Young Diplomats

The Fall of Berlin Wall on November 09, 1989 changed the face of Europe in particular and the world in General. The event has a great political ramification because this event marked the end of the cold war which divided the world (politically and ideologically) between the East and the West. The event is considered to be the beginning of the freedom or liberation of Central and Eastern Europe and former republics of the Soviet Union (USSR). The pivot role in the fall of the wall was played by Mikhail Gorbachev whose policies of “Perestroika” which means restructuring and “Glasnost” which means openness led to the Soviet Union’s disintegration and the collapse of Communism across Europe. 

30 years on, the Fall of the Berlin Wall has changed the Europe extensively. Today, there are 28 member states of EU (Post Brexit 27). Among the EU members, 19 states have Euro as their currency and others are to follow except for Denmark and Sweden. This event played a vital in European Integration. 

According to Professor Dr. Ludger Kuhnhardt, the Director of Center for European Integration Studies (ZEI) at University of Bonn, the formal consent between the four allied powers of the World War II had brought about the rapid German unification which in return expedited the path toward the European Monetary Union (EMU). Moreover, it also enabled the enlargement of the European Union by granting membership to Central and Eastern European states. In 2004, EU membership was granted to ten post-communist countries and two more were granted membership in 2007. However, Croatia became 28th member state of the European Union in 2013. Post-Brexit, EU will have 27 member states. 

European Union website considers the Fall of Berlin Wall as, “major political upheaval”. Moreover, EU website mentions the decade after this event as, “A Europe without Frontiers.” Thus, the event of Fall of Berlin Wall proved to be a major political upheaval which paved the way for a Europe without Frontiers. Neighbouring countries came closer across the Europe as the result of collapse of communism. With four freedoms in 1993, the Single Market was completed with the freedom of movement of people, money, goods and services after the Treaty of Maastricht Treaty (1993). 

The first decade of the twenty-first century was the Second Founding of the European Union (Kuhnhardt, 2010). During this decade, two major developments took place within the EU. Firstly, Euro became the currency for many European countries and many are yet to adopt Euro as their currency. Secondly, the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified which entered into force in 2009. The Treaty of Lisbon provided the EU with more efficient working methods along with modern institutions. 

The second decade of the twenty-first century proved to be a challenging decade. The world was hit with global financial crisis. The issue of climate change became more challenging. The Arab Spring brought havoc across the Middle East and Europe faced a large influx of refugees. In 2016, two major political developments took place with the Brexit referendum in the EU and the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America. The world also saw the rise of nationalism and populism including countries within the EU. 

Meanwhile, for Germany, the Fall of Berlin Wall has helped Germany to become an economic powerhouse of Europe by modernizing its economy and overcoming its internal divisions. Diplomatically, Germany has gained a strong voice not only within the EU but also world politics and the case in point is Germany’s role along with five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the EU in Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as Iran Nuclear Deal. While the UK has decided to leave the EU, Germany along with France is the driving force within the EU. German Power was enhanced by the German reunification and Germany has become a major European Power. 

30 Years on, the impact of Fall of Berlin Wall can still be felt in the world politics in general and specifically in Europe. The event of late 1989 led world to a different direction. It paved the way for the European Integration, caused the collapse of communism and expedited the Soviet Union disintegration. Moreover, it gave rise to the theories of Francis Fukuyama’s, “The End of History” and Samuel P. Huntington’s, “The Clash of Civilization.” However, the event of September 11 and the resultant, “War on Terror” gave birth to new theories, assumptions and stereotypes. Politically, the nationalism and populism are in rise which was hard to predict after the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent disintegration of the Soviet Union. Socially, the xenophobia and Islamophobia have become a threat to the globalisation. Economically, the world might face another recession in coming years. Implications of China’s rise as a superpower might give rise to a new world order which is impending at a rapid pace than expected. 

On October 29, 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted 405 – 11 to recognize the Armenian Genocide of April 24, 1915. This act will have repercussions, in particular for United States – Turkish relations, and for the future position of Armenia, still in a state of war with its Turkish neighbor to the east, Azerbaijan, and engaged in a dispute with Turkey over Mount Ararat. What are those repercussions, though?

 

First, United States – Turkey relations. This comes after relations between the two countries have long been souring for years, due to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s crackdown on Turkish dissidents, the Kurds, and alleged support for jihadists, and this vote is an official recognition of that souring. As well as recognizing the Armenian Genocide and slapping increased sanctions on Turkey, there are also calls to expel Turkey from NATO. 

 

Expelling Turkey from NATO, however, may end up hurting the United States more so than Turkey. The truth of the Turkey, more specifically, the city of Istanbul, is one of the most strategic cities on earth, whether the international community likes it or not. If Russia wants to export it’s natural gas across the Atlantic, Russian ships have to pass through Istanbul. If China wants to revitalize the Silk Road with its One Belt, One Road Initiative, it has to get the support of Istanbul. This is what Erdoğan ultimately meant when he said that “he who controls Istanbul controls the destiny of Turkey” when discussing the mayoral elections, of which he himself was a former mayor of the city of Istanbul. (His party lost the elections, in what was seen as a major setback for Erdoğan.) 

 

The truth of the matter is that the United States and the rest of the International community needs to find and alternative to Turkish dominance in the Eurasian trade. That is a move easier said than done, however. Finding an alternative route has been something that has been attempted throughout the whole of human history, with virtually no luck. No matter what the United States does, Turkey isn’t going anywhere. 

 

It may seem like recognition of the Armenian Genocide marks the final nail in the coffin for United States – Turkish relations, the real test of relations will be what the United States does with Fethullah Gülen, who is undoubtabely an ever bigger leverage against Erdoğan than the memory of the Armenian Genocide. But, what does it mean for United States – Armenia relations? 

 

Well, there is definitely the symbolic warming up of relations between the two countries, however there are still geopolitical barriers, mainly Armenia’s strategic alliance with both Iran and Russia, although the latter is changing. 

 

Aside from relations, what does it mean for the Mount Ararat dispute, and the Nagorno – Karabakh conflict? 

 

First, the Mount Ararat dispute. Mount Ararat, while not strategic, is of great cultural significance to Armenia, despite the mountain being within Turkish borders. Visible from the Armenian capital city of Yerevan, and featured on the Armenian coat of arms, the mountain is believed to be where Noah’s Ark landed, and is thus of great significance to the predominantly Christian nation of Armenia. 

