Young Diplomats

The recent calls by Israel to annex the Jordan Valley pose a danger to the Middle East peace process, as it would be in direct violation of United Nations resolution 242. 

However, a two-state solution proposed under the basis of United Nations resolutions 242 was already dead, with it being unpopular for both parties. A new approach to the approach has to be reached, one with a primary focus of geo-strategic needs and based upon current facts on the ground. 

This, in turn, brings up the question: Why does Israel want to annex the Jordan Valley (and subsequently, the entire West Bank) and the Golan Heights? And if it was about implementing the “Zionist Manifesto” why did Israel give back the Sinai Peninsula, pull out of the Gaza Strip, and leave the nation of Jordan alone? 

The answer has to due with the geopolitics of Israel and the Strategic importance of the West Bank. 

The West Bank can be broken into two areas, the mountain area, and the Valley area. The Valley area (the Jordan River valley) sits at the base of a steep canyon, which serves as a natural buffer zone between Israel and Jordan, securing Israel from any attacking force striking on the East Bank of the Jordan River. If there ever was to be an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank, two things would happen that would make Israel lose this advantage: 

First, since the creation of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank poses a direct threat to the sovereignty of the Hashemite monarchy that governs Jordan, the monarchy would most likely be toppled. Once then, a Jordanian – Palestinian alliance would be formed, rendering the strategic importance of the Jordan River valley to the Israelis irrelevant, and effectively terminating the 1994 Israeli – Jordanian Peace Treaty. 

The Mountain area dominates the Israeli coast, only 10 miles from the Mediterranean Sea, and within sight of every single Israeli city, meaning that every single Israeli city is within range of enemy artillery, including Israel’s only civilian airport. On top of that, if the Palestinians ever decided to break a peace treaty with Israel, the 10-mile gap would mean that it would be impossible for Israel to defend their territory, allowing their country to be overrun in blitzkrieg fashion.

Because of both the strategic importance of the Jordan Valley and the Mountain range, Israel cannot accept an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank, and, for its own protection, must be allowed to annex it. 

The Golan Heights presents a similar dilemma for the Israelis. The terrain of the Golan Heights enables any army to successfully invade Israel from this spot, and so Israel is to secure its territorial integrity, it must be allowed to annex the Golan Heights. 

So, does that mean that there will never be an independent Palestinian State? That the two – state solution is dead? Well, the honest answer to that question is both yes and no. 

The no comes from the fact that a two-state solution lined out in UN resolution 242 is dead, and to be quite blunt, was never going to work in the first place, as UN resolution 242 did not take into account the geopolitical needs of Israel in order for Israel to accept UN resolution 242.

The yes comes the other equation, often overlooked to the point of being dubbed “The region that nobody wanted”: The Gaza Strip is of no strategic importance to the Israelis, which is why Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Because of this, any two – state solution would just leave the Palestinians with the Gaza Strip, and Israel in control of everything else. While it may not be a fair 50/50 split, often time, geopolitics isn’t fair. 

However, this would be of great benefit to the stability of the Palestinian Government, as it would speed up the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. There has been very little reason for the two to reconcile with Israel serving as a buffer zone between them. 

So, what would this Palestinian State look like? What would its economy be centered around? 

Well, the Gaza Strip does sit in the fertile crescent and thus would have great agricultural potential. In addition, the rise of offshore natural gas production could prove to make the Gaza Strip a great exporter of natural gas, and, potentially, make the Gaza Strip go from being a land that no one wanted to a major energy powerhouse. 

This, of course, cannot happen without a massive Marshall plan to rebuild the Gaza Strip, including the refurbishing and reopening of Yasser Arafat International Airport. 

Apart from the Gaza Strip, a second question remains: What is to be done with the Arab Residents of the West Bank? If Israel were to grant them citizenship, Israel would be Jewish in name only. If Israel does not grant them citizenship, it would become an apartheid state. 

The solution: autonomous status for the Arab areas in the West Bank, as well as within Israel itself, as they are often isolated from mainstream Israeli society. This also means that the settlements remain. The autonomy would be first, and foremost, an autonomy of residency: them being permanent Israeli residents, but being allowed the choice to be either Israeli, Palestinian, or Jordanian citizenship. No Arab – Israeli peace can be achieved without the involvement of the Jordanians. After all, Jordan is Palestine, and it is time that they started acting like it. 

Simultaneously, Egypt needs to be involved in putting pressure on Hamas to disarm and return control of the Gaza Strip over to Fatah. Prosperity to the Gaza Strip cannot return as long as Hamas is in control of it and using it as a base to launch rockets into Israel, ignoring the needs of the civilian population.

Another thing of content concerns the final status of Jerusalem. This is, again, where pragmatism comes into play. While many have called for a splitting of Jerusalem, the truth is that both East and West Jerusalem have been thoroughly interconnected, with the 1949 Armistice line cutting right through entire neighborhoods. If Jerusalem was ever partitioned between the two, whole neighborhoods of the city would be left abandoned, not Nicosia when the United Nations its buffer zone soon after the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. For pragmatic reasons, Jerusalem will remain undivided, and remain the capital of Israel. 

But no issue is more ultimate than the status of the 1948 refugees, and the right of return. 

With this, there are two fundamental elements of the Nakba that have to be understood in order to understand the question of the refugees. The first is that displacement is not uncommon in war, and not unique to the 1948 war; while there was a massive displacement of Arabs from Israel, there was also a massive displacement of Jews from Arab countries. 

The second thing is that rather than create an independent Palestinian state along the 1949 Armistice lines, the other Arab countries partitioned the remainder of the British Mandate of Palestine among themselves. In coordination with this, one of the basic rules of international treaties is that if a country annexes new territory, it must incorporate the local populace into its society, which the Arab countries did not do by keeping them in refugee camps. 

Thus, the refugees must be assimilated into the Arab countries of which they are currently at, and the Right of Return must be dropped. 

