Young Diplomats

A complex international economy

Slumping exports sent Germany’s economy into reverse in the second quarter, with prospects of an early recovery slim as its manufacturers struggle at the sharp end of a global slowdown amplified by tariff conflicts and fallout from Brexit.

Overall output fell 0.1% quarter-on-quarter, data showed on Wednesday. With pressure growing on a thus far reluctant government to provide more fiscal stimulus, the economy minister said action was needed to prevent a second consecutive quarter of contraction that would tip the country into recession.

The global slowdown, reinforced by Chinese industrial output expanding at its lowest rates in 17 years in July, has broadly impacted the euro zone, where corresponding data showed second quarter growth halved to 0.2%.

But Germany’s traditionally export-reliant economy – Europe’s largest – has been particularly vulnerable, amid signs that the boost it has received from a sustained period of surging domestic demand is waning.

“Today’s GDP report definitely marks the end of a golden decade for the German economy,” said ING analyst Carsten Brzeski.

“Trade conflicts, global uncertainty and the struggling automotive sector have finally brought (it)… down on its knee.”

On a calendar-adjusted basis, annual growth slowed to 0.4% from 0.9% in the first quarter, the Federal Statistics Office data showed, and for 2019 overall Berlin expects growth to drop to just 0.5% from last year’s 1.5%.

The economy ministry called the outlook subdued, noting that Britain’s scheduled exit from the EU on Oct. 31 looked likely to be a disorderly one, while Economy Minister Peter Altmaier said Wednesday’s data was a wake-up call.

“We are in a phase of economic weakness but not yet in recession. We can avoid that if we take the right measures,” Altmaier told mass-market daily Bild.

His ministry said impetus was unlikely to come from the industrial sector, whose BDI association – in an unusual move -joined a growing chorus of voices urging the government to kick-start growth by ditching its balanced budget rule and finance more public investments through new debt.

A government spokeswoman said Berlin did not currently see “any need for further measures to stabilize the economy,” which was still expected to grow slightly this year.

Despite Wednesday’s headline quarterly figure matching expectations, markets also took fright, with the yield on Germany’s benchmark 10-year government bond hitting a record low of -0.624% DE10YT=RJR.

“The bottom line is that the German economy is teetering on the edge of recession,” Andrew Kenningham from Capital Economics said, noting that exporters were facing an even bigger potential hit if a no-deal Brexit materialized.

Domestic safety net ?

The statistics office said that net trade slowed second quarter economic activity as exports recorded a stronger quarter-on-quarter decrease than imports.

Construction was also a drag, after the sector pushed up overall growth in the first three months due to an unusually mild winter.

In a conclusion echoed by the economy ministry and Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, the office said domestic demand remained robust.

That has become an important growth driver for Germany in recent years as consumers benefit from record-high employment, inflation-busting pay hikes and low borrowing costs.

But UniCredit analyst Andreas Rees suggested the positive impact of those factors was limited.

“For a year now, the German economy has been only crawling forward,” Rees said, with the many uncertainties facing exporters presaging more pain over the rest of the year.

ING’s Brzeski said a national debate about easing fiscal policy to provide stimulus – a focus for international criticism of the government’s economic management since the peak of the financial crisis – would get more heated.

In a guest article in Wednesday’s edition of business daily Handelsblatt, BDI association managing director Joachim Lang said the balanced budget that the government has stuck to rigidly since 2014 “should be called into question in an economically fragile situation”.

A government official told Reuters last week that Berlin was considering issuing new debt to finance a costly climate protection package.

On Tuesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel poured cold water on the calls for more fiscal stimulus, and on Wednesday the government spokeswoman said this position had not changed.

“The fiscal policy of the German government is already expansive,” the spokeswoman added.

Merkel had noted the already agreed removal of the Soli income tax surcharge for most employees from 2021, a relief worth some 11 billion euros per year that is likely to support domestic demand and with it overall growth.

Introduction

Venezuela has plunged into a severe crisis. The country is subject to human rights violations. Besides, its economy is going down and the Venezuelian people do not trust its political leader. Indeed, Nicolas Maduro is accountable for this dramatic situation.

The Venezuelian’s exode

A staggering 15 to 19 percent of Venezuela’s total population has left the country amid an economic and political crisis with no clear end in sight, a new survey estimates. And those numbers are likely to increase in coming months and years if there are not profound changes in the South American country.