 

Does the recognition of the Armenian Genocide have any impact of the Mount Ararat dispute? Probably not. While there is archeological evidence to suggest that thousands of years ago, a devastating flood swept through the Middle East and wiped out entire civilizations, the origin of the Mount Ararat dispute is religious in nature, and the United States, despite being a nation of strong Judeo-Christian roots, would not want to get involved in a conflict religious in nature. 

 

But where the ultimate impact the recognition of the Armenian Genocide will have on is if this changes United States position of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. 

 

The Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan began in 1988, with full-scale war between the two countries lasting from 1992-1994, and ended in a decisive victory for Armenia. 

 

So far, the United States has been relatively neutral on the Nagorno – Karabakh conflict, although geopolitical rivalries with Iran, gaining a foothold in the Caucasus in order to combat Russian influence, and diversification of oil markets may force the United States to side with Azerbaijan. However, the Armenian Revolution of April 2018 was, in large part, a backlash against Russian influence over the country, as Nikol Pashinyan has been a very strong voice against greater Russian hegemony in Armenia. 

 

The United States can try to use this to bring Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia together into an Anti-Russian bloc. But doing so requires a lasting peace agreement in the Nagorno – Karabakh Conflict. The United States will have to use a series of soft and hard-power, carrot and stick approaches, to bring about this peace agreement. 

 

What would a peace agreement in Nagorno-Karabakh look like? Well, any peace settlement would most likely be based on the Helsinki accords and Madrid principles, which are based on the following protocols: 

 

-Armenian withdrawal from all territories other than Nagorno-Karabakh itself (such as Kalbaijar)

 

-Azerbaijani withdrawal from all territories in Nagorno-Karabakh that are under Azerbaijani control 

 

-Referendum for the people of Nagorno – Karabakh on whether to be independent, autonomous region of Azerbaijan, or a part of Armenia. 

 

-All Armenian and Azerbaijani enclaves and exclaves under military occupation must return to pre-war status

 

-All displaced people shall be allowed to return and all destroyed towns rebuilt. 

 

-Recognition of the Armenian genocide by Azerbaijan 

 

-Recognition of defeat in the war of 1992-1994 by Azerbaijan 

 

-Immediate termination of the destruction of Armenian cultural sites in Nakhchivan province by Azerbaijan. 

 

-Lifting of the Armenian – Turkish border blockade by Armenia

 

The recognition of the Armenian Genocide will, no doubt, have profound repercussions.

World Leaders’ reaction following Trump’s withdrawal from Paris Agreement

Maham B. Khan
After the United States president Donald Trump pulled his country out of the Paris Agreement (a multilateral agreement between 195 states to lower greenhouse gas emissions) on June 1st 2017, the move was met with shock and dismay, with many from scientific and even political sphere criticising the announcement. From the ironic statement given by French president Emmanuel Macron ‘Make our planet great again’ taking a dig at the U.S. president to even what’s seen as traditionally staunch allies of the U.S., who were quick to directly or indirectly oppose Trump’s stance; German chancellor Angela Merkel, in a joint statement along with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni and France’s Macron, reiterated any chance of renegotiating the deal that already took more than a decade to finalise. Even the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) chimed in, calling global warming “one of gravest challenges” facing humanity and accusing the U.S. president of “moral vacuum” for putting own interests before rest of planet.

The Paris Agreement, as part of the wider United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, at its core aims to keep global temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius. It also laid down an outline on how states can combat climate change, with a focus on helping the developing and most at-risk states through a streamlined and localised framework, assisted by financial and technological flows from the developed world.

Even before assuming office, Trump had declared climate change a ‘hoax’, and accused the agreement of looting the U.S. of its funds under the guise of ‘financial help’. Besides backing out from the agreement, even domestically, he took several steps detrimental to fighting climate change. He annulled the Clean Power Plan created by the previous government and had to issue an Executive Order to promote ‘Energy Independence and Economic Growth’. He appointed a famous climate change sceptic Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, and even claimed the Fourth National Climate Assessment, a report issued by his government, something “[he] didn’t believe in.”

However, from even within the United States, swift response in support of fighting climate change immediately followed. From corporations, governors, to deans of universities all came together to fill the vacuum created by the federal government’s inaction. From U.S. corporations such as Adobe, PG&E, and Unilever supporting a full-page statement by Center for Climate and Energy Solutions published in leading periodicals such as The New York Times, to over twelve hundred elected representatives, businessmen and investors, and educationists widely condemn Trump’s withdrawal.

Domestic political alliances such as ‘United States Climate Alliance’, ‘We Are Still In’, ‘US Climate Mayors’ et cetera sprung up. We Are Still In signatories alone boasts as representing almost 155 million people across fifty states and an economy worth $6.2 trillion, only behind the United States and China if they were an actual state. Some of their efforts in helping combat the menace of climate change includes the Metrus Energy, a company that helps lessen energy consumption. In one of its project involving the Wells College, the company helped improve electric efficiency in on-campus residential and academic buildings, reducing consumption by almost 14% and lessening reliance on propane and fuel oil by 28%.

While Trump had accused China and India especially of being more responsible for carbon dioxide emissions and pollution contributing to climate change overall, these very states are doing much more than the required part in addressing the issue.
Although many feared other governments leaving the Paris Agreement following Trump, to surprise of many, almost all world leaders restated their support. China, while regretting and hoping U.S. come on board again, reaffirmed Chinese plans to go forward with the agreement, “fulfil[ing] 100 per cent of its commitments.”
Besides setting a target of using renewable energy more over fossil fuels by 2050, for near future, China launched an emissions trading programme in December 2018, aiming to construct renewable power plants.

India is also playing its part. Of the three conditions within the accord India accepted – reducing greenhouse gases emissions by 35% below 2005 levels, 40% energy requirement met from renewable sources, forest area equivalent to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – as of 2019, India is comfortably achieving two. With regular reports domestically and shared with other signatories, India has achieved 35% of reliance on renewable sources of energy, including nuclear.

Besides the developing world, the European Union is leading the way in real climate change combat, especially Germany. Apart from being the most vocal and swift to condemn Trump’s departure from the agreement, as far back as 1980s, Germany was playing its part. From lowering vehicular carbon emissions to setting goal for 80% renewable energy-reliance by 2050, Germany’s plans are ambitious and it aims to be emissions-free soon.

Where before climate didn’t get much attention or response from the general public or other leaders, we have come a long way since first term of George W. Bush when he cancelled the then-climate agreements, and no one cared enough from general public. Immediately after Trump’s announcement, a poll by the Washington Post found 59% of American public deeming Trump’s move wrong. Times are changing and as the clock ticks, we are running out of precious seconds in fighting a global menace that will affect entire humanity regardless of region.
Instead of viewing a beautiful sunset from behind lush trees, we might one day be staring at a scorching sun from a barren wasteland if actions aren’t taken soon.