While this settles the Palestinian question, there is still a question of what to do with the other Arab Countries. 

As part of any peace agreement, the Arabs must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, must recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and formally drop the Khartoum declaration. In exchange, Israel must recognize the Secular Arab Republic of Syria as the legitimate government of Syria, and together with the United States, partner with the Syrian government t stabilize the Middle East and prevent the return of global jihadist caliphates. 

While this may not be perfect, it presents the most pragmatic, geopolitical – based approach to solving Arab – Israeli peace.

The current JAP (Joint-Action Plan) pertaining to the readmission of irregular migrants to Turkey has raised several debates among experts. Many of them claimed that the plan is a “dead duck” and it is futile to take further steps. However, both the EU and Turkish delegations have maintained the negotiations and bargaining.

Turkey has been demanding €3bn+€3bn fundings to spend for the refugee’s expenditures. In addition, it is predicted that EU countries will implement a visa exemption for Turkish citizens in the summer. In response to these, Turkey has pledged to cooperate with the EU to struggle against people-smugglers for preventing the irregular migration waves.

The Merkel Plan (mentioned also the Samsom Plan) aimed the legitimization of Turkey as a safe third country to allow for the readmission of migrants in the Greek islands. After a series of negotiations, EU and Turkish delegations have come to an agreement on the plan that is simply based on the exchange of 1 Syrian refugee (in Greece) and a Syrian asylum seeker (in Turkey). It was planned that Syrian refugees chosen from Turkish detention camps will be resettled in European countries.

In doing so, the EU has recognized Turkey as a safe third country as ESI proposed.

“the assumption that Turkey is a safe third country for asylum-seekers from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries so that Greece could return them to Turkey without jeopardizing their rights and safety. This would quickly reduce the number of boats crossing the Aegean as the dangerous passage would become pointless – everybody reaching Greece would be returned back to Turkey.”

According to the Asylum Procedures Directive, a migrant/refugee could solely be sent back to a safe third country that has a guaranty for their protection-in legal basis-.

(a) “in which the applicant was previously recognized as a refugee and that he or she can still avail himself or herself of that protection” (b) “or where he or she can still enjoy sufficient and effective protection including protection against refoulement.”

It could not be argued that a country which has low crime rates would be defined automatically as a safe country. It is just about its legal structure that how it affiliates with the international agreements on the migration statuses. In a Statewatch report, it is explained clearly:

A ‘safe third country’ is a state through which a person fleeing from his or her country of origin has passed and where he or she could have found protection, but has not done so. If this person applies for asylum in another state, the latter might consider his or her claim inadmissible and could decide to return the applicant to the ‘safe third country’ he or she had previously passed through. Therefore, the ‘safe third country’ concept implies that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first ‘safe country’ they are able to reach.

Remembering Safe Third Country Concept

The Asylum Procedures Directive, as it was referred, mentions a first country of asylum in which the applicant is recognized as either refugee or a person “enjoys sufficient protection.”  Turkey retained a geographic limitation for the ratification of 1951 Geneva Convention for the Status of Refugees. So it pledged giving refugee status when only an event occurs in Europe. Therefore, Syrian and Iraqi migrants could not be recognized as a refugee within the Turkish legislation.

Instead, the government takes some steps to adapt the changing conditions. Firstly, the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (entered into force in April 2014) that is originated from the EU asylum regimes was implemented. This move was seen a hopeful act so it was celebrated by UNHCR as in a press brefing:

“The High Commissioner for Refugees welcomes new legislation, recently adopted as a reflection of Turkey’s strong commitment to humanitarian values and principles. UNHCR, which has supported the drafting process, considers this an important advancement for international protection, and for Turkey itself, which has a long history of offering protection for people in need.The new law incorporates key elements of international humanitarian and human rights law. It provides for the establishment, under the Ministry of the Interior, of a specialized institution to manage international protection. This institution will also prepare the implementing regulations over the next year.”

However, this prediction had not come into reality. In the second place, on October 2014, TPR (Temporary Protection Regulation) was implemented. It involves a guarantee of temporary protection for migrants who have TPR identity document.  However, numerous Syrian refugees have yet another type of document -FID (Foreigner Identity Document)- So it is leading a great confusion.

Refugee Rights Turkey (an organization that provides legal information and assistance services to asylum seekers) states:

“both the “foreigner identity document” and the “temporary protection identity document” are indisputably documents as they are issued by competent authorities, and bear the sign and stamp of these authorities. us, there should be no reluctance on the part of public notaries to rely on the nature of these documents. However, it is observed and reported that in many cases, persons under temporary protection are requested to present their passports or identity documents issued in Syria, and those who fail to do so, are denied to give power of attorney to their legal representatives.”

After the new legislative arrangements, a new institution which focused on taking responsibility of the asylum regime. DGMM (Directorate General of Migration Management) manages the procedures of asylum operations. the RRT report gives further information on the procedures and rights of refugees:

“Persons who were forced or compelled to flee their home countries because of war or persecution and are therefore unable to go back have the right to seek asylum in Turkey. In order to seek asylum in Turkey, you have to approach the Directorate General for Migration Management (DGMM) and make a request for asylum. even if you are unable to find another country agreeing to admit you for a long-term settlement, you shall be allowed to stay in Turkey indefinitely on the basis of your “international protection status”.

The temporary protection regime is just in use for Syrians and stateless (heimatlose) Palestinians came from Syria. Others have to apply to a status for international protection whose procedure is managed by DGMM. However, only a small part of this application was accepted. So it is even problematic that how these “limbo” statuses will be reached a solution.

Unfortunately, neither Syrian refugees who are settled in the camps not all of the others have not been well-informed about their legal rights. There are many cases have been reported on even the fundamental human rights abuses in the Turkish camps. One of them was announced in January of 2016 by 11 NGOs Amnesty. It reveals the lockdowns to a number of refugees, criminalizing people kept in the camp and violation of the human rights in Erzurum/Askale camp for the asylum seekers. These examples can prove that legislative arrangements would not apply in practice.

