force of the Region , Israel. 

3/ Germany

Germany has since centuries been a highly high-tech nation. It is famous for its results in the field of engineering. German research scientists have contributed in fields like space travel and biotechnology. R&D efforts are an integral part of the German economy. Germany’s automotive technology is outstanding with big brands like Mercedes-Benz, Audi, BMW, Volkswagen and Porsche. Germany also took the lead recently in terms of Defense Industry by producing the Dolphin submarines sold to Israel.

2/ Israel

Around 35 percent of Israel’s exports are technology-related. Israel is one among the top five in space science. It is also known for its innovations in the defense industry such as Iron Dome. Israel developed the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with real-time surveillance. This amazing nation is among the few nations in the world that have modern electric car infrastructure. You will find a well-maintained network of recharging stations all over Israel. Its main achievement remaining without a doubt the legendary “Iron Dome”that blocked all missiles attacks from Gaza during the 2014′ conflict.

1/Japan

Japan is well-known for its scientific research. Research scientists of Japan have made immense contributions in various fields like automobiles, electronics, machinery, earthquake engineering, optics, industrial robotics, metals and semi-conductors.  Japanese researchers have won many Nobel Prizes. Japan’s particularity lay down in the fact that they achieved results in every fields : from bio-technology to robotics.

Are populist social media pages virtual propaganda parades ?

There are thousands of people there. In the big public space. Maybe a stadium. The soldiers all neat and in well ironed uniforms are standing in perfect order in the middle of the big public space. They are surrounded by a big crowd. Some of them are holding little flags and others are greeting with a significant gesture holding their right hand up in front of them. The look in their eyes is full of joy. But that joy isn’t their own. Someone else told them REPEATEDLY how beautiful and great is their leader. The one who would liberate them from all the threats. So, they celebrate. How? Why? What? It’s not important. The victory is glorious. It’s all that matters.

Twenty years later. Same place. Big sports event. Thousands of people are celebrating again. Beating the awful enemy. Twenty years ago. Dozens of athletes are showing their strength. In a big parade. They are also surrounded by the overjoyed crowd. And there is a VIP section, too. Reserved for those who at least participated in the glorious fight against the enemy. The crowd is happy. There is no single serious face. Or sad. These people are suspicious. Because they don’t believe they are happy. That they are living in a happy society. How could they not believe that? When there was happiness all around them. REPEATING over and over in different types of communication.

Do you see the connection between these two cases? It’s all repetitive. Repeating was and is a very powerful way to create something new. It was one of the key tools of propaganda of past regimes. But this article speaks about today’s propaganda. So, in order to answer the question from the title, it is important to highlight the most important characteristics of populist social media pages today. First of all, they usually have many followers or members. Just as described in the beginning of this article, all of them are united under one idea and they have strong feelings for that idea.

The same like in extreme left and right-leaning regimes, but instead of public spaces, these people are gathered virtually. The communication flow during past regimes was aggressive. The leader would usually hold fierce speeches. Today they have attention-grabbing headlines, articles, videos, and other similar things.  The actors are different individuals and groups who hold the one, unique idea. So, very often, the term digital authoritarianism is mentioned in different sources. The crowd from the beginning of the story meant unity. Every single individual felt like he or she was part of something bigger, a big family, so it was normal to do what everyone else was doing. Today, people will like or follow something because their friends and family are doing the same. The reception of the political messages is based on faith, not reason and critical thinking.

It’s interesting also to examine the conflict between opposite extreme groups. Using public shaming and similar tactics, the political actors of past regimes fought their enemies. Today, it’s very common that one group spreads disinformation about the other evoking gossip, manipulation, hatred and other feelings in people turning them against their target.

So, it can be said that populist pages on social media are definitely the space for propaganda, but they can’t be completely compared to those big propaganda rallies so famous during past regimes. These spaces didn’t have so many possibilities like today’s social media. The leader would send his message using certain tactics. Followers were more passive than active. Today, things are reversed. Followers receive the message, but they are able immediately to make it more powerful by sharing and retweeting it. So, everyone becomes a leader in their own small virtual space.