For even greatest empires, geography is destiny. Inculcation of geopolitical ambition in foreign policy has played consequential role in augmentation of influence beyond the borders of country. In the same manner, geopolitical ambitions of US foreign policy and its endeavors in this direction were decisive in roll back of communism during cold war.

At the culmination of World War-II, United States of America was only victorious power which had economic vitality, military might and political capability. USA was sole world’s nuclear power, biggest Naval power, held 70% of world’s gold reserves and 35% total world’s GDP.  The internecine world wars eviscerated power of France, Germany and Britain, former great colonial powers. USA was a lone harbinger of capitalism in front of communist giant, Soviet Union. Soviet Union –as result of war- aggrandized to East Germany where it was snapping at the heels of capitalism to fall back.  USA had to forge a policy for the security of Europe from aggression of Soviet Union and circumscribe the proselytizing of communism across the capitalist world. The vanquished powers –Germany, Italy and Japan-, as well as, emaciated albeit, victorious British and France were economically and politically subservient to USA.  Soon after the Russian Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Leon Trotsky said, “In coming five years we will decide our capital in Paris or Belgrade.” Since 1917 the specter of Communism was hunting Europe.

Soviet Union asked its Ambassador in Washington, Nikolai Novikov, to prepare an assessment review about the USA foreign policy for Stalin. Soviet Union was more curious about the ambition and implication of post war US foreign policy. In the startling revelations, the ambassador emphasized that US is more enthusiast to seize the opportunity and ready for world’s supremacy. US supremacy would be sustained and accentuated through naval bases, military presences in different countries and air bases beyond borders of USA. It was a drastic and monumental change in US foreign policy, as it was not ready to roll back into its shell.

American Ambassador, George F. Kenan, sent a telegram to US President, Harry S. Truman, about the expansionist agenda of USSR. He asked the US president to craft a containment policy in order to circumvent spread of menace of communism. US embarked on the road of containment of USSR. New alliances were forged, Marshall Plan was announced to recuperate parlous and devastated economies of Europe. Initially, Germany was bifurcated into East and West parts. West represented the capitalist bloc and East represented the communist bloc. USA provided succor to Nationalist- KMT- in China to expunge communists from the mainland. In Greece from 1946-1949 there was civil war between the Greek Government Army (backed by USA and UK) and Democratic Army of Greece (supported by USSR). The Soviet backed rebels were defeated. However, it insinuated fears about the domino effect of communism to globe. So, American were doing various activates to preserve their dominance in the world. Firstly, Congress sanctioned the establishment and training of 1 million Army which was to be stationed at different countries. Secondly, UK naval structure was coalesced with American Navy. The Navy intended to deploy in Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. Thirdly, USA started supporting the regimes which were demanding emancipation from repressive forces of communism.

Moreover, the Containment policy of USA was a true reflection of geopolitics of its foreign policy. After the second world war both Democrats and Republicans were on the same for active involvement of USA in world affairs. Later, in 1954 John Foster Dallas- Secretary of State under Eisenhower administration- proposed ‘Ring Policy’. It became bedrock of US foreign policy while choosing allies. The main concern was security of Europe. The victory of Marxism-Leninism in Euro-Asia meant 80% control of world population, resources and territory. The foreseeable future, as a result of fall of Euro-Asia, emergence of new world order whose centrality was Soviet Union. This anticipation was a nightmare for USA and its democratic and capitalist world order. USA was more determined to cut the influence to USSR and overthrow it domestic institution. The defense budget of USA was increased manifold. In 1947 US defense budget was 90.95$ billion dollars and in 1990 it was 355$.37 billion dollars. It was about 400% increase.

USA expanded its air bases and military bases across the world. USA was encircling USSR by consolidating world’s sea lanes, strategic choke points and natural resources. The US fleet initially supplemented British navy but later supplanted it: The Sixth Fleet was based at Naples in 1946 for the control of Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea; the Seventh Fleet at Subic Bay, Philippines, in 1947 for the Western Pacific; the Third Fleet was for security of northern and eastern Pacific Ocean and Fifth Fleet for Bay of Bengal. Additionally, layers of encircling military alliances were added. NATO (1949), SEATO (1954), CENTO (1955) and Japan Security Treaty in 1951. USA deployed Jupiter Missiles in Turkey and Italy as a forward striking capability. Pakistan became its strategic ally in 1954 in South Asian region. Iran was its reliable ally which USA considered ‘Policeman of Middle East’. Even though, in 1953 coup against Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq was cooked by US intelligence agencies to secure its ally, Reza Shah Pehlavi. The fall of Batista in Cuba in 1959 was a great setback for US foreign policy. At the distance of few kilometers- Backyard of USA- Socialist government was installed. In order to preclude ripple effect of Cuban Socialist Revolution US become vigilant in Latin America. In the context geopolitical interest dictatorship was more preferable to communist regime.

Furthermore, USA plunged in Korean War, Vietnam War and surreptitiously provided aid and ammunition to Afghan Mujahedins. The Korean War (1950-1953) was struggle between communist North and Capitalist South. The active involvement of USA in the war inflicted heavy human loss on USA. For almost three years USA and Communist China blooded each other. In the same manner, Vietnam was a quagmire for USA. Initially in mid of 1960s USA provided logistic support but later landed its forces. The guerrilla struggle was a huge drainage of its economic resources and manpower. The end of Vietnam War was considered a surrender by USA. In Afghanistan USA avoided its active participation but left no stone unturned in defeat of Soviet Red Army. 6$ billion dollars were spent on the war. At last, USA gave taste of medicine of Vietnam war to Soviet Union in Afghan War. USSR evacuated Afghanistan after humiliating loss at the hands of Afghan Mujahidens who were supported by USA. More precisely, USA played a role of intermediary and facilitator in Arab- Israel conflict, Sino-Indo conflict, Pak-India conflict. The primary concern was not to allow the influence of USSR in any of the state.

In a hindsight, geopolitics of US foreign policy during cold war revolved around containment of USSR. In this hybrid conflict- power and ideology- US successfully created layer of Euro-Asian alliances in order to prevent advance of communist ideology and its influence.