Don’t Need to be so Optimistic

Until quite recently, Turkey has not an adequate legal structure to cover all aspects of the asylum regime and refugee crises. The current laws that have been implemented a couple years ago could not be applied entirely now. Actually, this is an outcome of the inadequate human capital to conduct the procedures. Besides, the new legislative arrangements caused a bicephalous structure which makes an efficient plan difficult to manage.

The current political chaos, serious threats of ISIL and PKK terrorism, and several concerns about the press freedom are other factors to be pessimistic for Turkey. In these gathering darkness in the politics and the legal structure, it is an exaggerated optimism to think Turkey as a safe third country. After the failure of deal with Ankara, EU has been already looking for new alternatives to cooperate for combating with the rising irregular migration.

A Comparative Approach to Non-Refoulement: Europe and Turkey

Abstract: This short article aims to examine the evolution of the principle of non-refoulement beginning with Kant’s famous term “universal hospitality”. It will also give a sense  of how the term is used in international law and Turkish domestic laws.

1. Universal Hospitality

The most significant outcome of the Enlightenment is the definition of the relationship between human and nature within a secular base instead of religious terms. In this secular view, the priorities of humanity are re-defined in accordance with a new outlook on the world. Re-defining intersubjective relations mainly focus on how the individual should treat the Other.

While discussing the relationship with the other, Kant’s explanations on the cosmopolitan right have central importance. It is “limited to conditions of universal hospitality” defined as “the right of a foreigner not to be treated with hostility because he has arrived on the land of another.”  In this context, original rights are given equally to every individual in nature. Now we need to place emphasis upon “being a man” rather than “being from somewhere”.(Onkal: 2) Accordingly, no matter where you come from, you have the same rights and obligations as all other people.

Such a theoretical framework draws the borders of the basic principle of non-refoulement. It is the fundamental part of the refugee status. This is based on the widely-accepted essential principle of non-refoulement.  It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.

1. Non-Refoulement in the Geneva Convention

The principle of non-refoulement was first mentioned at the 1892 Geneva Session of the Institute of International Law. It was formulated that a refugee should not by way of expulsion be delivered to another state that sought him unless the guarantee conditions set forth with respect to extradition were duly observed (Règles internationales sur l’admission et l’expulsion des étrangers 1892, Article 16). (Molnar: 1)

The

1951 Geneva Convention is seen as the first legislative document that recognizes and explains the term refugee regulation. The text describes who is a refugee, what their rights are, and what have to states to cope with a possible crisis. So it is guaranteed that “no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom”

Article 33:

1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

Non-refoulement obligations related to refugees are also mentioned in regional treaties, notably the 1969 OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights.

1. Non-Refoulement in the Turkish Law

Turkey was one of the countries that signed the convention even though it put a geographic limitation, meaning that the country only accepts refugees from members of the Council of Europe. The key document in Turkey for the regulation of foreigners is the Law on Foreigners and International Protection enshrined on April 2013 and came into force in April 2014.

The objective of the Regulation is to determine the procedures and principles pertaining to temporary protection proceedings who were forced to flee and are unable to return to their countries. It also aims to determine proceedings to be carried out related to their reception, stay, rights and obligations, and a possible exit from Turkey.

According to this law, Turkey provides temporary protection, establishing a safeguard against the return of Syrians who flee from ongoing conflicts. The Temporary Protection Regime forbids to compel people who have this status against their will. It also gives legal residence to those registered. Apart from them, the law enables accessing fundamental rights and entitlements on health care, education, and social assistance.

The regime only comprises foreigners “who were forced to leave their countries and are unable to return to the countries they left and arrived at or crossed our borders in masses to seek urgent and temporary protection and whose international protection requests cannot be taken under individual assessment.”

No one within the scope of this of this Law shall be returned to a place where he or she may be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment or, where his/her life or freedom would be threatened on account of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (Article 4, Law on Foreigners and International Protection)

The Law on Foreigners and International Protection, 2013, was inspired by EU laws that were about the same context. However, the striking point is that while the Geneva Convention only mentions threats to freedom and life, in the Turkish law, in addition to these, torture and inhumane/degrading punishment or treatment is written explicitly.

Soviet Union had good military and economic relations with the Asia Pacific’s regional countries. The demise of the Soviet Union had significantly hampered the relations between Russian Federation, which is deemed to be the successor to Soviet Union, and Asia Pacific’s countries.

However, Russia’s growing sale of weapons and other advanced military technology to a number of Asia-Pacific countries for the last one decade reflects Moscow’s attempt to re-establish the lost military relations with the Asia Pacific countries.

Russia’s growing military relations with regional countries and a number of large-scale drills in recent years suggest that Russia’s geopolitical presence is increasing in the region and it could well become a potent regional power soon.

However, it appears that the mainstream media and research institutes do not want to give any coverage to Russia’s growing engagement in Asia-Pacific.

It seems that although Russia’s military clout in Europe and Middle East are well understood and acknowledged, Russia’s growing engagement in the Asia Pacific region is largely underestimated and underrated.

Accordingly, the growing influence of Russia in the region finds less attention on the regional media outlets, the regional discussion platforms and the think-tank papers produced across the region. This is a total contrast to Russian involvement in Europe and Middle East, something which receives huge coverage.