Cold war dawned a new era of conflicts and crises. The danger of crises was looming during whole period owing to the bifurcation of the world in Soviet led East and the USA led West. Ideological incompatibility, as well as, fierce struggle for influence augmented the chances of conflict. However, the crises were managed through a direct contact between the helmsmen of superpowers, Confidence Building Measures in the forms of arms control treaties and agreements. As the challenges were conducted under the shadow of nuclear weapons, any miscalculation could have led to nuclear Armageddon.

Firstly, Since the inception of cold war, atomic explosions by the United States of America (USA) in 1945 crises for both countries emerged, more precisely for USSR. An asymmetry was created in the security arena which posed threat to USSR and its satellite states. In the meantime, attempts were made by both countries through Baruch Plan and Grymko Plan to address the menace of nuclear weapons but all turned in to fiasco. The security threat was supplanted by the nuclear explosions by Soviet Union in 1949. Similarly, the nuclear technology spread to other nations also and ignited its own problems of nuclear proliferation which were addressed through non- proliferation regime.

Secondly, the primary challenge was presence of USA in different regions of the world and establishment of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)- a security pact of US led capitalist camp. At the same time- for the unease of USSR- new alliance were being forged all over the world by the USA for the containment of USSR. A string of alliances was forged with newly emancipated colonies. Japan Security Treaty in 1951, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954 and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in 1955 were signed to contain USSR influence in US transcontinental friendly countries. USA stationed its forces in Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. As a consequence of this geopolitics, USSR also singed a security pact with its satellite states in the form of WARSAW Pact in 1955. In a meanwhile, both superpower did not restrain from poking their nose in the affairs of aligned countries. Soviet Union cemented relations with Pakistan in 1960s. In Middle East it enjoyed cordial relation with Egypt and Iraq. Even though, arms deal was signed between Egypt and Czechoslovakia- it was satellite state of USSR. So, in the arena of geopolitics both states continued their struggle to align and re-align with the countries.

Thirdly, there were abortive attempts by state actors and interstate actors to turn the bi-polar conflict of cold war into three poles. These attempts were made by through state actors; France, China and Iran and one non-state actor; Non-Alignment movement. These factors caused irritation for both superpowers. France was ally of the USA, however, it was at odds with the US presidents. Even it disagreed with the security plan of the USA by developing its own nuclear weapon and withdrawing from NATO. It called back its army from NATO’s Atlantic and Pacific fleet. Same as the case with Iran after revolution. Before revolution, Reza Shah Pehlavi was most trusted ally of the USA. Even the USA aligned its interests with the interests of Iran. Shah of Iran was reinstated in Iran after a CIA cooked coup d’état in 1953 against Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammad Mossadque. Nevertheless, Ayotullah Ali Khomeini- supreme religious scholar of Iran- disparaged both superpowers. In the same vein, China had its own bones to pick with Soviet Union and the USA. The century of humiliation did not end for China in 1949. It clashed with the USA from 1950 to 1953. Later, it had border clashes with USSR in 1969. Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) was a failed attempt to prop up a new bloc of non-aligned states against both powers. The countries which were not aligned with any bloc, they aligned with each other. The leaders of China, India, Egypt and Indonesia were spearheading this bloc. These reactionary states and interstate actor was a major problem for the hegemony of duo superpowers.

Lastly, the Cuban Missile Crises in 1962 triggered a fierce debate during cold war about the nuclear proliferation and its fatalistic consequences. It also led to détente for the very short period of time. The Cuban missile crises was a direct contact between two nuclear armed super powers. This crisis raised the eyebrows of the leaders of whole world as both states were on the brink of nuclear war. But the diplomacy of Kennedy and deliberation of both states leaders the crises were averted. Moreover, this crisis also generated the debate about nuclear proliferation and arms race. The both superpowers realized that they were embroiled in a deadly business of nuclear arms race. The duo realized that nuclear war was Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Initial step was taken by signing of, “Hotline Agreement” in 1963 through which both states created direct contact between Kremlin and Pentagon. In the non-proliferation regime a milestone achievement was Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. It restricted the unimpeded proliferation of nuclear technology which had its own dangers.  It opened new way for the other arms control treaties: PTBT (1963), CTBT (1964), SALT-I (1972), SALT-II (1979), INF (1987). Additionally, the confidence building measures ushered a new era of Détente; easing of relations. The era resulted in various summits between the leaders and treaties. In 1975, the conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe produced wide range of agreements on economic, political and human rights issues.