When Berlin wall fall, all the boundaries set in cold war became to vanish, creating wave of what we call today as globalization. Technology has been distributed to all parts in the world. Internet development nowadays plays as a key role in revolution which occurs until now. Our world is progressing and slowly becoming digitalized: all of our activities are happening in the cyber world. Next year, Japan will implement “society 5.0” policy which is so fascinating, merging physical and cyber world to create more inclusive environment for humanity. Along the way, many will follow Japan footsteps, of course with some adaption. In the end, the objective is to integrate virtual and physical in one room, so any activities will be supported by Artificial Intelligence and will see algorithm play the part.

In that case, government, corporate, NGO, and IGO will try to maximizing their effort toward digitalization. Some prominent companies, especially Tech Company has developed further and believes that technology is solution. To make technology as solution, there needs much amount of data to be gathered and utilized. More we think about it, digital society will demand our personal identity. Digital world needs data because without it, they cannot perform well. Tiny example around us is when we want to use LinkedIn or Facebook. Before we connect to the others, we must sign in first. If we don’t have an account, needs to make one. To make one, requires giving some personal biography in order to connect. Of course, maybe some of you will think it as a ‘must’, but in some way, we’ve been forced to give our precious and valuable personal identity.

In today’s life, freeware has scatter through the edge of the world. We can download them like taking water and it’s free: document, report, video, songs, movie, program, application, games. In fact, we can share it to everyone around the world without considering state’s boundaries: by mailing list, telegram, whatsapp, instagram, Facebook. Everyone gain same resource. Knowledge has become some sort of weapon that we have. We live in a flat world where people can share anything with anyone across boundaries, regions; even we forget that we live in different places.

We got huge benefit by harnessing technology and internet potential. But, if we believe that there are not some dangers in technology and internet era, it’s some kind of naivetés. Even in many civilizations, when ones develop into more advance society, there is always darkness lurking into shadow. It is like two side of the same coin: if good side arising, bad side always follows.

What I mean bad side is the emergence of threat. Talking about security and threat, in the past, state is provider of security but at the same time they are threat. It is concentrate on one actor only which is state. In short, when USSR collapsed, some threat emerges but it’s not nation-state anymore because there is no state capable at waging war with USA. It is new threat and until now, threatens our existence.

In international order, there are two emerging threat which threatening human, directly and indirectly: cyber and environment. On this occasion, we will talk about cyber threat. Globalization makes technology and internet spread across the world. It is enhance individual capacity to access knowledge, connects to everyone, online shopping, etc. Unfortunately, it is also spread threat capacity. Threat capacity has been decentralize; it means that in cyber threat, everyone can be a threat or threatened. Technology and internet access bring up new profession and nowadays become so important: profession with computer, network and programming skill. In order to adapt and getting the job, one needs to have exceptional computer, network and programming (CNP) skill. Microsoft, Google, Apple, Alibaba, Tesla have huge number of talent with these three skill. Also, globalization makes anyone have access to knowledge equally.

Capability in cyber has been develop in country like China and Russia. If we talks about state’s military might, US are considered to be strongest capability: Naval, land, air force and also cyber. China and Russia cannot contend US in naval, land, and air force. But, they can compete and catch up in one sector: cyber. Globalized world bring up so many talents with exceptional CNP skill, China and Russia human resources are no exception. They can enhance and train them then use their ability to gain national and strategic interest.

Countries, NGOs, IGOs and even terrorists have people who have the capability to spread threats in cyberspace, even though the difference is which side they take. If individuals are on the side of the state, IGO and NGOs, they will use it to maintain the assets they own, creating security architecture to defend them from attackers. However, if they are on the side of terrorists or other evil actors or somehow have a grudge with government or have hidden motives, the individual will use his ability to hack the assets of the state, companies, and organizations. This is considered a threat.

Huge number of talent can be capitalized and acquire by diverse actor: state, non-governmental organization, IGO, or they are not affiliate with any of these actor. CNP skill can be used in many forms, for example as a web developer, IT-man, computer engineering. With more digitalized world, they need those people. One of the greatest skills that CNP people have is the ability in writing or makes program, application and network firewall: they are master of it. With some training, every country and individual can produce people with CNP genius and make them contribute to the country. But, they can also use their exceptional skill to do something that is unregulated in law. The name is hacker.

Why do we see from the individual side? Individuals have the freedom to choose how this CNP capability is used: for work, develop programs or viruses and create firewall. It is also depend on what they think about the world. They can also create some hacker group and spread threats to internet. What makes threat is closer than we think is because we are consumer of the internet: download, watch video, upload, scroll instagram timeline, writing, shopping, etc. Cyber world is full of vulnerability and furthermore they are the most anarchic world. Hackers can create, embed virus in one program, spread it and your computer will be affected before you know it. Even they can steal our personal data. One word that making cyber threat dangers is that they aim for gaining DATA. Data is most important word in digital world. In the seminar, teaching, work; urge the important of data because we need it. In individual perspective, security of the data is significant because if they had stolen or hacked, there is fear that people whom stole our data will use it for something they don’t want to. In the past two years, there are many occurrences which involve data breaches by hackers.

In 2015, Symantec reported that there are 564 million identities exposed and nine breaches with more than 10 million identities exposed. Total breaches happen in 2015 are 1.211. 1 in 220 emails has contained fake invoice or document. Sector that has high level of breaches is service sector with 260 million identities exposed by 200 breaches. Names, address, birthrate and id number are four of 10 highest type of information exposed. In 2016, total breaches have decreased into 1.209, but more data exposed. 1, 1 billion data exposed, rose almost two times from last year.

Cisco cyber security report 2018 has found that in 2017, 53% of cyber-attack has caused loss more than $500.000 dollar. In a report issued by Verizon regarding data breaches in 2017 found that out of 42,068 incidents in various sector, public administration is the highest with 21,239 incidents. The following data that has been compromised consist of: 41% Personal, 41% Secrets, 14% Credentials, and 9% Medical.

Throughout 2018, there are several in cyber-attacks which affect and targeted corporate. Coincheck, digital currency exchange based in Japan has loss $534 million dollar. Facebook suffered breach privacy which caused 30 million facebook user personal ID and phone numbers are exposed. Marriot hotel has been attack by hackers and stole 500 million of customer personal information.

These threat caused by attackers has created insecurity about safety of our data. They use their CNP skill to attacks and stole money and personal information and it happens every day. We are in constant fear that our data will be loss and stolen. The highest responsibility and also burden lies in corporate and sector which stored huge amount of data. They have responsible to guard and enhance their security architecture to ensure that none of attackers so they can maintain customers trust and loyalty. But, it is difficult because unlike state’s capability, each of individual have same access to knowledge, technology and internet. Furthermore, it is difficult to trace who is the suspect.

