Young Diplomats

America needs a new strategy. The old way is collapsing as new superpowers emerge into the world. In order for the United States to stay afloat, it has to make alliances with those superpowers. One of those superpowers is India.

India has emerged itself as a big power, with the Make In India Initiative seeking to make India a major manufacturing hub, and is emerging as a major hub in the technology sector.

A United States – India alliance is not only good for the economy of the United States, but also for the national security of the United States.

One reason for India’s large economy is because it sits between the routes between the Middle East and the Far East. Ships going through the Suez Canal pass by India on their way to Singapore. West of India is the Middle East, still a hotbed for global jihad activity. North of India is China, a country currently threatening American hegemony in the Pacific Ocean, and under international scrutiny for it’s trade policies and checkbook diplomacy. East of India is Singapore, a major economic power and a country in a region that has received a lot of support.

India is surrounded on three front, and water on the fourth. If India falls, it will fall to these forces, and cause a global chain reaction that will eventually reach its way to the United States.

But there is a more practical reason as to why the United States needs an alliance with India: Afghanistan and the events of September 11, 2001.

The United States invaded Afghanistan to drive out Al-Qaeda, which was granted safe harbor by the Taliban, whose creator and biggest backer is Pakistan, arch rival of India. And Osama Bin Laden was eventually found in Pakistan, next to a key Pakistani military instillation, raising suspicions of Pakistani/ISI collaboration.

The War on Terror has forced Washington and New Delhi together, the rise of China has brought Washington and New Delhi together, the global economy has brought Washington and New Delhi together. And for the future of both powers, they must remain together.

YoungDiplomats gives you the best quotes on politics ! Politics is a complicated thing. Nevertheless, some people are pretty good at finding the exact word to sum up a specific aspect of politics…

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest on you – Pericles

Pericles was a famous Athenian politician, who heavily contributed to the greatness of Athen. This quote teaches us that Athenians used to conceive politics as an inclusive concept. Politics, whether you believe it or not, affects everyone. It would be foolish as well as dumb to take distance from the life of the city.

War is the continuation of politics by different means – Clausewitz

This quote is highly interesting. Clausewitz has been through fascinating times. He observed the war led by Napoleon. This quotation may be the most important contribution of Clausewitz to political science. He believes that war is not a science nor an art. The only human activities that can be compared to war is politics; due to the willing of win.

There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run, the swords will always be conquered by the spirit. – Napoleon Bonaparte

Bonaparte has scared the whole Europe for more than a decade. In spite of having a brilliant tactical and military genius, he knew that pure force is nothing in comparison with spirit.

Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation – Kissinger

This funny line of Kissinger shows us how cynical this U.S diplomat used to be.

It is a fine game to play – the game of politics – and it is well worth waiting for a good hand before really plunging – Churchill

Churchill is doubtlessly one of the smartest english stateman. He brillantly conducted his country to war while Europe lost in front of Germany. This quote teaches us that politics is also a matter of time and opportunities. A good politician is a not a risky gambler. When millions of lifes are at stake, one must behave wisely and put the odds on his side.

I used to say that politics was the second-oldest profession. I have come to know that it bears a gross similarity to the first. – Reagan

The U.S former president Ronald Reagan was particularly funny. Beyond this humoristic line side lies a terrible truth. Politicians must sometimes put their pride appart in order to be efficient or to reach power.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. – Ernest Benn

Ernest Benn was a British politician of the 20th century and member of the Labour. This quote means that politicians are accustomed to find non-existant trouble. The consequence of such ideological position is that politics is sometimes useless. This rhetoric implies that men can solve their conflicts by themselves, without any organization.

Politics has no relation with moral – Machiavelli

At the beginning of the 16th century, this Italian thinker significantly changed the way politics was understood. Usually, politicians and officials were religious. They governed their country, without forgetting a certain number of religious principle. Machiavelli has introduced the idea that politics is only the acquisition of power, without any moral barriers. Thus, he wrote his famous book The Prince. In this book, he institutes political principles and advises that any politician should follow.

I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.- De Gaulle

De Gaulle, the most important French of the 20th century teaches us a very important concept. Politics is the study of power. But it also remains the administration of the city, and in the case of De Gaulle, France. For him, politicians are not necessarily statemen. They have not the ability to lead efficiently the country and to pull it upwards. This is consistent with the career of De Gaulle who was a military before being a politician.

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river – Khrushchev

Here, the secretary of the communist party of USSR in the 50s describes a terrible reality: politicians are always liar. In democracy, the conquest of power can not remain all clear and honnest.