Conflict and its management is an art of statesmanship, political acumen and diplomacy. During cold war both states faced severe crises in the shape of security threats, nuclear confrontation, encirclement and rise of third bloc. However, both states were keen to stay aloof from any kind of hostilities which could be reason of annihilation. Nuclear threats were countered by acquirement of nukes by both powers but it caused dilemma of proliferation. The third bloc was another stumbling block for crises management as the countries which tried to emerge as stake holder of the conflict were regional powers, ideologically vibrant and had wounded pride of past. The crises were managed through military alignments, direct contacts between both states, treaties and agreements.

Last October, Ecuadorian President LenÍn Moreno had a first-hand experience of the social trouble resulting from change in energy policies. To respect the IMF’s structural adjustment plan in order to obtain another loan, Moreno decided to scrap the country’s fuel energy subsidies, which amounted to nearly $1.5 billion per year. Eleven days of violent protest later, the measure was put aside to prevent further anger over the resulting 30% increase in the price of fuel. The Ecuadorian upheaval is a sign of a dependence on fossil fuels as much as of the inability to incrementally transition towards a green economy.

 

It has not been the only setback in this regard in recent years. For example, the OECD and International Energy Agency have been trying to provide data on the global trend for different forms of fossil fuel. After a relative decline between 2012 and 2016, 2017 saw the curve getting steeper, with pre-tax oil subsidies greatly contributing to the increase. Even more dramatically, there is little progress in taxing the greenhouse gas emissions that the subsidised production emits, making the Paris Agreement commitments a faint hope. Overall, one has the feeling that the green economy is a political chimera appearing all of a sudden in the public discourse, whose development is all but carefully planned.

Excessive reliance

Fossil fuel subsidies are meant to incentivise domestic energy sources and lower production costs for the fossil fuel industry. Direct subsidies and indirect tax benefits are the most common way to implement that. In countries like the United States, master limited partnerships have even been created to justify tax exemptions for companies operating in the energy sector. In 2015 alone, the US spent 649 billion dollars in subsidies, despite a decreasing cost-effectiveness and the reduced price of renewable energy production.

 

Similarly, the European Commission invested 55 billion euros in subsidies between 2014 and 2016, which clearly contradicts the optimist ambition used in answers to parliamentary questions on this matter. Making things worse is the decision to introduce new subsidies by five EU countries – UK, Poland, Germany, Greece, and Slovenia -, which has been denounced by European NGOs last September.

 

An important issue lies at the core of the current discussion, and it is the incoherence of the rationale backing it up. In fact, it seems that the pro-poor argument to defend subsidies is falling apart as the first signs of the climate catastrophe become visible. For decades, subsidisation was seen as a way to provide energy to low-income households, in what development experts have defined as “supply reliability”. However, the system in place favours energy whose production is inherently damaging to the environment, and which will further a degradation process which overwhelmingly affects the poorest areas in the world.

Sustained funding 

1.3 billion people in developing countries have no access to electricity, let alone to renewable energy, which is in itself a symptom of a failed rhetoric on adaptation and mitigation. Even more so is the fact that 60% of public aid for energy projects, which is sent from developed countries to developing countries, is invested in fossil fuels. The Ecuador shock proves a valid point: subsidies increase dependence, by ensuring that one, and only one source of energy is sheltered from competition. When those resources are fully depleted, it is difficult to imagine the extent of the upcoming crisis on the social classes who have the least income to purchase other options for themselves.

 

It is even more difficult to justify subsidies among developed countries, when the evidence shows their negative impact on the COP21 objectives. Carbon pricing schemes, of which Canada is a big promoter, have so far managed to cover up for 11% of worldwide emissions. And yet, consumption fossil fuel subsidies cover 13% of total emissions. In the Canadian case in 2015, they amounted to 3.3 billion Canadian dollars annually. Environmental costs remain a contentious object of calculation, in comparison to reducing the costs of supplying some form of energy. Considering that post-tax subsidies have been steadily on the rise, according to IMF statistics, shows the unwillingness to plan out a long-term resolution – let alone at a critical juncture for the climate crisis.