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is located in the south of China and has special status in China. Contrary to popular belief, the region is not only composed of Hong Kong city, but also includes some of the surrounding lands. In addition, Hong Kong has its own self-management system and is directly linked to China in the fields of foreign relations and defense. The total population of Hong Kong is around 7 million 500 thousand people. In addition, Hong Kong is one of the most important financial centers in the world. Over the years, the region has come to the forefront in areas such as transportation, trade and transportation between the east and west axes, and has become the logistics hub for product traffic in South East Asia. According to the end of 2018 data, Hong Kong’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $ 363 Billion and achieved 3% economic growth. It ranks 36th in the global GDP. Widespread poverty and instability were the concepts that could not be overcome for the “Giant in the East”, until former Chinese President Deng Xiaoping initiated a reform process in 1978 to shape China and perhaps the whole world. The Japanese Army’s occupation of almost all important cities of China including the capital city of Nanjing and Hong Kong, caused such indignity in the minds of Chinese nation. Moreover, numerous sufferings during the World War II led to the formation of a national identity under the leadership of Mao Zedong through the further process. With the beginning of the reform process have led by Deng Xiaoping, China has made significant progress in many areas particularly in the economic and military fields over the past 41 years. In this context, with the announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative by the current president Xi Jinping in 2013, the success of the “New Chinese Century” breakthrough has been successful in the international arena as well as on the mainland. Hence, China has made a successful headway for the first time to become a global power through modern history.

Hong Kong is one of the regions with the highest level of prosperity compared to many countries and cities in Southeast Asia. According to many experts, the high level of prosperity was due to the fact that Hong Kong had been under British rule for many years. Also, as a common consideration has been advocated by many, Hong Kong’s weathy position emerged throughout the following years thanks to its structural development process as it is isolated from Chinese Socialism. However, the increasing prosperity level as a result of the great economic achievenement experienced over the last 40 years has led to a new dimension in these debates. In fact, according to World Bank data announced in 2017, 753 million people use to live below the poverty line before 2000 in China whilts in 2017, this figure decreased to 43 million in 2017.[1]

In the light of this information, it will not be wrong to be bolstered that the Chinese administrations have made great progress in the distribution of welfare among the society. Therefore, Hong Kong incidents are more of a political and social crisis triggered by the identity crisis of the younger generation rather than an economic crisis. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that the region is partially isolated from China, not only on the basis of the management system but also on sociological basis. As we mentioned at the beginning, the emergence of Hong Kong under the British administration in 1842 could be evaluated as a significant factor in the emergence of catastrophic social crisis taking place at the moment. With the handover of the region to the Chinese administration by the British in 1997, consensus was reached on many items and the region started to be managed in line with the principle of “One Country, Two Systems framework. As it is known, the Chinese Communist Party is an absolute power within the borders of PRC and the party program has been strictly implemented in the Chinese soil. However, the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, according to the 1997 agreement, has its own legal system and is governed by a multiparty system, just like in worldwide democracies.

According to a study conducted in Hong Kong, the majority of people define their identity as “Hong Kongers” rather than “Chinese“.[2] The young population plays such crucial role in the protests that is taking place against the Extradition Bill since the end of March and evolved into a serious mass rebellion movements on the streets of Hong Kong over the past 4 months. Hence, as a striking point most of the protesters are university students. Joshua Wong, a well-known activist in the region and worldwide hence forth, plays an important role in organizing university students. In addition, he is the current Secretary General of one of the political parties in Hong Kong called Demosist. The Demosist mission, which includes young activists, plays a major role in the protests calls itself pro-democratic movement. Also, they have determined the party mission as “freeing Hong Kong from the pressure of the Chinese Communist Party and achieving a political and economic environment free from Chinese sphere of influence ”.[3]

In the light of these developments, it should not be underestimated that the situation cannot be evaluated only in the context of the Extradition Bill. Neglecting the historical past of the region would be a huge mistake on the figuring out why these demonstrations taking place. The formation of the crisis has prodound roots with the history of Hong Kong SAR. One of the most important proofs of this situation is that eventhough the protests turning into acts of violence, the demonstrations still seem to be extremely far from losing severity despite the Hong Kong government has announced that it has withdrawn the contentious bill. However, this huge demonstrations are not taking place for the first time in Hong Kong SAR. In 2014, a series of street incidents pop up as a result of the Beijing government’s decision to examine the candidates for the elections in Hong Kong. Protesters put forward that this decision was contrary to the agreement made in 1997 after the handover of Hong Kong to China and that the principle of a State Two Systems was violated acutely. Although the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is governed by its own legal system, the Beijing government’s decision has led to controversy over the extent to which Hong Kong’s freedom of choice was at that time.

On August 13, Hong Kong Prime Minister Carrie Lam warned that Hong Kong would not be dragged into the abyss after protesters occupied the airport for two days.[4] Neverthless, these statements did not have an impact on decreasing the high tension in the region.

In the following days, the protesters are still continuing to fill the squares and clash with the police by claiming that the steps of HK government are not enough. As a result, the protesters demanded a 5-item list of requests to the Hong Kong administration. These are as follows; The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill, the government to withdraw the use of the word “riot” in relation to protests, the unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped, An independent inquiry into police behaviour and implementation of genuine universal suffrage.[5] By demanding the last one, the protesters are seeking to undermine Beijing’s influence in the Hong Kong administration. The fact that the 1200-person commission, which is thought to be under direct influence of Beijing, has a crucial impact on electing the Hong Kong leader in protesters opinion. The response of the Chinese administration to these demands has been harsh. The administration continues to definitively call the protesters “terrorists who attempt to disrupt the public order”.

Besides, there are numerous announcements made by Xi Jinping administration upon the issue flashing that China’s patience is limited. In addition, the Commander of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Hong Kong Garrison has recently made similar statements. Concerns started to grow about how seriously Beijing has started to take the issue after the images of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army stacking up in Shenzhen city, 27 kilometers from Hong Kong, are particularly concerned by the Western media.