The latest escalation in the Persian Gulf region comprising the US, UK and Iran look like a poorly written repetitive script.
Soon after Donald Trump came into power, Iran was the first target of his ruthless power which came with US abandoning of nuclear agreement JCPOA. Then comes waves of sanctions hitting every part of the Iranian economy. Recent US sanctions to halt Iranian oil export to zero put many countries on a different track to look for other sources of their energy requirements.
This was enigma which later saw attacks on four oil tanker off the coast of UAE. In a short time, the US accused Iranian forces of these attacks. A few days later, two tankers were hit by explosions in the Gulf of Oman. Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia and global rival US accused Iranian of perpetrating the attacks and Iran denied.
Then comes June 20, The IRGC shot down an American sophisticated drone Global Hawk that-it alleged had entered Iranian air space and The US denied.
After few days US President Donald Trump tweeted that American forces destroyed an Iranian drone spying US aircraft carrier, which Tehran denied.
In the meantime, on 4th July British forces seized an Iranian tanker Grace 1 in Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, on Spain’s south coast. The British claim, which Tehran denied, the tanker was carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil to Syria thus breaching EU sanctions on Syria.
Iran’s IRGC hit back with seizing of UK-flagged tanker which violated international maritime rules, as Iranian claimed and British denied.
The pattern of actions and reactions, allegations and counter-allegations, tit for tat and denial goings-on show the trump age of populism and confusion.
Following this pattern, all parties have denounced and cautioned about serious result while insisting that they don’t want another war in the already war-torn region.

As US president has already kicked off 2020 election campaign, rallying across states to garner support for the presidency. He needs a lot of effort to restrain himself from taking actions, especially in the foreign policy domain. However, he has surrounded himself with hawkish advisors who are ready to push the US on another misadventure in the Middle East.
While Iranians are trying their best to put his utmost enemy down at every cost. The recent Gulf tensions have provided them with a suitable option to hit hard upon the American presidency.
This labyrinth has left the US with one option, to help Emirate and Saudis by pouring worth billions of weapons in their arsenals. This made Donald Trump ready to veto any US congress bill hindering US arms deal with the kingdom. It has also proposed to make a coalition of regional navies to make sure the safety of tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, there is no doubt that Iran cannot match US conventional power but it doesn’t mean it can’t give a tough time which is itself disastrous for the US.
Wars have not been kind to anyone and especially for American presidents. The United States defeat in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan is insurmountable. The costs of these wars in terms of human lives as well as its burden on American taxpayers were staggering. They left bruises. History shows that war tarnished legacies of American presidencies of Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
All the military conflicts confronting faced by US today, one cannot think of more unnecessary and counterproductive wars. Mr. Donald trump should consider this in his thought process.

America is changing. Europe is no longer the primary origin of immigrants to the United States. America is transforming itself from a majority white country into a country of mixed peoples. 

At least, that is what a lot of people on the right like to scream. But, if you look at the history of immigration to the United States, and the history of demographics in the United States, you will find that there is nothing new under the sun. 

One of the most obvious examples of this is Hispanics. While there has been a considerable increase of Hispanics since the Immigration Act of 1965, Hispanic-Americans, in particular Mexican-Americans, have a long history in the United States, and have a major influence on the culture of the American West. 

Take, for example, the cowboy. While Hollywood may create this idea of the Cowboy as being white man’s country, it couldn’t be farther from the truth. The cowboy is a Mexican invention, and the vast majority of cowboys were Hispanic. Also a quarter of cowboys were black, there were also many women as cowboys, several cowboys were native american, and there may have even been a few Chinese cowboys. 

Aside from cowboys, many U.S states have historically been majority Hispanic, notably New Mexico. This stems from the fact that many towns in the American Southwest were part of Mexico prior to the Mexican-American War. Following the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, these Mexicans became American citizens, and thus Hispanics became incorporated into American life, similar to how Puerto Rico became part of the United States following the Spanish-American War. 

This brings up another group of demographics: Asians. Since Asia is a vast continent with multiple people groups, I will break it down into 3 regions: East Asians, South Asians, and Filipinos.

First, East Asians. The first Asian people group to immigrate to this country, in particular, Chinese, with smaller amounts of Koreans and Japanese, although there has been a considerable increase of Korean immigration to the United States following the Korean War and the Immigration Act of 1965.

The Chinese were the largest Asian group to immigrate to the United States, and they are still the largest Asian-American group in the United States. Also Chinese first began immigrating to the United States as early as the California Gold Rush, large waves of Chinese immigrants came to the United States after the American Civil War to work on the railroads and mine gold and silver. 