The conclusion, digital era created more insecurity and in constant fear wondering if our data is secure or not. Even Facebook and Coincheck which i believe have genius IT expert can be breached by ‘attackers’. Even so, we cannot burden the security of our data to certain parties. We have the responsibility to secure our own data from the threat of data breach. What we need to do is something as simple as changing passwords periodically. Although this solution will not be able to eliminate the threat of cyber-attacks, at least we can minimize the potential for data breaches that will occur later.

The Libyan Conflict that started in February, 2011 over what is claimed to be peaceful protests by the Libyans against the wrongful arrest of the human rights lawyer, Fethi Tarbel, set off a chain reaction that has impacted the entire region, and contributed extensively to the international migrant/refugee crisis. This piece attempts to analyse what really caused this, or was this even legitimate to begin with.
Muammar al-Gaddafi has been accused for many years of violating human rights by mostly the Western-based media, from the shooting down of a plane over Lockerbie to extensive torture by the regime in the maximum security prison, Abu Salim.
Gaddafi took over in a bloodless military coup in 1969, dissatisfied by the weak policies of the King Idris I, seen mostly as a Western puppet, and highly inspired by the Egyptian leader Gomal Abdel Nasser, the pan-Arab nationalist and socialist. Following his ascent to power, he ruled Libya till 2011, when he was killed by a French airstrike on his fleeing convoy.
Libya under him enjoyed great prosperity and benefits. It went from one of the poorest nations in Africa to the richest, with a GDP of $75 billion in 2010, and a per capita income of over $12 250. Libya under him enjoyed free education, health, electricity and interest-free loans; women were paid $5000 on the birth of each child, and the Human Development Index of Libya was highest in Africa, with the oil-rich state being fifty-third most advanced state in world by the UNHDR 2010.
Libyan form of governance under Gaddafi included decentralisation of power, with three main bodies introduced: the Local Committees, Basic People’s Congress, and the Executive Revolutionary Council. The Basic People’s Congress not only had elected representatives, but all common Libyans openly attended, even allowed to individually voice their opinions and concerns directly; there have been instances where Gaddafi’s proposals were rejected by the Congress. For example, he wanted to abolish capital punishment, but since it was rejected by the Congress, the death penalty remained.
Gaddafi is also notorious in having expelled and closed British and American military bases, despite the aid the impoverished state was then receiving in exchange, and also demanded a greater share in the oil production from the oil extracting companies, all of which were Western.
Libya after Gaddafi
Post-Gaddafi, Libya has descended in chaos not unlike Syria, though Syria is still holding on by a single, however-fragile thread. Not so for this war-ravaged country that has spiraled from protests to civil war to becoming a hotbed for terrorists and thriving slave markets.
Major events that immediately followed Gaddafi’s death are briefly touched upon:
i. Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria have closed borders with Libya.
ii. Currently, Libya has two governments in the west (ISIS) and east (anti-Islamist government in Tobruk) of the state, with no functioning army, national police, et cetera.
iii. The northern coast of the state is a hotbed of human trafficking, with people fleeing any way possible.
iv. Refugee crisis: more than six hundred-thousand people are internally displaced, more than five thousand fled to Europe, while, as Barbara Slavin of Al Monitor reported, more than two million refugees are in Tunisia alone. (That accounts for more than twenty per cent of total Libyan populace.)
e. The main city, Sirte, is a breeding ground for terrorists, with ISIS having opened training camps for recruits.
Given the above situation, many have questioned the logic of NATO intervention in the Libyan Conflict, and even the legitimacy of it all.
First let’s sketch the causation of the conflict, with Arab Spring, an international-scale event largely considered by many as the basis of conflict in Libya, too.
Following the ouster of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, and similar protests against the Mubarak regime in Egypt, Western mainstream media claimed this as laying the framework of what would later be called the Arab Spring, a series of states across Middle East and northern Africa rising against their dictators.
Timeline of the Libyan Conflict
February 11th, 2011: protests in the port city of Benghazi, a strategically located city quite close to Europe.
March, 2011: UN Security Council Resolution 1973 implemented over Libya.
June, 2011: International Court of Justice issues warrant for Gaddafi for crimes against humanity.
August, 2011: Tripoli captured by the NATO-backed rebels.
October 20th, 2011: Gaddafi captured after French airstrikes on his convoy; accounts of how he died differ.
In just a period of eight months, a powerful dictator was dethroned by a bunch of rebels poorly equipped, weekly united, and lacking financial capability compared to the estimated wealth of the Gaddafis.
Why was France so persistent in the Security Council of deploying military help when even the US and Germany were hesitant? Was it really the security of the civilians that the ’73 Security Council Resolution was enforced? Why did oil production start immediately after election of new government, when the promised new constitution was still not made, years on – something that is supposed to be of higher importance?
There are multiple explanations for this.
1. Oil
Due to multitude of reasons, from embargos in ‘80s to own policies, oil is still fairly untapped in Libya, with known largest reserves in Africa, estimated at 46.4 billion barrels.
2. Low population:
A country with a low population of only six million is fairly easy to control, should a foreign-backed government be installed. Suppression of any revolt can quickly be curbed as well with such a small population dispersed over vast swaths of land.
3. Geographical location:
Libya is strategically located, a gateway to Africa and Europe. Right above Libya across the Mediterranean Sea is Italy (hence, why Libya was once an Italian colony). Unlike Iraq, it’s far easier to transport oil from the port of Benghazi and even Tripoli to Europe much more quickly, and without much hurdles that come with respect to distance.

4. Gold-based economy for whole Africa:
Gaddafi is infamous for having alarmed Western leaders when, in an annual meeting of the African Union, he proposed the formation of ‘United States of Africa’, and having a single currency for the whole continent, based on the gold Dinar.