The International Dimesion of the Hong Kong Protests

As with the rest of the world, the Trump administration is closely monitoring the events in Hong Kong. As a result of the lack of compromise in trade wars and the increasing friction, US President Trump tends to use the situation in Hong Kong in his favor. Trump criticized the Beijing government’s stance and warned that protesters should be treated better. Trump even went one step further, calling on Xi Jinping to be cautious, referring to the Tiananmen events in Beijing in 1989. Ben Cardin, a well-known republican senator, made similar statements to the Beijing administration.[6]

In August, when the demonstrations were intensifying, President Trump announced an additional tax decision on Chinese products which comprises $ 300 billion. As a result of this decision, the fear that the trade wars between the two giants will be accelerated again in the further process. The Chinese administration interpreted Trump’s attitude as a kind of “economic blackmailing feeding from the Hong Kong events.” China perceives every step taken by the US kind of an intervention on its internal affairs in relation to the events in Hong Kong and declares that it will not hesitate to take serious initiatives if the same attitude continues. However how strong Xi Jinping’s hand is at the point of taking steps is still a matter of doubt. It is possible that a wrong step that could be taken in this direction may convert the situation even more difficult to overcome and a bottleneck.

Protracted Political Deadlock and The Consequences of Beijing’s Possible Intervention on the Crisis

Since the protests began on March 31, there has been no sign about tensions on losing its impact in the streets of Hong Kong and the chaos is strengthen. In the early stages of the protests, the Chinese government took a moderate stance. However, when the flames of the events flared up rather than to be extinguished, Xi administration began to adopt a more threatening attitude toward the protesters. At first, the Chinese administration followed a policy that preferred to wait for events to settle. However with the increasing dose of violence on the streets and protests turning the city into chaotic environment, Xi Jinping’s administration announced that it is one of the main duties of Beijing, ensuring the security of residents in Hong Kong.

We have already mentioned that the Chinese Army is located in the Shenzhen which is 27 far from Hong Kong as the situation has become increasingly pessimistic and inexorable for China. If consequences of a possible bloody intervention to be considered in Hong Kong, it could be verbalized that the Chinese government has the intention to intimidate protesters rather than making a bloody intervention to protesters whose majority are university students and have many goals for their future life. Expecting a gradual softening about the protests in this crisis in which the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has demonstrated its seriousness, is a policy that is understandable for Chinese rule in the process so far. However, it is also important to underline that serious threatening statements from the Chinese Communist Party officials continue to come to the fore in parallel with the gradually rising violation. Also, figuring out the reflex of Chinese authorities is still a misery on this situation. In addition, the occurrence of such an initiative will have serious consequences for China, both nationally and internationally. It is a strong possibility that the city of Shenzhen, which is called the showcase of modern China, which is located near the city as a result of the situation completely out of control in Hong Kong, also would its share from the chaotic environment. In such a scenario, the crisis may not be limited to just Hong Kong. Long Yongtu, former Chief Negotiator for Hong Kong Trade, said that Shenzhen is at risk in such a situation. China, which has increased its influence in the international arena with its breakthrough in recent years, does not want to damage the prestige it gained globally as a result of all the efforts and development during the reform process started in 1978 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.

For this reason, the image of “Calm Power” and the concept of “Peaceful Rising which the Chinese administrations have succeeded in creating in the international arena, are seriously tested with the outbreak of Hong Kong events.

China’s Current Challange: The Problem of Preserving Peaceful Rising and the Calm Power Image

The expansionist policy of the USSR during the Cold War and the fact that China was founded on the foundations of socialism inevitably led to the emergence of an aggressive country and administration perception towards China. However, as Deng Xiaoping had been pioneered a new vision opened the doors of the country to the world by starting the new reform process in order to break this situation, the perception of peaceful upswing started to gain ground in the international society regarding China. Moreover, China’s efforts to develop economic relations, especially with the western countries, has led to an increase in global influence of it and thus changed the perception of “China the unknown”. With the announcement of the Belt and Road Initiative by Xi Jinping in 2013, these concepts found a strong response globally. In the ensuing process, China has approached and is approaching the countries it is associated with with the promise of prosperity. Particularly in view of the issue of political influence, the Chinese administration is careful not to cause any creation of the image of a “new modern colonialism”. On the other hand, it is another important issue for China to be voiced among the international public opinion that the Belt and Road Initiative is a kind of debt trap.

Therefore, any possible intervention in Hong Kong can lead to irreversible loss of prestige and more importantly to completely eliminate the image of “calm power built upon the political ground”. The image of China that has failed to achieve absolute stability in its domestic policy while promising the world prosperity will seriously affect relations in almost all areas, particularly economic and political relations. In addition, Hong Kong’s special status will become degenerated if the Chinese army intervenes with army. According to the 1997 Hong Kong’ handover to China agreement, the Beijing government can only send troops to the region only if the Hong Kong government directly requests it.

However, if the intervention is made without any request, this movement will be seen as “a direct occupation” in the eyes of the international community. US President Trump recently threatened China to if they act with such an intervention, international agreements will be criticized.

A Hong Kong with its streets surrendered by the anarchy, an image that has been severely damaged by the loss of all its value on the international level, and the Chinese economy, which has suffered the worst performance since 1992 with a growth rate of 6.2% in the last quarter, would not be the Beijing administration’s favour at the moment. However, it should be noted that the reaction of the Chinese administration on the protests is still unpredictable.

[1] http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/CHN

[2] https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/beijing-may-have-already-lost-hong-kong-as-a-city.729080#.XVhbW-WuCX0.twitter

[3] https://www.demosisto.hk/about?lang=en

[4] https://www.businessinsider.com/carrie-lam-warns-hong-kong-abyss-protesters-airport-2019-8

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/13/what-do-the-hong-kong-protesters-want

[6] https://www.france24.com/en/20190819-usa-china-hong-kong-donald-trump-trade-deal-democracy-protests-tiananmen-square

Residents in Soura neighbourhood of Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir, plant barricades to keep security forces out.

For more than a week, the young men of Soura, a densely-populated enclave in Indian-administered Kashmir’s main city of Srinagar, have been taking turns to maintain a round-the-clock vigil at the entry points to their neighbourhood.

Each of the dozen or so entrances have been blocked with makeshift barricades of bricks, corrugated metal sheets, wooden slabs and felled tree trunks. Groups of youths armed with stones congregate behind the biggest obstacles.