This led to a wave of Chinatown’s being propped up all over the United States, mostly in the west, in particular, California; the vast amount of them, like the ones in Newark, NJ, and Butte, MT, no longer exist today. However, one California town, Locke, was settled entirely by Chinese immigrants, although it has become predominantly white since. 

Apart from Chinese, Koreans and Japanese have also had a presence in American history, going back to the early 20th century. From Korea and Japan, they sailed to Hawaii, which to this day has a majority Korean and Japanese population, and from there they went to the West Coast, in particular San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

Second, South Asians, more specifically, people from the Indian subcontinent. Although they have often been ignored throughout American history, there is a long history of Indians immigrating to the United States, in particular, Sikhs, although Sikhs today make up a small percentage of Indian Americans. 

Indians began immigrating to the United States, first coming into Canada, moving from one part of the British empire to another, but racial tensions forced them to move further south into Washington State. There they worked in the lumber mills, but racial tensions culminated in the Bellingham, WA Riots of 1907. After this, the federal government passed legislation eventually resulting in the banning of all immigration from India in 1917. Yet, many Sikhs served in the United States military during the First World War. 

Aside from the Pacific Northwest, many Indians settled in the Central Valley of California, notably Yuba City. Even after the banning of immigration from India, many entered the country illegally via the Mexico Border and settled in predominantly Hispanic communities. 

Third, Filipinos. While there were very few Filipinos in the United States prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, there were small communities in the United States, notably in Morro Bay, CA, and, especially, Saint Malo, Louisiana, which was an all-Filipino town that was destroyed in 1915 by a Hurricane. 

Following the Spanish-American War and subsequent Philippine-American War, many Filipinos worked as migrant laborers in the United States, and began settling in Hawaii. Many Filipinos also served in the United States Navy. 

But none has garnered more attention in modern American media than immigrants from Arab countries. Yet the truth is that there has been a long history of Arabs immigrating to the United States. 

While the History of Middle Eastern – United States relations goes back to the American Revolutionary War when Morocco became the first neutral country to recognize American Independence, mass immigration didn’t begin to take place until the 1860s, following the Mount Lebanon Civil War, with persecuted Christians fleeing attacks by Muslims from what is now Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, settling in “Little Syria” neighborhoods such as New York, Boston, Paterson, Toledo, and Detroit, many of these neighborhoods no longer existing, although Detroit remains a center for Arab-American life. 

Many Arabs, like all other immigrant groups, immigrated to the American Midwest due to the cheap abundance of unskilled factory labor. Many Arabs also took up peddling and selling goods on the street, cycling across the country peddling. Although Arab Americans have remained largely in incognito, some noted Arab Americans include Ameen Rihani, who while in Little Syria, New York, wrote “The Book of Khalid”. 

So, even before 1965, there were many non-European immigrants in the United States. But, has there been any new immigrant groups to the United States since the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965? Well, yes and no. 

It is true that before 1965 there were no immigrants from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Somalia, and Afghanistan. However, many of these people when they came to the United States came not as immigrants, but refugees. And after the initial refugee resettlement, there has been very little to no immigration from these countries, except for Vietnam, and there has even been a returnon of people to Somalia, mainly Somaliland, as that is the only region of Somalia that has stability, primarily due to its declaration of independence from Somalia. 

Furthermore, if one takes a closer look at the countries mentioned, one will notice a pattern in the countries mentioned: every single one of them has been seen, at one point or another, United States military intervention. Now, this is nothing new to the United States. Countries that have historically had a presence in other regions have immigrants from countries that they have a presence in. If there was a dramatic decrease in intervention by the United States, there would be a dramatic decrease in the number of immigration to the United States. 

Now, to answer the question: Will mass immigration from Europe ever return? To answer that question in full, one has to break it down. 

First, immigration from Europe never came to an end. There is still plenty of people who immigrate to the United States from Europe, albeit not many people who immigrate are Irish, Germans, Italians, and Norwegians. Most of the people who immigrate from Europe are from Eastern European, like Poles and Ukrainians, and recent economic woes have caused lots of Portuguese and Greeks to immigrate to the United States as well. 

Second, one has to ask why immigration to Europe stopped in the first place. There are two reasons: One, a stable welfare system. The European countries have very strong economic mobility, in large part due to their strong welfare states, especially northern Europe. Therefore, there is little reason for leave for the United States, whose lack of welfare and high debt, among other reasons, is making the United States increasingly less and less attractive for immigrants. Two, the creation of the European Single Market has meant that one can just emigrate from European country to another at the lowest risk of disruption. Crossing the Atlantic Ocean to the United States results in far more disruption than emigrating from one country in the European single market to another country in the European single market. 