In one of the many notorious e-mails leaked by Wikileaks of Hillary Clinton from her illegal private server, an e-mail dated March 27th, 2011 from Sydney Blumenthal – a long-time close adviser of the Clintons – to Hilary Clinton goes:
Under attack from the Allied and Naval Forces. The Libyan Army troops have begun to desert in increasing numbers. The rebels are making an effort to greet these troops as fellow Libyans, in an effort to encourage additional defectors.
…Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting…”
Another e-mail by Blumenthal goes:
Gaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver… This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. The plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French (franc)…
…According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya…
Points to ponder: “…Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured…”
At first the term ‘all foreign mercenaries’ might not induce any alarms, unless one manages to look at the issue closely. As multiple news sites reported, an entire town Tawergha had its thirty thousand dark-skinned inhabitants suddenly vanish till August 2011 – this was after the NATO-backed rebels had seized control of the area. Sub-Saharan Africans were ethnically cleansed in rebel-ruled Libya after the fall of Gaddafi as has been extensively reported and documented. Gaddafi was known to have preferred the darker-skinned Libyans, and even given them higher posts in government, in what was a series of reforms he brought. Arab and ethnic African tensions are critically high throughout the northern Africa.
And, as Anne-Marie Slaughter confessed to The New York Times, far from protecting civilians as the NATO kept claiming, they rather provided a cover to the rebels as they brutalised civilians and Gaddafi loyalists. Amnesty International’s Sep. 2011 report told of how rebels and Gaddafi’s forces alike tortured captives. Seamus Milne of the Guardian records how during the siege of Sirte, haphazard rounds were fired into the city where normal civilians and Gaddafi supporters were enclosed. Even after International Red Cross told about medical supplies running out within the city, NATO-rebel joint attack continued for the next three weeks.
So the claim that the NATO, particularly France, aided rebels for the express purpose of protecting the civilians falls short.
With respect to the constant human rights abuses Gaddafi had been accused of by mostly the mainstream Western media, another e-mail to Hillary Clinton from Blumenthal talks about how an “extremely sensitive source” relayed the fact that British, French and Egyptian special operatives units were training Libyan militants within Libya. By 27th March, 2011, these special ops were supervising the transfer of weaponry to the rebels. (“…a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunitions…”)
Not only alarming here is the training and the arming of the rebels, but the fact that before even the Conflict had begun, the NATO troops were already on Libyan soil.

Then there’s the deep interest of French in the conflict. As the e-mail goes: this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya…
France was the one to constantly push for open military involvement in Libya, when even US and Germany exercised caution; it was France that sponsored the ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya in the UN Security Council, and it was a French airstrike that attacked the fleeing-convoy of Muammar al-Gaddafi.
In an e-mail sent on 2nd April, 2011 from Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton, subject ‘France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold’, Blumenthal goes: It is understood France has clear economic interests at stake.
The very first line of the e-mail goes: A high ranking official on the National Libyan Council states that factions have developed within it. In part this reflects the cultivation by France in particular of clients among the rebels. General Abdelfateh Younis is the leading figure closest to the French, who are believed to have made payments of an unknown amount to him. Younis has told others on the NLC that the French have promised they will provide military trainers and arms.
Blumenthal goes on to mention how despite freezing of Gaddafi’s assets, he still has enough “bottomless financial resources to continue” fighting the rebels.
Of interest here: Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:
a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
b. Increase French influence in North Africa,
c. Improve his intemai(sic) political situation in France,
d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)…
Blumenthal very clearly outlines France’s interests in the region and the conflict, especially given how the death of Gaddafi is in their favour.
Gaddafi had gone from an Arab National in his early days to preferring an independent and economically strong Africa by end of his life. He was president of the African Union, where he proposed the switching over to the gold-based economy, a single currency for whole of Africa, and a formal ‘United States of Africa’; something that, if even one of them were to be implemented, would have spelt disaster for the European banking system, whole of US economy that’s dependent on the petrodollar, and an end to the hegemony of West and influence in Africa.
France also receives nigh on seventy-five per cent of GDP of some African nations that are its former colonies. The sub-Saharan Francophone nations, like Liberia to its colonisers in past, has to pay a ‘colonial tax’. Any African state that in past tried to get out of this strangling mess paid a hefty price. From Sékou Touré of Guinea in 1958, when he so much as announced wanting to leave the French Colonial Empire, to Sylvanus Olympio – first president, Republic of Togo – who paid the price with his life, when the president opted out of the French currency, and minted own. A coup shortly followed (three days later) where a few African soldiers led by a former French Legionnaire officer stabbed Olympio to death.
So, the minting of not only African nation’s own currency, but also gold-based would have greatly dismantled the franc.
Not surprisingly, oil is the number one point in the e-mail, the black gold that drives world economy. And, as already highlighted above, Libya has billions of oil reserves untapped.
The country’s – and by extension Gaddafi’s – only fault in this matter seems to be the fact they happen to be standing on a land who’s natural resources led to their death and decimation.
Given all above, Libyan Conflict and the murder of Gaddafi can only be classified as economic and strategic interests of elite that saw the brutal death of a leader that only wanted best for his people, the displacement and death of millions of innocent citizens, the spread of terrorism, and the black=market sale of high-tech weaponry of the Libyan forces and the ones given to the rebels in places as far off as Syria, Chad, Mali et cetera.

Francis Fukuyama recently, in his speech on “Identity Politics – The Demand for Dignity and the Nation State’s Future”, explained the various types and sources of populism. There’s so much talk on populism these days, rivaling terrorism and before that communism, that, observing situations such as a famous political scientist commenting upon it, or extreme attention paid to the likes of the U.S. president Donald Trump or France’s Marine Le Pen whom the media has dubbed ‘populists’, one comes to the conclusion this is going to be the next main narrative globally, now that with defeat of ISIS, terrorism seems to be taking a backseat.

As often happens with narratives under the glare of mainstream media, there’s so much confusion regarding what exactly is populism, with even the likes of UK’s Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused of being a populist. Even in Fukuyama’s speech, he jumps in right off the bat, apparently confident everyone has a solid grasp of what this ideology is.

In a nutshell, populism at its most basic is simply a view that the society is divided into two clashing groups, a corrupt elite in control and the deprived ones. This ideology can swing on either side of political spectrum, right or left.

The most popular version in spotlight currently is – not surprisingly – the Western one, dominated by right-wing groups against immigration, mostly caused by multiculturalism, globalism and economic deprivation (think 2007-08 Financial Crisis and 2011 Black Monday). Till here, Fukuyama is pretty consistent, he classified the three main causation into three types as described in his speech.

His analysis till then goes well with most leading experts’ opinions and themes on populism, that mostly it’s a ‘one-man’ show, the leaders are mostly rude (Duterte of Philippines), claim to be against the establishment, want to help tilt the situation in the masses’ favour, and how most populists are loath to democratic processes, instead preferring ‘direct’ systems – e.g. referendums.