A recent poll by the Caracas-based think tank, Consultores 21, found that 48 percent of all families had an average of 1.6 members living abroad. Based on those numbers, the organization estimates that anywhere from 4.7 million to 6 million of the nation’s 31.8 million people are now living abroad.

The poll surveyed 2,000 people during July, has a margin of error of 2.2 percent and is likely to ruffle feathers. Unfortunately,The Venezuelan government doesn’t provide demographic information. However, it has called United Nations’ estimates that more than 4 million people have left the country in recent years an “exaggeration” designed to paint the administration in the worst possible light.

The political crisis

Venezuela’s pro-government Constituent Assembly was holding an unscheduled session on Monday, with the opposition warning that it was preparing to announce the dissolution of the opposition-controlled National Assembly.The warning was given by opposition leader Juan Guaido, who said in a video published on Sunday that President Nicolas Maduro’s government was planning to call early elections and dissolve parliament.

“If … they do what they are planning to do, we shall have a phase of greater conflict,” Guaido said in the video, which was posted on Twitter.

Constituent Assembly President Diosdado Cabello confirmed on Sunday that the assembly would hold a “session for peace”.

Created in 2017, the Constituent Assembly was widely seen as a bid by Maduro to replace the National Assembly, the country’s parliament, which had been stripped of its powers for allegedly swearing in legislators whose elections were not valid.

The National Assembly remained as the main bastion of the opposition, with Guaido elected its president in January. Parliamentary elections are not due before late 2020. Guaido also said on Sunday that the government was preparing to “massively persecute” legislators in the National Assembly by stripping them of their parliamentary immunity.

On Monday, the Supreme Court asked the Constituent Assembly to lift the immunity of three more legislators on charges including treason, the ruling Socialist Party and the daily El Nacional said.

That brings to 18 the number of opposition politicians, including Guaido, accused this year of treason, and instigating rebellion.Earlier, Guaido had warned that Maduro was launching a “mass pursuit” of anti-government legislators.

“The vermin little Juan and his gang are very anxious, they can’t stand pressure, they worry about whether we are going to dissolve parliament, about whether we are going to call early elections, about whether we are going to strip 25 lawmakers of their immunity, stop being so nervous,” Cabello, the Constituent Assembly president tweeted on Monday.The Constituent Assembly meeting followed new sanctions announced last week by the administration of US President Donald Trump, which froze the assets of the Venezuelan government.

“After the bid to close [the National Assembly] … have no doubt that we shall know how to act with the backing of the International Community and the strength of the mobilisation of our people,” parliament tweeted on Monday.The US embassy in Venezuela, which withdrew its staff after Caracas severed diplomatic relations with Washington in January, also issued a warning against the eventual closure of the National Assembly.

“Any attack against the Assembly is an attack against democracy,” the embassy tweeted. Maduro won a second term in an election boycotted by most of the opposition last year. He has presided over an economic meltdown and is engaged in a power struggle with Guaido, who has won the support of dozens of countries for his campaign to remove the president.

Sources of this article : https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article233947387.html; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/opposition-warns-maduro-eyeing-dissolve-venezuela-parliament-190812230505872.html

Erdogan – The once-great strategist he was when it comes to power struggles in the domestic scene is now having troubles finding the balance between his personal political gains and the sacrifices he has made in order to make such gains. He has been very sufficient in maximizing the damages he can cause to the country and in turn to himself while gaining very little in return. The very recent defeats the AKP has suffered in the municipal elections and the re-election in Istanbul are a great testament to this.

He has virtually gone against the policies the AKP had pursued ever since they came to power in the early 2000s in every conceivable way. Not only has he torpedoed the relations with the US by fanatically insisting on purchasing the Russian-supplied S-400 anti-aircraft missile programs despite the risk of losing F-35 contracts and facing potential economic sanctions but also his authoritarian conducts involving repeated transgressions of democratic institutions and the blatant disdain to some European countries’ calls have contributed to the long-term deterioration in Turkey’s relations with the EU. His intransigence in refusing to let the Kurds have their own strongholds and persistence in launching a land invasion into Tel Rifaat, Manbij and the east of the Euphrates to chase them out have also added to the causes of tension with Turkey’s NATO allies.