And the third and final reason why European migration to the United States stopped has to do with the main reason of why immigration occurs: Mass immigration does not occur as a result of poverty, but rather, socio-political disruption, such as what occurred in Italy following the Italian unification effort, resulting in the mass emigration of Italians to the United States. The rebuilding of Europe following the Second World War resulted in Europe entering “The Long Peace.” As a result of the long peace, Europe no longer suffered major social political disruption, with the noted exception of both the Revolutions of 1989 and the Yugoslav Wars. 

However, the calls for European-like healthcare grow stronger with the United States, and the rise of populist parties in Europe means Europe is on the verge of severe socio-political disruption. Which countries in Europe are about to see severe socio-political disruption? While the level in sociopolitical disruption vary, the ones that will cause mass exoduses are Germany and Italy, and I would not be surprised if they immigrated from the regions that they immigrated from during the late 19th century and early 20th century (i.e Southern Italy and Sicily) 

So, while people like to claim that America is browning, the simple truth of the matter is that these people were in America all along.

Introduction

Russia’s military power potential, nuclear weapons and natural economic resources have allowed Russia to remain a great power. Alongside this, its recent influence in Syria and also Afghan Peace Process has made it evident to the world that Russia is not far behind to play its role in the changing world order.
Having influence in world power politics and world order policies, what are the power political strategies adopted by Russia – to play its role in the world order as a great power? This article addresses this question.

Power Political Strategies of Russia

• Economic Strategies

Even though, it’s part of BRICS but according to the World Bank statistics, the economic growth perspectives of Russia are negative. Economically it is dependent on the exports of oil and gas and due to low prices of oil and gas after the end of their boom in 2013 (BBC News, 2015), ongoing international sanctions and geopolitical tensions; Russia is in the recession situation (World Bank, 2015). Its GDP growth rate is also in decline as it has declined from 4.3% in 2011 to 0.6% in 2014 (World Bank Data, 2015). Sharma (2012) in this regard argues that among emerging economies (BRICS) Russia is the weakest. Furthermore, he argues about Russia’s being part of BRICS that despite the fact it is out of balance yet it is part of BRICS because the
term with an ‘R’ sounds better.

But according to the Centre for Strategic and International Strategies (CSIS), Russia’s economic situation has unexpectedly and rapidly changed contemporarily. When Putin became Russian President, it was effectively bankrupt. But its economy started improving after 2010.
However, according to Reuters Report (2019), Russia’s economic growth climbed to a six-year high in 2018. Moreover, according to World Bank’s Russia Economic Report (2018), there are modest growth prospects for Russia for 2018-2020. The growth forecast is at 1.5 – 1.8 per cent which can favorably be affected with higher than expected oil prices. Even under such modest growth scenario, Russia can achieve its goal of halving its poverty to 6.6 per cent by 2024.

An entitled, “Russia’s Great Power Strategy under Putin and Medvedev” report was published by Swedish Institute of International Affairs in 2010. While discussing the economy of Russia, it highlighted that the primary security aim for Russia is to be among top 5 leading countries in terms of GDP. In order to attain this by its own efforts, Russia is promoting its productivity, improving its innovation system and developing and modernizing its resources. Furthermore, the report discussed that the Russia’s economic strategy is to give state the regulating role, provide support to the companies which are abroad and counteract the prejudice against them and in order to invest in its advanced sectors, Russia aims to invite the foreign investors. This can be considered Russia’s geoeconomic strategy.

• Military Strategies

BBC News (2015) reports that in order to openly promote its apparent interests in the former states of Soviet Union, Russia adopted an insistent foreign policy stance in 2000s. This became apparent when Russia started military conflict with Georgia in August, 2008. In 2010, a new nuclear arms treaty resulted in a reset of Russia-US ties which replaced the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The February 2014 Ukrainian revolution which overthrew Ukrainian President and brought a Western inclined leader into power, gave rise to a more intense crisis between East and West, particularly after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Due
to this, Russia was accused by the US, EU and other Western States for supporting the Pro-Russian rebellious support in the east of Ukraine which resulted in imposed sanctions against individuals and businesses especially those close to Russian President Putin. In addition to this, due to Russia’s military support for Assad regime in Syria, some fear a new cold war (BBC News, 2015).

Even with no end in sight for the civil war in Syria, Assad Regime is in a good position because of the support from Russia as well as from Iran. Russia has built naval and air bases in Syria. Russia is said to have decided to turn one of the bases in Syria-Khmeimim base as its permanent military contingent stationed in Syria. Such ambitions show that Russia is no more
limited to its borders worrying about NATO forces in its backyard.