 

The science is out there to support the swap, with studies showing that giving up on subsidies would trigger a 25% reduction in the emission targets agreed during COP21. The politics are not there yet. If Ecuador seems distant, the Yellow Vest movement in France suggests that welfare measures and compensations should be in place before this urgent move is carried out for the sake of the planet. Paradoxically, 10% of current subsidy cash could fund the transition we need so desperately. It is a matter of promoting change as a gradual, essential trend that benefits every single person in some way. Unless we put people at its centre, including through social subsidies, there is no way that will be a smooth ride.

N’Djamena–Young Diplomats held an event in Chad celebrating the International Day for Tolerance to raise awareness of the value of tolerance on Saturday; November 16th. A delegation of students from Assafwa «Elite» Junior high school and many distinguished friends of Young Diplomats from educational, cultural and artistic sectors in Chad attended this special event. 

The International Day of Tolerance was designated by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996. It has since been celebrated annually on November 16 by those who strive to unite the world through mutual understanding and respect. 

The day traces back to UNESCO’s Declaration of Principles on Tolerance to increase toleration in the world and the celebration of the United Nations Year for Tolerance in 1995. After the year of tolerance, the UN General Assembly universally agreed to celebrate November 16th as the worldwide day to raise public awareness over the dangers of intolerance. 

 

 

The event showcased a variety of cultural activities celebrating the International Day for Tolerance. It began with a short speech by Young Diplomats’ Africa regional director; Mr. Idriss Zackaria. It also included several activities, such as introducing students to the word “tolerance, acceptance of difference and peaceful coexistence” in a variety of languages. 

Zackaria argued that Intolerance is a serious threat to societal cohesiveness, peace and democracy, as well as an obstacle to sustainable development.  

Chadian students presented artistic performances, such as opera, as a gift to Young Diplomats team. Those performances aimed to introduce Chadian culture to other countries and cultures. 

”Tolerance refers to the recognition and acceptance of looks, opinions, beliefs and practices that differ from one’s own. Hence, the International Day of Tolerance seeks to promote tolerance, respect, appreciation and cooperation amongst the world’s different cultures.” Zackaria said 

Djouma Abdelrahim, one of the school teachers said that education is the best way to promote tolerance. This is because ignorance, racism and hate are most often learnt already at an early age of our lives. Noting that ”our work for promoting tolerance would not be possible without your support, thank you Young Diplomats!” Abdelrahim stressed.  

Young Diplomats is committed to celebrate all the international days that recognized by the United Nations to mark important aspects of human life and history. We are also committed to strengthening tolerance by fostering mutual understanding among cultures and peoples, and it is more important than ever in this era of rising and violent extremism and widening conflicts that are characterized by a fundamental disregard for human life. 

 

Understanding Feminism in Pakistan

“There are two powers in the world; one is the sword and the other is the pen. There is a great competition and rivalry between the two. There is a third power stronger than both, that of the women.”

(Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah)

In Pakistan, feminists have been struggling for decades in order to achieve their civil rights and freedoms of expression. Particularly after 9/11, Islam has remained a centre of debate in the world media, resulting in the emergence of countless false presumptions regarding the religion, with “victimization of the Muslim women” being one of the most popular one. Hence, due to repeated emphasis by the West on women rights or the need for feminist movements in Pakistan, the conservatives in Pakistan began to see feminism as the “construct” of the West which should stay away from the Islamic culture at any cost.

But what does feminism actually mean? Dr Khalid Manzoor Butt and Jaweria Shahid pronounced it in their 2012 study, entitled “Position of Pakistani Women in the 21st Century” as “Feminists are those who dare to break the conspiracy of silence about oppression, unequal relationships between men and women and who want to change it,” they write. “All feminist pursuits are aimed at social movement acquiring rights for women from society.” However, considering this, it seems that feminism in Pakistan seems to be a delusion. Ever since the inception of Pakistan in 1947, women have been facing exploitative and manipulative treatment at the hands of their male counterparts, for example, the prevalence of the ideas of male dominance by rape, vani, honor killings, forced marriages, child marriages, male heir, acid attacks, and watta-satta, among many others.