But that’s not all. He has also managed to tremendously wreck the relations with both his strategic allies and the neighboring states. The Idlib demilitarized zone agreement he brokered with Putin last year has become a disaster because of his failure to deliver his promises, which has triggered growing impatience in both Damascus and Moscow, ultimately resulting in a Russian-backed Syrian offensive into the region. The very recent aggressive attempt to drill offshore oil in the disputed areas nearing Cyprus’s coast has also sent alarming signals to both Greece and the internationally-recognized regime in Cyprus.

The only two adjoining entities that have maintained relatively better relations with Ankara, apart from Iran, are Iraq and the Kurdistan regional government, but that is only because Iraq has suffered tremendous loss in the war against ISIS and is currently too weak to lose friends, and in the case of the KRG, it is because a huge proportion of its revenues comes from Turkey through trades and oil deals. In addition, the 2017 referendum in the KRG has not only pushed Baghdad and Ankara together but also made Erbill even more dependent on Turkey. Nevertheless, these ostensibly amicable relations are also about to be seriously tested. The ongoing Turkish military campaign that started last year involving frequent cross-border airstrikes targeting PKK fighters in areas within the Kurdistan region has drawn increasing condemnation on the part of Iraq. Reacting to two very recent air raids that caused five civilian casualties, Baghdad has begun to depict Turkey’s incursion as “unilateral acts of war” and urge Ankara to stop violating Iraq’s sovereign integrity.

Although falling behind the Iraqi federal government in terms of the intensity on language, Erbill has also expressed concerns and asked the two belligerent parties to end the conflict. However, being Erdogan, one thing for certain is that no other nations can tell him what is permissible and what is off the limits. That several statements can make him change his course is just unimaginable. But that’s not the worst. Ankara’s response to the condemnation is an unequivocally crude “guarantee” that the airstrikes would “firmly continue”, which has shown Erdogan’s relentless disregard to his counterparts in both Baghdad and Erbill. It almost seems that Erdogan is purposely leaving no space for the preservation of normal ties with the only adjoining authorities that are least critical of Turkey. While it is very unlikely that the relations between Turkey and the two governments will sink to the point of no return, it is certain that pushing Erbill and Baghdad together in perceiving Ankara as an external threat will harm Erdogan’s interests in the region and might cost him some cooperating projects that require their signatures.

As is the case in his dealings with countries that are either Turkey’s allies or its neighbors, Erdogan is also boosting efforts in intensifying confrontations with his perceived enemies. While he has every reason to defend his perseverance in pursuing the Khashoggi murder case, both the military and financial assistance he is giving to Islamist forces, such as those in Libya, to counter the outreach of the Egypt-UAE-Saudi Axis, will detrimentally drag Turkey into an abysmal turmoil.
Sure, he has successfully made himself both an ardent Turkish nationalist that would alleviate the pressures posed by his ruling ally, the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party), and a fierce Islamist campaigner that would continue to win the support of a largely conservative demographic base, but one must ask, does he really need to go to the length of such extremes to fulfill these goals? Some may say yes, but the unrelenting tough rhetoric and forceful actions will probably backfire by making Turks antipathetic to these themes.

All these decisions are not bolstering his international image but rather quite effectively isolating Turkey in the global stage. The negative effects of this reality are quite obvious as economic cooperation may be weakened by deteriorating relations with its trading partners and sooner or later Erdogan will also find himself lacking genuine support from Turkey’s traditional allies, leaving room for its opponents to manipulate against it. Just this March the Trump administration has imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on Turkey, a decision unlikely to be reverted by Erdogan’s debilitating sway. Analysts have also suggested lira’s plunge is largely caused by the geopolitical frictions between Turkey and the United States, while Erdogan’s rival states have been reaping their rewards by ingratiating the Western community despite the harsher human rights conditions within their territories. Ultimately, it is Turkey’s economy as well as political stability that will suffer. It won’t be long before a larger proportion of Turks begin realizing the perils of having Erdogan as president.

Such signs have already emerged as the AKP is increasingly losing its support. In addition to the municipal defeats in several large cities the AKP suffered, that several prominent former AKP leaders including Abdullah Gul, Ahmet Davutoglu and Ali Babacan have set out to create a new political party in order to challenge Erdogen’s authoritarian regime suggests another testament to the forgone comment. So if the costs derived from Erdogan’s acts do not match his political gains, then he should no longer be considered a slick strategist who bases his decisions on rationalities and strategic necessities but someone who is obsessed with pride and strident ideologies. An equally important conclusion to this penchant is that the attempts to strengthen his domestic standing should no longer be situated as an effective prism through which to assess Erdogan’s rationale behind his decisions on foreign policy.