• Political Strategies

According to “Intelligence Risk Assessment 2015” published by “Danish Defense Intelligence Service”, in order to restore its role as a great power, Russia is ambitious to show its influence in the decisions of major global issues. In this regard, Russia is trying to recreate its influence on the non-NATO member countries and to achieve its intentional goals; it has showed its willingness and capability by the use of military power. Not only this, though predominantly for the disposition in local conflicts or wars in its borders, it has continuously been developing its armed forces. The report furthermore analysis that in order to deter the military presence of alliance of NATO in the Baltic countries, Russia attempts to influence the strategic balance in the Baltic Sea region. During the events of crisis in Baltic Countries, the report predicts the capability improvements of Russia to threaten the reinforcement of NATO.

The report, however, says that it is improbable that Russia is going to have a military confrontation with the NATO alliances. Despite its non-political intentions, the report in the coming years considers Russia as a substantial security challenge to the West and the NATO alliance.

Moreover, in Afghan Peace Process, Russia is also playing an increasing role as a mediator. Russia hosted Intra-Afghan meetings to play its role. In last six months, Russia hosted two meetings, first in February and the second on May. The meetings hosted by Russia brought together Afghan opposition politicians and Taliban leaders. However, the Afghan government representatives were not part of either of the meetings (Arab News, 2019). Is Russia planning to have long-term relations with Afghanistan by keeping the current government out of the talks? Probably, yes but the future political scenario of Afghanistan will divulge that. With its economic, political and military strategies, Russia’s emergence in the changing world
order is imminent. With other players like China, not an explicit seeker of hegemony, US, hegemon, and European Union, with its efforts to sustain globalisation effectively, a new cold war might take place. Russia can no longer be kept at bay when it comes to international politics.

Introduction

In the first part of this brief history, we broadly described the numerous victories of the West. Indeed, at the end of the nineteenth century, the West became the undisputed champion of global power competition. In spite of some loss battled in Afghanistan or in South Africa, Westerners were constantly winners.

The implacable technological argument

During colonial wars, fire massively killed. In 1860 appears the loading by the breech, which facilitated the loading of the weapon. Consequently the power of riffles was importantly increased. In 1862, the Gatling machine gun could wreak havoc. Its successor, the Maxim, did so in 1898 against waves of attackers, during the battle of Omdourman in Sudan. Nevertheless, technological superiority is a necessary but not sufficient condition to ensure such domination.

Divided opponents

Western forces had to deal with divided opponents. England could prevail in India by the Bengal first. Then, they took advantage from the divisions in the peninsula to conquer the whole place. A guerrilla can last if it has an external support as well as a sanctuary. Almost none of colonized peoples had those indispensable elements. In the same spirit, when he organized the invasion of Mexico, Cortès understood the division of the territory. The Aztecs were indeed the powerful empire of the region. Consequently, the invader cleverly managed those division to establish its dominance.

Knowledge of the field and the peoples

The colonial armies had to know the peoples and the field where they settled. The Western armies, and especially the British one, understood that only time begets knowledge. For instance, between 1815 and 1847, the engagement in the British colonial army of India meant 21 years of good and loyal services. Consequently, The officers rooted in the country and possessed a deep knowledge of their opponents. In many cases, they spoke their language and analyzed customs and habits of the societies they were sent in. British settlers made their own the principle saying that only knowledge begets victory.

Distant public opinions

At the beginning of the twentieth century, information on this far conflicts did not reach Europe. European peoples are either uninterested or proud when conflicts flatter their national ego. Consequently, they couldn’t influence the process of these wars. Besides, politicians and even militaries were much more concerned about the geopolitical equilibrium of Europe. The colonial wars, although fundamental on the long-run, were not expensive and very complex. However, these conflicts determined how the West defined itself in front of the Other. it will take time to notice the major sociological changes introduced by these minor conflicts.

The power of Demography

In 1900, six western countries were part of the ten most populated country. For example, the Ottoman Empire, just before its collapses in 1920, counted 20 millions of inhabitants. Turkey is now populated by about 80 millions people. In 1900, more than one in three people was either European or North-American. In 2025, more than one in 10 people will be. The logical result is the fear of military losses. European societies can no longer afford to loose thousands of soldiers for far and unknown conflicts.

What is the West ?