Broadly speaking, we can classify feminism in Pakistan into two categories: Modern or Islamic Feminism and Secular Feminism. Islamic feminism is the branch mostly accepted by middle strata of the society which refers to the religion in their search for answers. Famous Islamic feminists are Amina Wadud, Riffat Hassan and Asma Barlas. While, secular feminism is a branch that emphasizes basic individual rights regardless of any religious associations. On this basis, secular feminists like Fouzia Saeed and Shehnaz Rouse are often labeled as the protagonists of the Western culture.

However, what needs to be realized by the masses in Pakistan is that feminism is neither an entirely novel concept, nor it is incongruous with Islam. In fact, Islam was the first religion to ever grant a respectable status to women at the time when the fate of the newborn girls was to get buried alive. There are countless quotes from Quran, Ahadith, and Islamic scholars promoting women rights including that of marriage, divorce, education, and inheritance. The question that arises over here is why the people who uses the religion card to constrain women within the four walls of the house, does not see the prominence and respect given to women by the same religion? Why there still exists such huge conundrum among the Muslims in accepting whatever advocates their interests and avoiding whatever negates them? Why do they believe that education is not necessary for women but still find a female doctor for the women in their families? There seems to exist hypocrisy in our society concerning our women at all levels.

Historically, women have always been standing up for their rights, for instance, Fatima Jinnah played a crucial role in awakening women rights, after and even before Pakistan became independent. Soon after independence in 1947, Begum Ra’ana Liaquat Ali Khan established the All Pakistan Women’s Association (APWA) to raise the standard of women in all domains. Since then, women have been promulgating for the assurance of their rights, but the actual wave of feminism had started in the era of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1980, particularly in strong opposition to his controversial enactment of the Hudood Ordinance penal code; the crux of which was to present four eye-witnesses if the women want their claims of being raped acceptable. In its response, a new organization named Women’s Action Forum (WAF) was established in 1981, to advocate for the women who don’t have enough means to do it for themselves. The WAF hugely contributed to many women-friendly bills, for instance, Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Status of Women Bill, Protection of Women Act, the Criminal Acid Act, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill, and even regulations to prevent honor killings, and other obstacles faced by them.

Feminism is not the rule of women over men or the movement to overpower men. It is rather the call for gender equality and self determination. However, looking at the other side of the story, it can be said that the way it is being perceived in Pakistan, recently, is quite extreme which is in fact hurting its real cause and credibility rather than helping it. For example, the 2019 “Aurat March”, while being the most exciting event for the feminist was also a very controversial one, owing to some of the slogans used in the march e.g. “Mera Jisam Meri Marzi (My Body My Choice)”. Even the women had showed criticism over some of its points or agendas, such as Television host Madiha Masood said that, “I will not encourage my daughter to depict inappropriate hand gestures, hold a cigarette in her fingers and say, ´My time has come´. I´m very sorry, I wouldn´t want such a daughter.”

And by looking closely, one would know that this is the voice that represents majority of the women in Pakistan. Most women do not want the right to wear shorts or top crops on the streets rather they want their right of education, equal job opportunities as men, right to marry who and whenever they want, and a right to live freely without others ogling at them all the time. Lately, feminism is being abused by the people as much as they want, for example, the #MeToo – a movement that was started in order to highlight or strengthen the women who have been struggling with harassment – is being largely abused by women themselves to achieve their own agendas. Such things hold disastrous consequences for the women who have actually been a victim of such cruelties. Therefore, what should be done by the contemporary feminists is to realize that they should never go to such an extent as to squander the decades-long real and hard struggles of the Pakistani women.

If we take a glimpse on the West, where most of the people take their inspirations from, the Western hashtags like “free bleeding”, “free the nipples” etc. should not be a set standard for the feminist movements in Pakistan. Indeed, feminism and women empowerment in Pakistan should be defined by personalities such as Samina Baig, Marium Mukhtar, Syeda Ghulam Fatima, Minahil Sohail, Rukhsana Parveen, Sofia Javed, Zenith Irfan, Muniba Mazari, Abida Parveen, and countless other women. These women showed the real spirit of feminism by holding a mirror up to a patriarchal society. They proved that women too can hoist the flag of the nation proudly and they too can be the voice of the nation.