Biography

Montesquieu studied Law near Paris and at the age of 25 he entered the Bordeaux Parliament as a councillor. Two years later, in 1716, he inherited his uncle’s fortune, and one of the most prestigious offices in Parliament.
But Montesquieu was already more passionate about science than about his position. Indeed, the same year, he created an anatomy prize at the Bordeaux Academy. Then, he published several memoirs on subjects such as breathing underwater, bad weather in Italy or the mines in Germany…

The public Career

In 1721, Montesquieu began his literary career by publishing the Persian Letters.
In 1726, he sold his office and began travelling to Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy and especially to Great Britain. Back in Bordeaux, in 1734, he published his first political work: Considerations on the causes of the greatness of the Romans and their decline. It begins shortly after the writing of the Spirit of Laws, (published in 1748). The Church decided to attack and banish him, which didn’t stop him from getting a great influence.

The Spirit of Law and the Climate Theory

The word “climate” appears more often in the Spirit of laws than the word “politics”.

• Book XIV: Laws in their relationship to the nature of climate,
• Book XV: How the laws of civil slavery relate to the nature of climate,
• Book XVI: How the laws of domestic slavery relate to the nature of climate,
• Book XVII: How the laws of political servitude relate to the nature of climate, etc.

A simple look at the table of contents allows to see the place that climate occupies in the Spirit of laws!
The word “climate” itself appears 120 times in the text, it is more than “politics” which is only 116 times. –

The Hippocrate’s legacy

In fact, Montesquieu’s masterpiece are the culmination of the “climate theory”. This theory assumes that the characteristics of populations are explained by the climate to which they are subjected.
This idea is attributed to Hippocrates, who set it out in his Treaty of Air, Water and Places. According to him, the environment is responsible for diseases but affects the physical and ultimately moral characteristics of a population. To sum up, cold climates generate big brave but not very clever bulls. On the other hand, warm climates give birth to intelligent, refined but alanguished men. Between the two, i.e. invariably where the author was born, is an optimal climate that allows all the qualities to be combined.

When Science meets Politics

Montesquieu resolutely takes up this environmental determinism: in Book XIX, he writes that ” several things govern men: climate, religion, laws, government maxims, examples of past things, morals, manners ” but that ” the climate empire and the first of all empires “. He uses his passion for anatomy by detailing the action of cold and heat on nerves, muscles, heart, etc. For example, “cold air tightens the ends of the outer fibers of our body: it increases their resilience […] Therefore, we have more vigour in cold climates.”

But Montesquieu goes a little further by linking climate and political system. For him “bad legislators are those who have promoted the vices of the climate, and good ones are those who have opposed it”. For example, polygamy is favoured by hot climates and alcohol consumption by cold climates (again, these claims are medically demonstrated), which explains why the former is allowed on Islamic soil while the latter is prohibited, and vice versa. This is one of the reasons why the Church has criticized the Spirit of Laws: he attributes choices that seem to be moral to the influence of climate and natural causes.

The influence of the work

In the 19th century, advances in medicine and sociology discredited Climate theory, but many of the clichés that emerged from it remain in people’s minds. And we come back to this little by little: today, many studies are trying, as Montesquieu did 300 years ago, to establish a link between economic development and climate or between violence and climate.
The Spirit of the Law is therefore relevant. To reread it is not only to visit a somewhat dusty monument, it is to confront the first intuition of the links between climate and society and a scientific approach at the service of ideas that today appear dated or even racist. From this point of view, Montesquieu places our understanding of climate in a very long time while questioning its limits.

MAD: Confidence to Aggression

 

It was the use of Nuclear weapon – doomsday machine – which brought an end to World War II. After the end of a total war initiated a limited war called cold war. It was between the communist block spearheaded by the USSR and capitalist block led by US. Both states were in the possession of nuclear weapon which prevented the two blocks from third world war. What was it which made such an adventure a herculean task on the part of either block? It was the concept of MAD. MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It was the fear of mutual suicide – which was made realistic by the presence of nuclear arsenals – which deterred USSR and US from taking any misadventure. The balance of terror succeeded in putting away the direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington D. C. until the end of cold war.