At the middle of the fifteenth century (around 1450), the West was isolated. It was surrounded by a muslim-dominated Mediterranean Sea, Anatolia and Balkan region. Navigators, massively backed by States and European Dynasties, opened the world to Europeans. This article deem The West as the Western European civilization. In other words, this term gathers France, England, the Holy Empire of Germany, Italian cities, Spain and Portugal. These powers have longly collided the one with the other. Nevertheless, their affiliation to the same historical legacy, as well as religious past is not questionnable. In this article, we decided to speak about the US and to put this country in the West. However, we admit that he owns a very specific position in global history.

The West : the tradition of victories

Marx used to say that ” War is the engine of History “. To understand the Decline of The West, it is fundamental to take a look at wars. When Hernan Cortès set foot in Mexico in 1519, he conquered the Aztecs in three years with no more than 2000 soldiers. On the other side, the falling empire fought with hundreds of soldiers. While Aztecs did believe in the end of their world, via different predictions, the Spanish conquerors converted Aztecs. Cortès could understand the language of autochtonous to embrace the way of life of its opponents. Besides, Aztecs, as Incas later, were not used to wage war. They were accustomed of conflicts aiming at seize civilians. The invaders fought roughly, killed and slaughtered with no hesitation. They could easily defeat the non-organized warriors of their enemies.

Portuguese and Spanish where so powerful that they literally split the world in two thanks to two treaties : Tordesillas (1494) and Zaragoza (1529). Furthermore, the West, in addition to winning, doesn’t loose. More than 40 years later the Vienna’ siege, the Ottoman lost their fleet during the battle of Lepante in 1571. During this battle, Venetians proved their superiority over Ottomans, the historical enemy of the West. Ottomans used to be the great power of the Middle East. The West, is now strong and advanced enough to expand without credible adversaries.

The West at the beginning of the twentieth : the undisputed champion

Following the treaty of Paris (1763) between France and England, France admits its defeat in India, and Canada. British established in China (Honk Kong) and humiliated the millenium Empire of China. The Ottoman Empire, at the end of the nineteenth century, relies on Great Britain to exist. At this time, French and British had already split Africa. The western settlers also conquered most of Asia. The US started elaborating a new form of colonization in South America (Monroe Doctrine in 1823). At their peak, British and French respectively controlled 26 millions of square kilometers and 13 millions of square kilometers.

At the end of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Ratzel totally renewed geography and geopolitical analysis. This thinker draws a comparison between nature and environment on one side, and States and human societies on the other. In other words, he added to geography a fundamental element : human beings. Consequently, this contribution that deeply modified the way thinkers used to analyze the world. Thus, for Ratzel, knowledge of Puritan immigrants from New England is more important to understanding this region than the relief of it.

Darwin, with his theory of evolution, has much influenced Ratzel. The latter indeed compares States to biological organisms. These organisms are growing or declining on a temporal scale. Finally, the State is subject to the same influences as any other life. This assertion obviously implies that boundaries are the expression of an organic and inorganic movement.

Ratzel’s thought, very broad and complex, resists simplification. Karl Haushofer later took up this theories, which he used to develop the Lebensraum (living space) concept. However, his piece of work could not be reduced to this aspect. On colonialism, Ratzel defended the idea that he could establish himself in Africa to form a Mittelafrika rather than a Grossdeutschland, a strategy adopted by the German general staff in 1914 against the Allied colonies. However the Third Reich, after 1933, implemented the opposite position : the expansion in Europe to the detriment of Slavs and Latins. Nevertheless, Ratzel’s colonialist will, which must be replaced by the opinions of the time, was based on more uncertain concepts. In his theory, he opposed the ” peoples of nature ” (Naturvolker) to the ” peoples of culture ” (Kulturvolker). The latter have the right to occupy the territories of the former to civilize them.

To conclude, doesn’t this theory pave the way to hard racism and rough expansion?

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s recent visit to China saw the two countries sign nine instruments — these included five agreements, three memorandums of understanding (MoUs) and a document — covering a range of sectors including power, investment, culture, tourism, and technology. Important among these is a Letter of Exchange under which China will provide Bangladesh with 2,500 metric tons of rice as aid for Rohingya refugees and two agreements that relate to China’s extension of loans worth $1.7 billion for Bangladesh’s power sector.

During Hasina’s visit, Beijing also assured Dhaka that it would better align its projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with Bangladesh’s development priorities, a key issue of concern for the Bangladeshis.

A member of the BRI since 2016, Bangladesh has received large amounts of funding from China for infrastructure projects. The two countries signed 27 agreements for investments and loans worth around $24 billion during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Dhaka that year. Together with the $13.6 billion invested in joint ventures earlier, Chinese investment in Bangladesh is said to be worth over $38 billion, making China Bangladesh’s single largest investor.

This makes Bangladesh the second-largest recipient (after Pakistan) of Chinese loans under BRI in South Asia.