Their aim: to keep Indian security forces, and particularly the paramilitary police, out of the area.

“We have no voice. We are exploding from within,” said Ejaz, 25, who, like many other residents in Soura interviewed by Reuters news agency, gave only one name, saying he feared arrest.

“If the world won’t listen to us too, then what should we do? Pick up guns?”

Soura, home to about 15,000 people, is becoming the epicentre of resistance to the government’s removal on August 5 of the partial autonomy enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir, the country’s only Muslim-majority state.

The enclave, which has effectively become a no-go zone for Indian security forces, is now a barometer of the ability of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government to impose its will in Kashmir after its dramatic move.

The change, the government said, was necessary to integrate Kashmir fully into India, tackle corruption and nepotism, and speed up its development, which Modi says is the key to securing lasting peace and defeating “terrorism”.

A neighbourhood street is blocked with tree branches by Kashmiri protesters during restrictions in Srinagar [Danish Ismail/Reuters]

In Soura, it is hard to find anyone who supports Modi’s move. Many of the more than two dozen residents interviewed by Reuters over the past week referred to Modi as “zaalim”, an Urdu word meaning “tyrant”.

The constitutional change will allow non-residents to buy property in Jammu and Kashmir and apply for jobs in local government.

Some Muslims in Kashmir say they fear that India’s dominant Hindu population will overrun the lush state at the foot of the Himalayas and that Kashmiris’ identity, culture and religion will be diluted and repressed.

“We feel like we are guarding the LoC here,” said Ejaz, referring to the Line of Control, the highly militarised de facto border between the Indian and Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir.

For decades, Kashmir has been a source of friction between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Both nations claim the region in full and have fought two wars over the territory since 1947.

Residents in Soura say dozens of people have been injured in clashes with the paramilitary police over the past week. It is unclear how many have been detained.

A spokesman for the Jammu and Kashmir government declined to answer questions from Reuters.

The Indian government’s Home Ministry did not return calls and emails seeking comment.

Historical events often create a lasting legacy in the subconscious of the general society that was affected by the event, even generations after it happened. What happened in Columbus, New Mexico is no exception. Despite often being “The forgotten attack on the United States” the American people are very much aware of the lasting legacy it has implanted into the minds of its citizens.

So, what happened in Columbus, New Mexico?

The date was March 3, 1916. The Mexican Revolutionary War was entering its Sixth Year, with no end in sight. The initial objectives had by then devolved into multiple factions each one fighting for power.

One of those factions was led by a man named Poncho Villa. By this point in the war, supplies were running low for Poncho Villa, and in order to get the supplies needed, he needed to get them from the United States.

Meanwhile, Woodrow Wilson was increasingly concerned about the situation in Mexico. The instability in Mexico had made the border a hotbed for bandit activity, known as the “Border War.” Such instances include the Plan of San Diego, in which Mexican Bandits attempted to start a race war in the United States by crossing the border into Texas and killing white ranchers in nighttime raids.

But these raids were not as big as what was to happen at Columbus, New Mexico, on March 3, 1916.

Poncho Villa decided to launch an attack on the Cavalry Outpost stationed at Columbus, New Mexico. He divided his army into two columns in order to surround the garrison in a nighttime attack. They launched their attack without a hitch, and virtually the entire garrison, and the town, was fast asleep. They then moved from house to house, raiding, looting, and burning houses, shouting “Viva Villa! Viva Mexico” as they did so.

However, the cavalry garrison managed to recover and launched a counterattack, driving Poncho Villa and his men back across the border. By the time the battle was over, at least 100 people were dead, and Columbus, New Mexico was almost entirely destroyed.

The attack caused considerable outcry in the United States and prompted President Woodrow Wilson to launch the Poncho Villa Expedition with the ultimate goal of capturing Poncho Villa. However, despite costing the Americans 65 lives, the expedition was a failure, and Poncho Villa was ultimately able to evade capture and was even pardoned by the Mexican government, living a quiet life until his assassination in 1923.

But it forever changed American attitudes towards Mexico. No longer could the affairs of Mexico be ignored. Despite seven previous diplomat incidents between the two countries since the end of the Mexican-American War, none of them was major enough to ensure the general public, until now. There was now a strong political will to do something about Mexico and the border with Mexico to prevent this from ever happening again.

And, undoubtedly due to the fact that Poncho Villa never faced justice, the issue never felt resolved, and people have never shaken off the Mexican border as a spot of uncertainty. This is undoubtedly the origins of Donald Trump’s calls for a wall along the Mexican border; while he and people who agree with him, may say that it has nothing to do with an event from over 100 years ago, subconscious often influences in decision making.

But Poncho Villa is dead, and the Mexico of today is very different than the Mexico of 100 years ago, and Americans must change their perception of Mexico to better understand the issues of today.

The explanations of weapon trades are difficult and sensitive to understand due to the secretly cover of the trade actions but today in the world according to UN recorded reports more than “550 million” piece of weapons exist across the world but actually the amount exceeded that numbers despite the existences of “220 million” mines. We have to ask that the existence of those abundance weapons amount for what and if we compare the numbers of weapons to the populations of the world, we see that each 12 persons take one gun or weapon. These terrified threats face all the populations of world under the hegemony of international free trade market for selling and buying weapons.

At the beginning, we have to define the concept of weapon trades, as like the other trades, “weapon trades include the investment of capital in the extent of different types weapons and military equipment for the purpose of market supplying and profit achievement”. Despite the profit factors, the political and military factors are pushing the weapon trades to revolve in dynamic process circle and also normally like other commercial goods either they are selling in the markets or in secret places with black markets.

Qualitatively, the differences between the markets of weapon and other commercial goods are obvious because in the markets of commercial goods, the process of selling and buying to fulfill the wishes of consumers and also they have economic values directly or indirectly but otherwise in the weapon markets from the economic perspective the selling and buying processes are useless and all the products of weapon markets will bring the devastation and insecurity to humanity.