It is about time that gender equality and women empowerment be given importance and strength in Pakistan. The typical thinking that if a woman shows a little bit of skin; she becomes a slut or a victim of moral abuse, whereas, if a man has several girlfriends; he would be considered a stud or a man of great prowess, has to be eliminated, along with the misconception by the feminists that feminism is about the “supremacy” of women and not the “equality” of women. Therefore, there is a need to find a common ground between the two instead of constantly pushing and pulling each other, or in other words, constantly playing a tug of war, because the Pakistani society immensely needs this common ground as we can never succeed if half of us are held back. Moreover, there is also a need to initiate inclusive efforts in order to address the gender-related issues publicly, so that its discussion does not remain a taboo anymore. Hence, this should be the time to break the stereotypes by building an environment where both men and women feel free to be sensitive, and both men and women feel free to be strong.

Tensions between major and regional powers have facilitated the increased military use of satellites in outer-space. Growing advancements in satellite and anti-satellite (ASAT) technology have given governments greater tactical and strategic control during warfare, enabling greater communication speeds and sharper imaging. Improvements in kinetic and non-kinetic ASAT weapon capabilities have increased the effectiveness of advanced GPS and communication jamming techniques, threatening military and commercial satellites.

Unprecedented economic growth in China over the last 20 years has allowed it to modernise its military capabilities and advance its space interests. In 2013, China announced the successful development of an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile with the ability to attack intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance satellites positioned 35,000km above Earth’s equator. In 2015, Beijing established the PLA Rocket Force, a branch of the armed forces responsible for satellite management and space warfare capabilities. While in 2018 Russia announced it had developed a new laser ASAT weapon system with the ability to cause permanent damage to orbiting satellites.

The United States is wary of the growing space capabilities of its adversaries and the shrinking American space advantage. The Trump Administration has established ‘Space Force’, a sixth military branch intended to strengthen the protection of America’s space interests and enhance American space operations. However, questions remain over the funding and resource capabilities of Space Force and how its commitments will differ to that of the U.S. Air Forces, America’s current space warfare service branch.

Space militarisation is not only reserved for major powers. India, Iran and North Korea have continued to invest heavily in satellite and space exploration endeavours in the hopes of increasing their influence and stability within their respective regions. India-Pakistan relations are perpetually strained due to continued cross-border terrorist attacks and the ongoing crisis in Kashmir. India has focused heavily on modernising its defence capabilities, including acquiring satellites to improve its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP) and further developing its ASAT capabilities. By contrast, Pakistan’s economic weaknesses has left it strategically vulnerable as India furthers its strategic and technological edge over its regional adversary.

Satellite photographs of launch sites in North Korea and Iran indicate both countries are hoping to further develop their own ASAT missile capabilities. Pyongyang and Tehran are concerned about potential U.S. interference and have successfully developed hacking and jamming techniques to bolster their defences. States in the Middle East and East Asia have called for the U.S. to play a greater role in improving regional stability, aggravating Iran and North Korea’s fear of American involvement, and further influencing the militarisation of their space assets.

As more satellites are deployed for military use, outer space becomes less of shared domain equally owned by all of humanity and more of a state-owned military asset, with possible impacts to global day-to-day civilian life. Damage to key commercial use satellites would impact GPS and communication signals used by the public with huge potential effects on global finance sectors. Even more detrimental would be the effects on climate change responses and public health. Space technology is vital for use in analysing climate change and crises management. Measurements gathered from satellite information are essential in food and water security, resource management and food aid, and transportation, especially in developing countries. Damage done by ASAT’s on military satellites may also impact the capabilities of commercial use satellites as they become targets for attacks, or if they are damaged indirectly by debris and misfire.

United Nation space laws and principles have done little to quell military satellite proliferation in outer-space. The international community must ensure activities carried out in space are for the benefit of all mankind and emphasise international cooperation. Nations will have to be content with settling their disputes without exploiting the vast openness of outer-space.

Introduction

The Heartland theory is a geopolitical concept which analyzes the political and economic success of the world’s regions by geography. The theory was hypothesized by 20th-century British geopolitical scholar, Halford Mackinder in his paper to the Royal Geographical Association entitled, “The Geographical Pivot of History” in 1904.