My biggest issue with Fukuyama and in turn, the current dominant narrative is how the liberal-democratic model is held on such a Biblical, godly pedestal, from his recognised ‘End of History’ to many other works, leaving little room for other theories or schools of thought to find space and discussion. Democracy is considered such an idealistic, ‘ultimate end’-like system, most criticism against it is simply brushed off as due to x, y, z reasons – in short, democracy itself is not bad, rather the state with other influences, such as a powerful military.
In trying to portray how populism is a ‘threat’ to liberal-democratic order, he remarked how the second kind, ‘political populism’ endangers ”liberal democracy since all democratic institutions are under control and in conditions of limited power.” And yet, in a liberal democracy, there is no control or regulation, especially in/of the markets. He also famously remarked in New Statesmen article back in October 2018 how ‘socialism ought to come back’. In an excerpt directly taken from the article, Fukuyama asserts, ‘…it’s led to a weakening of labour unions, of the bargaining power of ordinary workers, the rise of an oligarchic class almost everywhere that then exerts undue political power…” Democracy is supposed to give voice to the commoners, who get to decide and form policies favouring them by electing certain people. And yet, as Fukuyama himself admitted, it’s doing the opposite in a liberal-democratic system. A group of influential people form, mainly businesses that then influence and pull the strings of everyone from politicians to bureaucracy to even police force.
He went so far as to criticise liberal-democracy openly, admitting how, ”…liberal democracies don’t even try to define what a good life is, it’s left up to individuals, who feel alienated, without purpose, and that’s why joining these identity groups gives them some sense of community.” Ironically, this here statement – apart from being a complete 180 degree tilt from his previous views – clearly indicates how liberal-democracy is the reason populism takes root in a society!

In just 26 years, from championing liberal-democratic order, Fukuyama seems to have come full circle, and now admitting to glaring flaws in the very system he supported.

Fukuyama claims how Britain leaving the EU and election of Donald Trump as the U.S. president is harmful. Yet, he has become a vocal critic of euro, calling it (in his own words), ‘[an] elite-driven polic[y] that turned out to be pretty disastrous…’ And how it ‘…became very deeply embedded within the Eurozone, the austerity that Germany imposed on southern Europe has been disastrous.’

Whether he comes almost short of admitting it or not, he indirectly (or unconsciously) admits that the interrelation of liberal democracy with each other causes a huge disparity due to the influential oligarchy that forms as a result of extreme deregulation in a liberal economic model, which eats away all competition by buying entire sectors overtime, (‘In terms of the role of finance, if there’s anything we learned from the financial crisis [2008] it’s that you’ve got to regulate the sector like hell because they’ll [bankers] make everyone else pay.’), and which, coupled with loss of identity (e.g. due to immigration encouraged for cheaper labour) and/or economic deprivation that follows, leads to resentment especially in the native populace that gives rise to populism eventually.
In short, it seems populism isn’t a threat to liberal democracy, rather a result of it.

(Photo courtesy: Stanford University)

On October 27, 2019, United States President Donald Trump addressed the nation announcing that ISIS leader Abu Bakr – Al Baghdadi had been killed in a raid by United Special forces. Already ISIS has a new leader, Abdullah Qardash, a former member of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party. But, the ultimate question remains: What should the policy of counterterrorism for the United States be going forward? 

Well, let’s look at current facts on the ground. 

Currently, there are three countries in the world where ISIL and Al-Qaeda affiliates hold territory: Somalia, Yemen, and Syria.  And as these are not in the United States, they, like all insurgencies, are in response to the political strength of the central government in question. 

In Syria, despite years of civil war, the central government of Bashar Al Assad remains strong, and is the clear winner of the war, whether policymakers in Washington like it or not. Sooner or later, the offensive in Idlib will resume, retaking the last of the terrorist holding territory in Syria. 

Due to the stability of the central Syrian government, Washington does not need to do a lot of effort on this front, and instead merely partner with the Syrian government to finish off the remains of the caliphate. While Washington may want to use moderate opposition voices and the Kurds to fight ISIS, the truth of the matter is is that any and all moderate opposition voices were long blasted away by jihadist forces. 

However, the issue of the Kurds and the possibility of a wider war with Turkey would make United States ground forces too much of an asset to the fight against jihadists in Syria. 

Yemen and Somalia prove more difficult, as the central governments are at with themselves, and thus have proven incapable of fighting and jihadists. The United States  has to step up its efforts as a peace mediator, creating a lasting government that does not risk breaking back into warring clans five seconds later. And then, only then, can a united front against the jihadists be formed. What makes it even more of a national security dilemma for the United States is that between Yemen and Somalia sits the Gulf of Aden, a vital shipping lane that in recent years has been nicknamed “The Outlaw Sea” due to the jihadist and subsequent piracy activity. Because of the vital strategic importance, and of the weakness of the central Yemen and Somali governments, American military might will be needed, in coalition with several other governments, but the troops would need to be withdrawn immediately after all their territory had been retaken or else the American troops risked becoming a money – draining liability. 

Other than that, the question remains: What about Al – Qaeda in Afghanistan, the people who started the War on Terror in the first place with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? 

Well, that organization is all but gone. With the death of Hamza Bin Laden, Al – Qaeda has now a succession crisis on its hands, as there is no strongman to succeed the current Al – Qaeda leader, Ayman Al – Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man and the last remnant of Al – Qaeda’s “golden age”, if you will, from the 1990’s. America should refocus its efforts in Afghanistan by calling for a new Afghanistan constitution, negotiate between India and Pakistan while simultaneously putting pressure on the Pakistanis, withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, who have not been needed since the fall of Tora Bora, and reshift its military focus around finding and capturing/killing Ayman al Zawahiri, an event which could splinter Al-Qaeda beyond regroup, and effectively result in their defeat. 

But, the ultimate question remains: What does the death of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi mean for the fight against terror? 

Well, while symbolic it may be, the death of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has no real tactical victory. Terrorist networks and insurgencies, even one as sophisticated and structured as the Islamic State, do not operate like governments. They are not centralized. They are an interconnected network of cells. If one cell goes, the others take their place. The only way to really go and deliver a blow would be their main source of financial funding. 

Nonetheless, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is dead. We don’t know what the future will hold as a result of this, yet what is clear is that the United States’s counterterrorism strategy must adapt accordingly.

For two years, trade war has not met its end. The rivalry between the US and China keeps continuing and showing no sign of ending. Several talks have been held, but no solution produced. Global economic direct and indirectly affected because of two economic superpower doing rivalry. Some says that it is a cold war or just simply trade war because US suffered economic loss from China in export and import practice. But, I rather interest in the term of technology war and it relate with China’s ambitious target in 10 years in the form of Made in China 2025.