When the authorities established on the principles of power, weapons and military capabilities, the weapon trades maintain themselves further for long time to provide military equipment for the forces and troops and thus the troops and air and Marian forces need specific military equipment to continue their duties. Indeed, the majority of states are thinking like that if they have enough and strong military sector, they will win all the wars in the battle field, and then they will get what they want, but actually there are a minority of states possess the industrial military factories in the world to produce and supply weapons and also they are a giant military supplier to the world markets.

The heavy of this topic ties with weapon factories which deployed across the many countries in world but the largest one possess by the developed states such America, France, Britain, Russia and china and for instance, USA institutional military sectors are conducting the half of international weapon trades annually. Recently some states emerged in markets of selling weapons like South Korea and Israel and Turkey but with restricted shape because these states have no enough weapons to export, but they still do the activities of exportation.

According to static dates of USA foreign department, annually USA sells weapons about “33000 million dollars”, Britain sells about “3200 million dollars” and Russia sells about “3100 million dollars” and otherwise the consumer states like Saudi buys weapons about “7700 million dollars”, Turkey buys about “3200 million dollars” and Japan buys weapon about “3000 million dollars”. Apparently the USA is a active seller and Saudi is a active buyer to energize the international weapon markets. We have to mention that, the above information’s just showed the formal deals to buy and sell weapons under the monitoring of foreign departments of those states while they are selling more than that amounts behind the backdrops of World Theater.

Internally, the abundance amount of weapon exchanges between the companies’ weapon producers and military defense department but the statics do not focus on these amounts because these states which mentioned above they already have the factories of weapon producing and supply apart from themselves needs except Saudi Arabia which imports all needs in abroad because Saudi has some backwards factories to produce advanced weapons.

The weapon trades are not just the make and sell the weapon itself but rather include many other relevant aspects like small guns, bullets, explosives, military clothes and shoes, campers, spoon and containers, military knifes, blankets, emergence box, and bottles despite military training and course and renew of old weapons and hired soldiers.

There are two types of markets one is white market which contains all the formal deal in weapon trades fields under the international laws and procedures but in contrast this the other one is black market which contains all the illegal and secret deal to smuggle the prohibited goods away from the eyes of laws and tariffs and sensors and taxes. In the black market particularly in that secret deals a lot of weapons are exchanging between the advanced states and backwards states in particular the militias are taking advantages of these deals mostly.

From the attractive points of view, we have to look into the allocated national incomes of countries to buy weapons and some countries say untrue amount to their peoples about the allocated budgets to buy weapons in abroad, for instance Saudi Arabia allocated “26 million” dollars to its troops annually but doubtfully allocated “7,7” billion dollars to buy weapons. Following these stands, according to UN reports from 2006 to 2012 the world troops have spent “960 billion dollars” and there is no doubt this amount increased rapidly due to technologized of weapons gradually year by year from the small guns to tanks and military jets despite nuclear costs and also these all military costs on the count of their populations. For example if the America does not spend “290000 million dollars” on its own military sectors, at least each of American citizens will get 1200 dollars annually then who can live better life and this equation is true for all states which selling and buying military equipment’s.

The end of history comes with the fall of communism. Francis Fukuyama states in The End of History and the Last Man that the end of the Cold War is the victory of liberalism over competing ideologies. This end of history does not mean the end of conflicts, but it sets the ideal of liberal democracy as the unbeatable horizon for humanity.

The end of the story presupposes that it has meaning.

Fukuyama defends this thesis by taking up Hegel’s philosophy of history. In the famous dialectic of master and slave, man is driven by his fundamental need for recognition to engage in a struggle to death against his fellow man; it is this conflict that triggers the historical movement. War and science are for the philosopher the proof of this dynamic. Until the classical era, military innovation was so important for states in permanent insecurity that it spread naturally; then the emergence of the scientific method made the benefits considerable. Fukuyama shows that this scientific development is dependent on an environment that converges all societies towards the same model. “If we are now, he writes, to the point of not being able to imagine a world substantially different from ours, in which there is no evidence that we can fundamentally improve our current order, then we must take into consideration the possibility that history itself may be at the end” (The End of History and the Last Man). Thus, for Fukuyama, the progress initiated by science has gradually eliminated the fundamental contradictions of human societies.

The end of the story corresponds to the victory of economic liberalism.

For Fukuyama, the progress of the physical sciences has led to the liberation of economic activity because the incorporation of innovation requires a high-performance industry. However, since private property is probably the best lever for economic efficiency, capitalism has proved to be the best system for bringing scientific progress to people. The progress of this system therefore seems likely to continue worldwide. “What the post-war Asian economic miracle demonstrates, says Fukuyama, is that capitalism is a path to economic development that is potentially accessible to all countries” (The End of History and the Last Man). Thus, the fact that underdevelopment is not an irremediable obstacle and that developed countries cannot block countries lagging behind testifies to the ability of capitalism to spread through the liberal principles of private property and market laws. In practice, moreover, the fall of communism, the decline of totalitarian states in Europe, military dictatorships in Latin America, and China’s conversion to a market economy are for Fukuyama resounding victories for economic liberalism. Capitalism then appears as the only rational organization of production and consumption.

The end of history spreads political liberalism.

In Fukuyama’s analysis, the thymos, this need for motor recognition of human action, finally finds in democracy a political regime capable of satisfying it. By ending the power of the masters (the aristocrats and despots) and proclaiming the equality of all, it allows everyone to satisfy their desire to be recognized. Coupled with capitalism, it provides an outlet for individuals with strong thymos, to whom the diversity and infinity of economic activities offer a field of action. In other words, Fukuyama shows that by diverting the most dangerous men by their ambition from the political sphere, economic liberalism makes liberal democracy possible, a stable system that guarantees individual freedoms. This end of the story marks the advent of the last man. “For Nietzsche, writes Fukuyama, democratic man was entirely composed of desire and reason, skilled at finding new tricks to satisfy a host of small desires through calculations of long-term selfishness. But he was completely lacking megalothumia, satisfied with his petty happiness and unable to feel the slightest shame at his inability to rise above his desires” (The End of History and the Last Man). Thus, the last man is mediocre, but he is the inevitable figure at the end of the story, the only one possible.