According to the theory, the core of global influence lies in what is known as the Heartland, a region of the world situated in Eurasia due to its sheer size, a wealth of resources, and a high population. Mackinder stated that the nation in control of the Heartland had the potential to “command the world” but also highlighted the great natural barriers which surrounded the Heartland. The theory had great political ramifications, and some historians believe that the theory was the inspiration behind Germany’s invasion of Russia during the Second World War.

Who is Mackinder ? 

Halford Mackinder was a 20th-century geopolitical scholar who is attributed for writing the Heartland Theory. Halford Mackinder was born on February 15th, 1861 in Gainsborough, England and received his education at the Epsom College and later at Christ Church in Oxford, where he received his biology degree in 1883. Mackinder had a liking for Geography and was a proponent of having physical geography and human geography taught as one subject.

Mackinder was a founding member of the Geographical Association and served as the association’s chairperson between 1913 and 1946. In 1904, Halford Mackinder presented a paper to the Royal Geographical Society which was titled “The Geographical Pivot of History” and in it he introduced the Heartland Theory and explained it in depth. Mackinder died on March 6th, 1947, aged 86 years. The scholar left a lasting legacy as he introduced geopolitics to the world and is commonly labeled as the “father of geopolitics.”

The world Regions

In the “Geographical Pivot of History,” Halford Mackinder stated that world’s terrestrial surface was segmented into three basic geographical regions which are the outlying islands, the offshore islands, and the World-island. Halford relied on the interlinking of continents to come up with the dichotomy whereby interlinked continents were classified in a common region. According to Mackinder, the World-Island was made up of Europe, Asia, and Africa.

World-Island was the largest of the three regions, accounting for two-thirds of the earth’s terrestrial surface and home to about 87.5% of the world’s population. World-Island was also the richest of the three world regions in resources. The islands of Japan and the British Isles were categorized under the offshore islands. The outlying islands were made up of the Americas as well as Australia. Halford stated that the Heartland was made up of the territory originally occupied by the Russian Empire and by the Soviet Union soon after that (except for the Kamchatka Peninsula). 

Significance of Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe is of critical importance in the Heartland Theory. In the “Geographical Pivot of History,” Mackinder stated that “who rules East Europe commands the Heartland.” While the Heartland has as much as 50% of the resources in the world, the region is largely under-developed, and its residents live in relatively poor conditions. Countries of Eastern Europe enjoy proximity to the Heartland and therefore are in literally the best position to take advantage of its resources.

However, the Heartland has been under Russian authority for hundreds of years and so to capture the Heartland, countries needed to prevent the expansion of Russian influence in the Heartland at the very least. Mackinder believed that countries from other world regions (the offshore islands and the outlying islands) were hindered from making a successful invasion in the Heartland by the geographical barriers surrounding the Heartland (the Carpathian Mountains to the west, the Hindukush Ranges to the South, and the Altai to the east and the Baltic Sea to the north). Only countries in Eastern Europe were seen as potential candidates of launching a successful invasion in the Heartland.

Criticism

The Heartland Theory is seen by critics as impractical in a modern perspective. During the time of the writing of the Heartland Theory, most of East Europe and Russia did not have an inch of road or railway network, making the belief of conquering the Heartland logistically impossible. However, the Soviet Union would later invest heavily in road and rail transport in the 20th Century, resulting in thousands of miles of rail tracks and roads and therefore rendering Mackinder’s argument as baseless.

Mackinder wrote down the theory in the turn of the 20th century, a period when modern technological advancements were still in their infancy. Mackinder did not consider the effect of modern technology on his theory. For instance, the writer claimed that the existing natural barriers would protect the Heartland from foreign invasion. However, modern warfare features long-range missiles and fighter jets which easily cancel out the “natural barrier.” History has also proven the flaws of the theory. The Mongol Invasions which swept through the Heartland did not have the aforementioned modern weapons but were nonetheless able to conquer vast regions of the “impenetrable” heartland. Mackinder’s map of the world is also seen as inaccurate as it depicts the Arctic Sea to be considerably larger than it is.

Libya’s internationally recognized government and Turkey have signed an agreement on maritime boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea that could complicate Ankara’s disputes over energy exploration with other countries.

Turkey, which announced the accord and a deal on expanded security and military cooperation on Thursday, gave no details of their memorandum of understanding and did not specify where Turkish and Libyan waters meet.