Proliferation begets proliferation. Apart from US and Russia, other states like France, UK, and China also acquired this dangerous and lethal nuclear technology. Proliferation didn’t stop there. It reached South Asia. The two sister-states of the former British Indian Empire – India and Pakistan – also got the nuclear technology through one way or other. Both states became nuclear weapon possessing states. And both are arch-rival since their independence in 1947 on the basis of Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. Scot D. Sagon have proposed three models i.e. Security, Norms and Prestige model, to explicate the reason behind the desire of the states to build nuclear bomb. According to his analysis the pursuit of Indian nuclear program was because of the prestige. However, Pakistan made nuclear bomb solely due to security reasons to counter balance the already conventionally mighty cum nuclear equipped state of India.

Unlike cold war where due to the fear of mutual suicide both the superpowers avoided any direct conflict which might escalate into nuclear war, Pakistan and India got confidence to be more aggressive and bellicose. Having nuclear weapon in their arsenals both states became bold in waging conventional warfare against each other. Instead of abstaining the nuclear armed states, the presence of these lethal weapons provided confidence to adopt aggressive postures. Both states have left no stone unturned to wage a low level battle against each other. The deterrence theory has failed in case of India and Pakistan because since the achievement of nuclear weapons both states have carried out many offences. Right after the successful nuclear explosions in 1998, the Kargil episode happened. In 2001 India mobilized her whole war machinery to wage war against Pakistan in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on Indian parliament. Similarly Bombai attacks set the ground for war between the two states. Indian claimed surgical strikes as a response to militants attack at Uri which claimed the lives of 19 soldiers. Recently, in reaction to attack at Pulwama, Indian piolet crossed the line of control to retaliate and Indian officials claimed to have avenged the killing of 40 Indian soldier by eliminating the terrorist’s sanctuaries inside Pakistan. While Pakistani officials refuted the claim.

Pakistan’s use of sub-conventional warfare like proxies in Kashmir and India resulted in the Indian formulation of ‘Cold Start’ doctrine to counterbalance the Pakistan’s proxy moves. The doctrine delineated the response of the Indian against any proxy attack on the behalf of Pakistan. According to Cold Start doctrine, India would carry out quick conventional response in the event of terrorist attack. Hussain Haqqani writes in his book, Reimagining Pakistan, “Pakistna began developing low-yield, tactical battlefield nuclear weapons such as the Nasar missile, to provide flexible deterrence options, in response to India’s Cold Start doctrine”. The problem with tactical nuclear weapons is that they are made available to the ground troops which are prone to unauthorized, and misuse.

Looking at the above mentioned episodes of aggression and belligerency, it goes without saying that the theory of nuclear deterrence is simply not working in south Asia. Question arises, then what is it which stop the two nuclear states from ushering in the cold winter upon the region? The question is answered by Feroz Hassan Khan (Ex Brigadier National Command Authority), according to him it is the intervention of US that prevent to two states each time from going nuclear. Minus the intervention of US, the two states would escalate the conventional war into nuclear one. If it is so, consider a situation where US refused to mediate between the two states in time of a crisis? Or what if the response of Washington came late unexpectedly in the hour of crisis?

Military strategist both in Pakistan and India believe that they know the threshold between the conventional warfare and nuclear escalation. They are confident that they could maintain the balance between the low level instability and overall stability. But what they don’t know is that miscalculation, and misperception, can result in the low level instability dominating the overall stability, crossing the threshold, erasing the difference between conventional and nuclear warfare and ushering in the Nuclear Winter in the region.

Months after President Donald Trump announced the creation of the U.S. Space Force, France is beginning to lay the groundwork for its own version. 

French President Emmanuel Macron announced last month that the nation’s air force will establish a space command for the purpose of national defense, particularly to protect French satellites. 

Last week, French Minister of Defense Florence Parly detailed the nation’s plan for its new space force, which involves equipping satellites with machine guns and lasers, according to the French news weekly Le Point. 

First, the country will launch next-generation Syracuse satellites equipped with cameras that will be able to identify threats in space, such as anti-satellite weapons. 

The French military currently operates a constellation of three Syracuse satellites that are primarily used for communication between the mainland and French troops deployed abroad. But after the new cameras are tried and tested, France will launch another generation of Syracuse satellites that will also be able to destroy enemy satellites. 