Unlike in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where there is growing concern over the implications of mounting indebtedness to China, the mood in Bangladesh is still optimistic over BRI’s potential. So what is Bangladesh doing right?

Sino-Bangladeshi relations have come a long way. Ties were troubled in the early years of Bangladesh’s independence. As a result of the Cold War and the region’s geopolitics, China not only backed Pakistan in Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971 but was among the last countries to recognize newly independent Bangladesh. It also vetoed Bangladesh’s efforts to become a member of the United Nations.

It was only in 1976 that formal diplomatic relations were established and since then ties have strengthened significantly. In 2016, Bangladesh and China became strategic partners.

Bilateral defense ties are robust. Chinese and Bangladeshi military personnel train in each other’s defense academies. Bangladeshi army officials are reportedly more at ease with Chinese defense equipment than with that of India. Not only is China the only country with whom Bangladesh has a defense cooperation agreement but it is also Bangladesh’s largest supplier of weapons.

China is also Bangladesh’s largest trade partner and trade is growing rapidly. Two-way trade, which was worth $12 billion in 2014, is expected to exceed $30 billion by 2021. While trade is booming, there is a strong imbalance in favor of China.

As mentioned above, Chinese investment in Bangladesh has been growing remarkably in recent years. Between 1977 and 2010, Beijing’s investment in Bangladesh totaled just $250 million. This rose to roughly $200 million in 2011 alone. In the wake of the BRI, China has emerged Bangladesh’s largest investor.

Like other emerging economies, Bangladesh is anxious to develop its infrastructure. However traditional sources of funding have proved inadequate, driving Dhaka to look to the BRI and China to meet this need.

China is playing an important role in Bangladesh’s infrastructure development. It has upgraded Chittagong port and is building an industrial park there. It is also constructing road and railway lines linking this Bay of Bengal port to Kunming in China’s Yunnan province. China has also built eight friendship bridges in Bangladesh, including the $3.7 billion road and rail bridge across the Padma River. Additionally, China is investing in a $1 billion project to improve digital connectivity. And China is investing heavily in Bangladesh’s power sector. Indeed, most of its investment in the 2018-19 fiscal year went into Bangladesh’s energy sector, particularly to coal-fired power plants, including those being constructed at Chittagong and Payra.

What makes Chinese investment attractive to Bangladesh is the fact that Beijing has shown willingness to finance infrastructure projects that are important to Dhaka. Western funders had refused to fund several such projects in the past. BNP Paribas and the Norwegian government’s sovereign wealth fund, for instance, declined to finance the Rampal coal-fired power plant at Khulna for environmental reasons. The World Bank cancelled a $1.2 billion credit for the Padma Multipurpose Bridge project, citing high-level corruption. In contrast, China is executing these projects. Consequently, Bangladesh views the BRI as an opportunity to develop its infrastructure.

Unlike other BRI member-states that are falling into debt traps, Bangladesh has been a cautious borrower. According to a Ministry of Finance report, Bangladesh’s total external debt stood at $33.52 billion in June 2018. The weighted average rate of interest on these loans is just 1.23 percent and the country has an average of 31 years to pay off the loans, with an average grace period of eight years. This is well within Bangladesh’s financial capacity given the brisk rate at which its economy is growing, the report says, ruling out any cause for alarm. Additionally, Bangladesh is staying clear of leaning excessively on Chinese loans by also drawing on Indian and Japanese funding and building expertise.

Importantly, Bangladesh has turned down projects that are not economically viable. This was the case with the Sonadia deep-sea port project, which the Chinese had proposed. Preferring the Japan-proposed deep-sea port project at Matarbari, and recognizing that two deep-sea ports in such close proximity didn’t make economic sense — Sonadia and Matarbari are just 25 kilometers apart — Bangladesh called off the Chinese project at Sonadia.

All the while, Bangladesh has taken care to avoid ruffling India’s feathers. None of the projects the Chinese are executing in Bangladesh have strategic implications. While it is building a port at Payra, its location is “deep within the Ganges delta” and the port is approachable only through a 75-kilometer-long canal that will have to be dredged through mudflats. That “makes it a very unlikely place for a naval base.”

The BRI seems to be working well for Bangladesh so far. Still there are problems that could stand in the way of China and Bangladesh realizing its full potential.

Foremost among these questions is the fate of the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIM-EC), a 2,800-km connectivity corridor that proposes to link Kunming in China with Kolkata in India via Mandalay and Dhaka. This corridor, which will in effect link three subregions — South, Southeast, and East Asia — and has enormous geostrategic and geoeconomic significance, was conceived first in the 1990s but has made little progress on the ground. During Hasina’s visit to Beijing, China and Bangladesh signaled their shared commitment to revive the BCIM-EC project. But will they be able to get India, which is strongly opposed to the BRI, on board?