Made in China 2025 (MIC 2025) is one of the most ambitious projects alongside Belt and Road Initiative. Their aims are to reduce dependency of foreign technology and increase self-reliance or in other words, making domestic product dominant in internal market. MIC2025 targeted that China’s fulfilled 40% with domestic industries and 70% in 2025. Made in China 2025 project focus on 10 strategically industries which is railway transportation, new energy vehicle, aerospace, naval engineering, robotic and artificial intelligence and many more. That project has been design in 2015 and it’s been four years since the announcement. However, trade war conduct by Trump administration has made China’s quite busy.

There has been said that trade war is only the face of the media when in reality, rivalry between China and US is about technology. Trump administration accused China with intellectual property right violation and discrimination practice in trade and investment. Of course, 10 years target required quite dramatic steps, as acquisition and joint ventures become significant in achieving Made in China 2025. Even though China’s has been recognized as a great power, they are still relies on foreign technology which is why they want to reduce it. Achieving self-reliance is vital to China for their development and exit from middle income trap.

It is understandable that one state wants to be self-reliance, especially when state are growing and evolve into great power status. Furthermore, they have immense economic power which I see is their specialty. They may have not great military capabilities compare to US or technology supremacy, but China has strongest weapon in the form of economic. With their deep pocket, achieving such an ambitious project is easier, given that Belt and Road Initiative which China have invest considerable amount of money in Kenya, South Africa, Pakistan and Kazakhstan.

Achieving technological self-reliance in 2025 is possible if they have not follows international rules and norms. However, attain target Made in China 2025, (only six years left) is difficult due to two reasons:

1. Globalization made every countries living in interdependence. One product required systemic chain of cooperation between many countries. Each country its own specialization and therefore, the making of the product became decentralized. It avoids monopoly and increasing cooperation between nation-states. If the chain is to be cut, costs are mounting and suffer economic loss. If China wants to be self-reliance, what it need first is to cooperate with country that specialized in (for example) microchip and robotics and gaining their trust to obtain blue print and methodology. However, reason number two will hinder China’s advancement.
2. As we are living in Pax Americana International order, it will be difficult for them obtaining technological capacity which balanced or even surpassing the central authority. In this point of view, we can say that US conduct trade war with purpose to hinder China’s advancement in technology. If China surpasses US, it will undermine US technological leadership in the world. Moreover, China has lower price and therefore become strongest competitor for the US. World will be divide between those who prefer China’s product and country in favor with US technology. Who wants a region in the imperial territory that can exceed its empire capacity? US surely don’t let it slide.

For US, maintaining supremacy is important as it is their job maintaining global order. China has surpassed their economic capacity, if they loss against in sector which they excel for more than decades, they will be lose its legitimacy as superpower and hegemonic power. Even though China doesn’t aim to be superpower status, its behavior said differently. I think terminology “Peaceful Rise” or “Peaceful Development” that China has campaign is right but it has another meaning. China will be rise, not by deterrence or military power, instead with economic power. They will still and continue to follow international norms and as much as possible shows cooperative behavior and harmonious relations with another country.

If Made in China 2025 Success.

            It will be delightful scenario for China. Self-reliance is achieved and China will become technology powerhouse alongside US. There will be some positive effect to China, but I will give some analyst on two topics: political, security, geo-economics and geopolitics.

If Made in China 2025 become success, China’s status in International system will be elevated. Media around the world will be said that China is likely superpower country, accompany US to maintain order. (Although I denied China’s status because for me superpower required excel in all strategic sector: military, economic, politics, technology, culture, norms and ideology). China’s voice will be much heard considering they have primacy in technology and economic. They have place in almost every multilateral and regional forum also gaining respect from the world

As for security, primacy in technology would increase military capabilities, either in firepower, mobility, intelligence, communication and protection. Artificial Intelligence, robotics technology will increase in communication and intelligence area. Their military will be revolutionizing in a way that it threatens US military power in such a way. Although I assume that China’s military still cannot compete with US, technological advancement will compensate their lack and improving the quality of their military force.

In geo-economics, there will be competition between US and China whose product are more achievable, cheaper and more sophisticated. The competition is really fierce considering that China has advantages in demography and cheap labor compare to US. However, those two have their own innovation area: one in Silicon Valley, the other in Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

In geopolitical, one of the Made in China 2025 key sector is naval engineering which I assume that technological advancement which China’s have will elevate naval force capabilities and enhancing their blue water navy catching up with US. I remember Alfred Thayer Mahan theory that if you want to conquer the world, naval capabilities must stronger than anyone else. Furthermore, China’s naval capabilities still below United States. However, besides enhancement in naval forces, we will see artificial intelligence and big data rivalry between US and China.

Artificial Intelligence has been discussed by expert, academics, leader and CEO. They are one of the reasons that I believe will transform how international relations conduct, especially in geopolitics, security and diplomacy. The development of Artificial Intelligence is stunning and keeps going through research and development in the lab. Robotic development with artificial intelligence will be shaping our future in the next decade. Artificial Intelligence will require a lot of data to be able to perform maximum. As China wants to be AI top leader in 2030 alongside US, they will exert much of their energy to achieve the target. If Made in China 2025 reached, in geopolitical point of view, the provider and developer will be divided between US and China on artificial intelligence and big data.  They will be race which country provides most sophisticated AI and providing much amount of data. Artificial intelligence and big data becomes new definition of power and shaping world geopolitics.

On the 15th of October 2019, the Supreme Tribunal gave the sentence which has been for so long awaited: the one regarding the 12 Catalan ex-leaders, imprisoned since their attempt to give Catalonia its independence in October 2017.

The Catalan supporters of the independence were expecting, in the worst case, a 10-years-old-jail sentence. It turned out the Supreme Tribunal condemned Junqueras, the leader, to a 13 years-old prison punishment.

Since then, the streets in the centre of Barcelona have been the theatre of multiple clashes between Los Mossos d’Esquadra, in charge of the national security, and the manifestants.

These recent strikes have seen the birth of a new actor in the Catalan-Spanish battle landscape: Tsunami Democratic. This group, mainly composed of young people, created an Android App that allows small groups of protests-leaders to be monitored and to share directions, using QR codes.

One of their most visible actions was the occupation of the airport of Barcelona, which provoked the cancellation of more than 100 flights.

Even if the pro-separatist protests aimed at being pacifist, marginal violent movements have been repeatedly burning cars and constructing barricades to put them on fire. Hundreds of protesters have been arrested over the last two weeks.

Quim Torra, the President of the Generalitat de Cataluña (the Executive Power in Catalonia) was criticized for not condemning these violent acts.

As it happened two years ago, Catalonia seems to have reached an impasse: the Spanish government said that it would take all the measures needed to maintain the order, and the separatist movement is not willing to stop the strikes.