The upgraded Syracuse satellites will be armed with either submachine guns or lasers that could disable or even destroy another satellite, according to Le Point; France aims to have those space weapons fully operational in orbit by 2030.

While the international Outer Space Treaty prohibits the testing of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons in orbit, and another United Nations treaty prohibits the weaponization of outer space, France has no intention of violating those treaties or initiating any space battles with its satellites, Parly said during a speech at Air Base 942 Lyon Mont-Verdun on July 26.

“We do not want to embark on a space arms race,” Parly said. “We will conduct a reasoned arsenalization.”

Parly announced that the French air force would receive an additional 700 million euros (around $780 million) in addition to its existing €3.6 billion (about $4 billion) budget for space activities between 2019 and 2025. The new space command will consist of 220 personnel from the French Air Forces’ Joint Space Command, the Operational Center for Military Surveillance of Space Objects (COSMOS) and the Satellite Observation Military Center (CMOS). The space force will operate from the new Air Force Space Operations Center in Toulouse. 

This article was originally published on the website https://www.space.com/france-military-space-force.html. You can find the article here.

YoungDiplomats has recently wrote an article on the growing power of India in Space industry : https://www.young-diplomats.com/india-joins-world-space-powers/.

This article is the second part of https://www.young-diplomats.com/russia-foreign-policy-glimpse/. This first article focused on general aspects of Russian foreign policy. The article you’re about to read elaborates ten axes that Russia should follow in terms of foreign policy.

The internal situation of the country after 1990 has effected on the Russia foreign policy mainstreams and directions with abroad. Somehow Russia focuses and goals concentrated on the question of reversion glory. With that view Russia should come back to the former delusions’ grandeur of Soviet Union and meanwhile starting the process to gain some new goals to take the road of globalization (free trade, free market, and privatization of economy).

Gradually the Russian officials started to adopt the policy of affinity with the directions of international politics and globalized waves and also the new trade and economic equations charged with free trade bargain. It was the common point between Washington and Moscow to confront the phenomenon of terrorism as a globalized shocker and in that context, Russia regionally and internationally has been serving the national security of itself and global security as well. On the multi-levels military, politically and economically Moscow wanted to access the superior national goals and interests at present and future.

Generally, here we can mention the most priority agendas in Russia foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union until now:-

1. Avoiding Moscow from any nuclear weapons war involvement and world war.
2. Seeking for new alliances regionally and internationally by the political and military and economic mechanisms to return on its former position as a world polar and taking responsibility of global documents particularly in central Asia, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa content and the new conflicts in South America.
3. The provisions of understandable and mutualism relations and also taking step towards the advanced and democratic countries.
4. Russia opens its box out with the global economy moves and industrial groups.
5. Vitalized of Russia economy and improvement of social ailments.
6. Stabilization of democratic institutions internally.
7. Struggling to raise the Russian power and presence in the areas of the former Soviet Union again.
8. Attempting to prevent the outbreak of military and political conflicts in strategic soviet circles particularly in central Asia in order to lose these areas will become the huge obstacle to destroy the Russian delusion grandeur to introduce itself as world polar.  
9. Holding the collaboration principles between the Russia and western states and also putting the understandable principles instead of avoidance and hostility principles despite the Russia formal notification because of the proliferation of nuclear caps near the Russia borders will enforce Moscow to deploy missiles towards western states.
10. Considering the Middle East region as a center for Russia strategies economically, politically and militarily in order to take over the wealthy region which possesses the rich materials and properties despite the importance of Middle East geopolitically and geo-strategically.

From 431 to 404 before Christ Era, Athens and Sparta fought a bloody war, known as the Peloponnesian War. Thucydide, an Athenian thinker and politician, wrote a book in which he tells the story of this conflict.

A brief History of the Peloponnesian War

The fith century before Christ Era is rich in events. Indeed, Greek cities allied in order to overpower the Persians at the beginning of this century. Then, Athens took the control of the League of Delos and thus confirmed its maritime hegemony on the Aegean Sea. At that time, Athens was the imperial power, eager to grow and expand. However, Sparta felt worried about the growing influence and domination of Athens. It wouldn’t be relevant to describe the numerous events that lead to the clash (for more information YoungDiplomats suggests you to read the Wikipedia article on the conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War). After many battles, Athens lost this war and almost all its army during the Sicilian expedition.