There are problems too that could derail or delay individual BRI projects. Bangladeshi and Chinese workers at the site of the Payra power plant clashed violently in June, resulting in the death of a Chinese worker and injuries to dozens of others. As in other BRI member countries, Chinese personnel comprise a significant proportion of the labor on project sites in Bangladesh. Tensions among workers could delay project execution.

In addition, Bangladesh is concerned over China’s slow pace of reimbursement. Apparently, China has disbursed just $981.36 million, less than 5 percent of the funding promised since the preliminary agreements were signed in 2016.  With regard to the $689.35 million-Karnaphuli river tunnel project, for instance, only $194.81 million has been released by the Chinese so far; the deal was signed in October 2016. During Hasina’s visit to Beijing the two sides agreed to form a working committee to identify and eliminate the issues that are delaying payment and thus standing in the way of meeting project deadlines.

If Sri Lanka and Pakistan have become examples of how the BRI can drag countries into debt traps, Bangladesh provides lessons for how to do business with the Chinese.  Whether and for how long Bangladesh can continue to avoid the downsides of the BRI remains to be seen.

This article has been originally written by the website The Diplomat. This pretty good website delivers brilliant analyzes on geopolitics and international relation. Here’s the link towards the website https://thediplomat.com/

Young Diplomats celebrated, Thursday, July 18, 2019, international “Mandela Day”, in collaboration with the Embassy of the Republic of South Africa to Chad – organized a double activity centered on “education, social justice, youth development and peace in the Chadian capital city; N’Djamena. Mandela day was officially declared by the United Nations in November 2009, with the first UN Mandela Day held on 18 July 2010.

Idriss Zackaria, Young Diplomats’ Africa regional director, said that Nelson Mandela Day is not only a day to celebrate Nelson Mandela’s life and legacy, however, it is also a global call to action for people to recognize their ability to have a positive effect on others around them.

“As we are the first non-governmental diplomatic organization with a mission of shaping, sharpening and inspiring a new generation of enlightened international leaders; I believe the day hopes to inspire young people to embrace the values that Mandela shared – these values include democracy, social justice, freedom, equality, diversity, reconciliation, and respect.” Zackaria stressed.

“A symbol of resistance in the struggle for freedom”

For his part, Mr Seid Abdelkerim delivered speech on behalf of South African Ambassador to Chad, his Excellency Titus Matlakeng; saying that this occasion reminds us of Nelson Mandela’s unwavering commitment to justice, equality and non-racial South Africa. Mandela spent 27 years in prison and was a symbol of resistance in the struggle for freedom who consistently refused to compromise his political position to obtain his freedom and rejected at least three conditional offers of release. He consistently remained an advocate of national unity and reconciliation after his triumphant release from prison and laid the foundation for a democratic government based on majority rule, and guaranteeing the rights of minorities and freedom of expression.

“Let me start by congratulating and to thank the Young Diplomats for the initiative to celebrate International Mandela Day 2019 in honor of the great African leader, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela in such a befitting manner. It is indeed a great honor to me, the South African Embassy in Chad and to the people of South Africa and the African Continent at large. This initiative is an indication of the African youth and in particular the Chadian youth’s efforts to want to determine their own destiny by emulating Nelson Mandela and follows his examples of commitment to social justice and peace.” Seid Abdelkerim added; on behalf of the South African ambassador to Chad.

About Mandela day

In November 2009, the United Nations General Assembly declared “Nelson Mandela International Day” on July 18 in honor of the contribution of the former South African President to the culture of peace and freedom. General Assembly resolution A / RES / 64/13, recognizes the values defended by Nelson Mandela and his dedication to the service of humanity, which he has demonstrated through his humanitarian work in the areas of conflict resolution, inter-peoples relations, the promotion and protection of human rights, reconciliation, gender equality, the rights of children and other vulnerable groups, and the progress of poor and underdeveloped communities. It recognizes the contribution it has made to the struggle for democracy at the international level and to the promotion of a culture of peace around the world.

About Young Diplomats

It should be noted that Young Diplomats exists to provide a direct channel of communication amongst international students of global affairs, government officials and diplomatic stakeholders. It aims to continuously accommodate great ideas and to build bridges for understanding and cooperation between nations. It also aims to work towards improving standards of life and diplomatic work within its environment by organizing conferences, conducting research and publishing scientific works in the form of analysis and reports on different levels.