The Pentagon confirmed a strike against jihadist leaders on 31st of augustin Syria. According to one NGO, the death toll is one of the most deadly inflicted on jihadists in one attack.

The United States led a strike in Syria on Saturday against jihadist leaders near the town of Idleb, killing at least 40 of them according to an NGO.

“This operation targeted AQ-S leaders responsible for attacks threatening American citizens, our partners, as well as innocent civilians,” the Pentagon said in a brief statement, without giving details of how the operation had been conducted.

Recrudescence of American strikes

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH), which relies on an extensive network of sources in Syria, reported that missile attacks had targeted a meeting bringing together leaders of the Hurrah al-Din and Ansar al-Tawhid jihadist groups as well as leaders of other extremist groups allied with them in a training camp. “At least 40 of them” were killed, said Rami Abdel Rahmane, director of the OSDH.

The attack occurred on the first day of a truce in the bombardments of the Syrian regime and its Russian ally against the Idleb region. The target groups are allies of the HTS, the former Syrian branch of Al Qaeda. All these factions have already been the target of air raids by the Syrian regime, its Russian ally, but also by the international anti-Jihadist coalition led by the United States, and by the United States itself.

On 30 June, the United States carried out a strike “against al-Qaeda’s leadership in Syria in a training structure” in the province of Aleppo, neighbouring Idleb. The OSDH then claimed that eight people were killed by the strike, including six commanders of the Hurrah al-Din group.

In 2014, the United States formed an international coalition to fight Daesh, which was defeated last March in Syria with the help of Kurdish forces. But American soldiers are still on the scene in Syria. American strikes against jihadists had decreased considerably since 2017.

A truce of the Syrian regime

On another front of the war, the Syrian regime stopped air strikes on Idleb on Saturday, on the first day of a truce announced after four months of devastating bombardments, the OSDH said.

An NGO reported on Saturday that a civilian was killed in Syrian regime missile attacks on Idleb, the first “violation” of a truce that began in the morning and concerned only the Syrian army.

This truce was announced the day before by Russia, an ally of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian President, which it is helping in the conflict, particularly in its offensive against jihadists and rebels in the Idleb region, which has killed more than 950 civilians since late April. The ground fighting has also ceased, according to the NGO.

On Sunday, September 1, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier apologized to the victims of German aggression in 1939 at a ceremony in Wielun, a small Polish town where the first bombs of the Second World War fell. “I bow to the victims of the Wielun attack. I bow to the Polish victims of German tyranny. And I apologize,” said Mr. Steinmeier in German and Polish, in the presence of his Polish counterpart.

Poland was severely affected by the horrors of the Second World War, losing six million citizens, including three million Jews. “It was the Germans who committed a crime against humanity in Poland. Anyone who claims that it is over, that the National Socialists’ reign of terror in Europe is a marginal event in German history is judging himself,” Steinmeier said.

Moreover, the Head of State referred to the far right in Germany, Alternative for Germany (AfD). The co-president of the Afd Alexander Gauland had considered that the years of the Third Reich were only a “bird droppings” in a glorious German millennium.

“We will not forget. We want to remember and we will remember,” Steinmeier said. His Polish counterpart Andrzej Duda denounced “an act of barbarism” and “a war crime” that opened the Second World War in Wielun on 1 September 1939. Thanking the German President for his presence today, Mr Duda considered “that this ceremony will go down in the history of Polish-German friendship”.

“I have seen dead, wounded…”

After the ceremonies, the two heads of state are scheduled to visit the Wielun Museum and meet the survivors of the German aggression in 1939. “I saw dead, wounded… Smoke, noise, explosions. Everything was burning…”, said an 88-year-old witness to the bombing, interviewed by Agence France-Presse a few days before the anniversary.

The attack came a week after the secret agreement, the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, concluded between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on the sharing of Europe between them. The Second World War would kill between 40 and 60 million people, including six million Jews, as a result of the Nazi Holocaust.

At the time of the Wielun ceremony, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans participated in the commemoration of the desperate struggle waged by a handful of Polish defenders of the Westerplatte garrison in Gdansk, bombed by a German warship.

On September 3, 1939, France and the United Kingdom, allies of Poland, declared war on Germany, but without launching major operations. On 17 September, the USSR attacked the eastern part of the country.

Nazi-Soviet collaboration ended with Hitler’s attack on the USSR on June 22, 1941. The war continued between the Allies, joined by the USSR and the United States, and the German-Italian-Japanese axis, which was defeated in 1945.

In the middle of the day, US Vice President Mike Pence, preceded by Mr. Duda and Mr. Steinmeier, will deliver a speech on Pilsudski Square in front of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw. Mr. Pence replaces President Donald Trump who had planned to travel to Poland, but eventually gave up so as not to leave his country threatened by Hurricane Dorian.

War repairs

Germany is now Poland’s ally in NATO and the EU, and its largest economic partner. But, in the eyes of the conservative nationalist government in Warsaw, some problems inherited from the past are still waiting for a final settlement, namely that of war reparations.

Besides, A parliamentary committee is currently working on a new estimate of Poland’s losses, which Warsaw wishes to present to Berlin. But for the German government, the issue of reparations has long since been closed.

Chancellor Angela Merkel will attend the commemoration in Warsaw, but neither French President Emmanuel Macron nor British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have any plans to make the trip. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited, due to the annexation of Crimea and the separatist conflict in Ukraine.

According to the Polish Presidency, some 40 foreign delegations are expected, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.