The Thucydide’s Trap

Thucydide ‘s book remains the most reliable source on this conflict. The Thcydide ‘s trap describes a specific but not rare, geopolitical equilibrium. The ascent of Athens would be the deep but actual cause of the war. Thus, Thucydide explains that ” It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable. ” The Foreign Policy Magazine adds that ” The past 500 years have seen 16 cases in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war. ” (https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/).

Where is the Trap ?

The current opposition between the U.S and China seems to match the theory of Thucydide. At the end of the Cold War, the US came out victorious. It was the unique global power, able to expand everywhere and to play a role in every conflicts. On the other hand, China, following the Xiaoping’s measures, has reached the status of global power around 2010. Albeit recently (2014) the Chinese purchasing power parity has equalized with the U.S one. In other words, China is now a credible competitor to Washington.

Are we heading towards a War ?

As I’ve mentionned above, on the 16 historical Thucydide ‘s traps, 12 ended in war. Decision makers should take a look at the others cases so that they can avoid a massive war. For instance, Portugal and Spain could avoid a war in the fifteenth century. They agreed to sign the Tordesillas Treaty (1494) which has split the world between these two powers. How could they sit around a table and shake hands about global domination ? Both of them believed in the superior authority of the Pope. By the way, the Treaty has been concluded under the auspices of the Pope.

The need of international institutions

So do we need a religious entity to end conflicts or prevent them to appear ? It is doubtful because the whole world is not christian nor muslim. Global politics rather needs trustworthy institutions. Portugal and Spain believed in God and complied with the Pope’ suggestions. Beyond the Pope and the Christian institutionnal system, lies a common faith and religion. It means that despite the institutions, the States must believe in a common set of principles.

An unobtainable ideological meeting ?

Can China and the US agree on numerous principles that can ensure peace ? It is hard to believe. The current international law is based on Human Rights, the Right of Individuals, and the respect of borders and Human being. Nevertheless, it has to be said that China and the U.S are not on the same page. As a reminder, China has opened reeducation camps for muslim Uyghurs… This painful example is one among others. It perfectly illustrates the philosophical gap between the U.S and China. Due to this gap, it will not be easy to thwart the Thucydide ‘s Trap.

The Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) is in lockdown after the government revoked a special status granted to the troubled region.

On Monday, Interior Minister Amit Shah told India’s parliament that the federal government would scrap Article 370, a constitutional provision that grants special status and allows the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir to make its own laws. The order was subsequently approved by the Indian President.

CNBC takes a look at what this means for Kashmir and for the Muslim-majority state’s relationship with India.

What is Article 370?

Article 370 of the Indian constitution carves out a special status to the state of J&K. It also limits the Indian parliament’s power to make laws for the state. In effect, the special status, which is described as “temporary” allows the state of Jammu & Kashmir to have its own constitution, its own flag and take decisions except for any matter that is related to defense and foreign affairs. The temporary provision was included in the constitution on 17 October, 1949. This special status dates back to the end of British rule in India in 1947 when Maharaja Hari Singh of the then colonized state of Jammu & Kashmir signed a Treaty of Accession for the state of J&K to join the Indian side.

Meanwhile, Article 35a, which was added to the constitution in 1954 under Article 370 gives the state of Jammu & Kashmir the right to decide who its permanent residents are. The clause further gives special rights to residents in government jobs, when buying property in the state and for educational scholarships among others.The state defines its permanent residents as those that are “born or settled within the state before 1911 or after having lawfully acquired immovable property and resident in the state for not less than 10 years before that date.”

The law bans non-permanent residents from settling in the state, buying land, and taking government jobs or scholarships.

Why is the Indian government revoking Article 370?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party had pushed for an end to Kashmir’s special constitutional status, arguing that such laws had hindered its integration with the rest of India. India’s government wants to strengthen its influence over its only Muslim-majority region.

In the run up to the most recent elections in May this year, Modi’s Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) had promised a firm policy action to bring peace in the Jammu & Kashmir region. “In the last five years, we have made all necessary efforts to ensure peace in Jammu and Kashmir through decisive actions and a firm policy. We are committed to overcoming all obstacles that come in the way of development and providing adequate financial resources to all the regions of the state. We reiterate our position since the time of the Jan Sangh to the abrogation of Article 370,” according to the manifesto.