Libya’s neighbor Egypt dismissed the deal as “illegal”, and Greece said any such accord would be geographically absurd because it ignored the presence of the Greek island of Crete between the coasts of Turkey and Libya.

Tensions are already running high between Athens and Ankara because of Turkish drilling in the eastern Mediterranean off the coast of the divided island of Cyprus, and the European Union has prepared sanctions against Turkey in response.

The dispute has left Ankara searching for allies in the region. The new agreements were signed at a meeting on Wednesday between Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and Fayez al-Serraj, the head of the Tripoli-based government which Ankara is backing against a rival military force based in eastern Libya.

“This means protecting Turkey’s rights deriving from international law,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said of the memorandum of understanding on the “delimitation of maritime jurisdictions”.

He said that such accords could be agreed with other countries if differences could be overcome and that Ankara was in favor of “fair sharing” of resources, including off Cyprus.

But Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias said any maritime accord between Libya and Turkey “ignores something that is blatantly obvious, which is that between those two countries there is the large geographical land mass of Crete.

“Consequently such an attempt borders on the absurd.”

Egypt, which has been at odds with Turkey since the Egyptian military overthrew Islamist President Mohamed Mursi in 2013, condemned the deal as “illegal and not binding or affecting the interests and the rights of any third parties”.

The internationally recognized government in Tripoli confirmed the new agreements but gave no details.

The government in eastern Libya, where rival political factions have been based since 2014, said the maritime accord was illegitimate.

The Turkish presidency’s communications director Fahrettin Altun tweeted on Thursday that the agreement will strengthen military ties with the Tripoli-based government.

Libya has been divided since 2014 into rival military and political camps based in the capital Tripoli and the east. Serraj’s government is in conflict with forces led by Khalifa Haftar based in eastern Libya.

Haftar controls most of Libya’s oil fields and facilities but oil revenues are controlled by the central bank in Tripoli.

In June, Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) said they had cut all ties with Turkey and that all Turkish commercial flights or ships trying to access Libya would be treated as hostile.

Diplomats say Ankara has supplied drones and trucks to Serraj, while the LNA received support from the United Arab Emirates and Egypt.

Source

This article was published on Reuters. Here’s the link : 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-libya/turkey-signs-maritime-boundaries-deal-with-libya-amid-exploration-row-idUSKBN1Y213I

Introduction

” The US Share will go down ” 

US defense officials tell CNN that the Trump administration sought to reduce its contribution to about 16%, bringing it in line with Germany’s, which provides 14.8% despite the US having a larger economy.

US and NATO officials told CNN that the other NATO members are expected to make up the shortfall.

Trump has long slammed NATO allies, particularly Germany for not meeting the 2% NATO defense spending target, which only eight of 29 members currently meet. All members pledged to reach the 2% level by 2024 but not all of them currently have plans to do so. Member countries have boosted defense spending considerably in recent years, something Trump has claimed credit for.

NATO officials including the Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have also credited Trump for the rise in spending, with an extra $100 billion spent since 2014 but have also acknowledged the increased threat from Russia following its seizure of Crimea and other factors have helped to prompt the increase.

“All Allies have agreed a new cost sharing formula. Under the new formula, cost shares attributed to most European Allies and Canada will go up, while the US share will come down. This is an important demonstration of Allies’ commitment to the Alliance and to fairer burden-sharing,” a NATO official told CNN.

Helping non-NATO countries ? 

A NATO diplomat told CNN that the new formula was agreed to this week.

One US defense official said that the money saved by the US will help fund other US military and security efforts in Europe, including programs in countries such as non-NATO members Ukraine and Georgia, which are seen as being on the frontline with Russia.

Member countries contribute to these NATO budgets in accordance with an agreed cost-sharing formula based on gross national income.

The civilian budget was set at about $260.5 million for 2019 and is used mainly to fund the NATO headquarters in Belgium and administration costs.

There’s a military budget of $1.56 billion for 2019, which is used to fund some joint operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. That is a fraction of overall spending on defense by member countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $1 trillion in 2019.

There is also a joint budget for the NATO Security Investment Programme, which covers major construction and command and control system investments. The budget for that program is capped at $770 million for 2019.

Source

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/trump-nato-contribution-nato/index.html