On Monday, Interior Minister Amit Shah introduced the measure in parliament amid massive protests from the opposition as well as regional parties in J&K. Opposition parties have condemned the government’s proposal, calling it “undemocratic.” Shah also said the state will be divided into two union territories – Jammu & Kashmir, which will have its own legislature, and Ladakh, which will be ruled directly by the central government and will have no legislature of its own. A union territory is a type of administrative division in India. Unlike the states of India, which have their own governments, union territories are federal territories governed directly by the main government.

What’s the situation on the ground?

India has deployed tens of thousands of troops across the Kashmir valley in anticipation of a backlash of the revoke. Indian authorities banned public movements, shut down schools and colleges indefinitely and put two former chief ministers of J&K — Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti — under house arrest ahead of the announcement.

The two leaders took to Twitter to express their disappointment over the decision and warned of consequences. Indian media reports suggest that mobile internet services have been suspended in Kashmir Valley and Satellite phones were being used by security officials.

Critics on Twitter have condemned the move, calling it “authoritarianism.” Indian-author Ramachandra Guha blamed the government for taking action without a proper debate.

What is Pakistan’s response to this?

On Monday, the Pakistan government strongly condemned India for taking “illegal steps” in its decision to revoke special status for Kashmir. This according to Reuters, citing a government statement. The Pakistan government also warned that it will “exercise all possible options.”

“As the party to this international dispute, Pakistan will exercise all possible options to counter the illegal steps,” Pakistan’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

How Kashmir got here?

India and Pakistan’s conflict over the mountainous region of Kashmir dates back to 1947 when both countries became independent from British colonial rule.

The entire subcontinent was partitioned into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, which led to a mass displacement as people migrated from one country to the other. Outbreaks of communal and religious violence killed hundreds of thousands of people in the subcontinent during that time.

Jammu and Kashmir was a former princely state where a large number of people were killed and others were driven away by the violence during the partition. Since then, India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars over the region — both countries claim the region in full but control only parts of it. Many have raised concerns over violence and human rights abuses in both India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir, as well as in Pakistan-controlled Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan region.

This excellent article was originally found on CNBC here’s the link towards the source : https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/article-370-what-is-happening-in-kashmir-india-revokes-special-status.html

Another mass killing happened in the highly unstable Borno State, in Nigeria. Boko Haram militia attacked and slayed 60 people, who were on the way back from a funeral. The fact took place in the small town of Nganzai, north of the state capital city Maiduguri. The reason of the terrorist attack, claims the local army chief Bunu Bukar Mustapha, would be a retaliation against citizens. In fact, two weeks before the massacre, the village repulsed a Boko Haram’s raid which ended with 11 terrorists dead.

Borno State is often protagonist of these type of harsh actions, since Boko Haram wants to found an Islamic State in the area.

Genesis of the Movement

Islamic protests did not start in Nigeria with Boko Haram. This movement comes after others, which appeared in particular in the 1970s, such as the Maitatsine movement, born under the aegis of Muhammad Marwa. He was killed in clashes with the army in 1980. His group disbanded, but its members scattered across the country gradually regrouped.

These various movements, which advocate a strict application of Sharia law, repressed by the army, open the voice to Mohamed Yusuf, “spiritual” leader of Boko Haram.

This preacher, who took up the radical Islamic cause and “anti-Westernism”, began to make himself known in the 2000s.

It is committed to a logic of rejecting the Western educational model inherited from colonization and considered perverse. “Mohamed Yusuf considers that the Western school destroys Islamic culture and conquers the Muslim community more surely than the Crusades. It condemns both the gender mix, the relaxation of morals, the corruption of traditional values, the use of the Gregorian calendar… and the practice of sport, which distracts from religion. As a result, he asks his followers to refrain from attending Western-inspired private schools and Nigerian public schools inherited from the British colonial system,” explains Nigeria specialist Marc-Antoine Pérouse de Montclos, PhD in political science and research fellow at the Institute for Research for Development (IRD).

The movement is not so much about conquering power as it is about the political ideal of a fundamentalist Islamic republic in the north of the country.

In 2003, Mohamed Yusuf’s fiefdom was attacked by the state police. The group then withdrew to Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State, which remains their base today.

Yusuf founded an Islamist school there that attracted students from all over the north of the country with a Muslim majority. Among them are the future members of Boko Haram: “Behind religion, the same deep resentment animates these populations who consider themselves abandoned by the elites, the central power and the federal police, corrupt and brutal,” Alain Vicky described in Le Monde diplomatique.