Young Diplomats

Part one- history

During the last decade of twenty century, a radical transformation occurred in the international political field when the ideological and multilateral confrontations between the United States and the former Soviet Union bid farewell to the world. After the setback of the military coup over the former Soviet in 1991, the abolition of Soviet became true news.

On 7\December\1991, the trifoliate presidents of Slav republics Boris Yeltsin- Russia republic president, Stanislav Shushkevich- Belarusian Parliament Chairman, Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk near the Minsk in Belarus had decided to dismantle of Soviet Union and form a new and independent states on based common interests which formally called Commonwealth of Independent States, in this meeting, they emphasized on the border issues or demarcation despite the latest issues with regarding the tripartite environmental strategic and military protections, after that, the republic president of central Asia in common meeting reiterated his royalty to the organization in the city of Ashgabat.

The dismantling of the former Soviet Union pulled out one quarter 1\4 of the Soviet Union geographic land under the claw of Russia bear so in consequence of this, Russia possessed only 76% of its land anymore and took the part of former Soviet Union populations which this gave Russia global workforce ability, and also Russia became heritor of 90% oil, 80% natural gas, 70% gold sources, 42% stations of electricity despite of that Russia federation could take over the humanity, military and economy capabilities with multi-crisis as well.

In 1991, the first presidential election conducted in the Russia federation where the president Boris Yeltsin magnetized the majority votes and thus Russia has stepped from the socialism to skeleton of liberalisms with veiled capitalism. It was a tuned point in Russia new stage when the privatization waves shook the institutions and sectors of the new Russia and also brought the increasing number of private companies.
During the presidential term of Boris Yeltsin, Russia approached with western powers in the way of collaboration and then Russia associated G7 which was the most important task of the country foreign policy. Although the new routes and directions were not transformed easily due to the conservatism and socialism parties confrontations politically and economically, but the elections of 1999 changed everything when the conservatism parties withdrew from the hassles for the interest of liberalism and reformers due to the massive victory of Kremlin party and they embodied the wishes of Russia populations on the direction lines of reform through the establishment of strong nation-state.

After the resignation of Boris Yeltsin in 1999, the Vladimir Putin came to power and succeeded in the elections of 2000 easily in opposed to his rivals and it was a clear message to understand that the Russia peoples wanted to open the state gates towards the international era which means that Russia rose with new face and national strategy to accelerate its horse in international filed. Vladimir Putin early started to confront the western expansion ambitions, improvement of the economic situation, creation of deep webs between republic federations and the restore of Russia national security by the oppressed of internal rebels of Chichan. Shortly since the Putin stabilized on his chair the Russia foreign policy has been continuing on the based these concepts and methods realism, paradigmatic, practicability, and awareness.

For decades, the international system has been brought to life by the values of multilateralism, despite its different forms. Both during the first war era until now, there have been many organizations that are multilateral in nature such as the UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, APEC, OPEC and so on. The motives are different, but we can conclude that the state is aware that they cannot stand alone.

Many issues have become the focus of the world today and require the cooperation of many countries. For example climate change, the 2008 financial crisis, immigration, and several others. Sensitive issues such as Palestine-Israel also require consensus not to disrupt the status quo until the creation of concrete solutions. Even the whole world is bound by consensus to improve the global economy represented by the G20, G7, G77, APEC.

The value of multilateralism is almost always represented by the United States. As superpowers, they transmit liberal norms that are claimed to be able to bring the international world to a better level. And actually, indeed there is quite a lot of evidence that can be seen. The WTO, for example, has a role in controlling the state’s arbitrariness related to the installation of tariffs that can disrupt the rate of economic growth. G20 which might be a milestone in solving global problems. Furthermore, the existence of a non-bloc movement became a breath of fresh air amid the excitement between the US and the Soviet Union.

However, the establishment of a new value will be proven if they succeed in surviving alternative values that seek to replace the role of the old norm. There are two factors that might shake the old value: the existence of equal new power or precisely the bearer of this value experiences unexpected upheaval. The first factor means we are talking about balance of power. The case of cold war is a race to show whose value system is better. While this second factor is more idiosyncratic. In other words, this can be a matter of regime change. Say in this case it refers to the US and that is happening.

At the end of 2016, Obama stepped down and was replaced by Donald Trump. This one president brings inward-looking views. Make American Great Again is its flagship slogan to make the US in a position that should be: Superpower. The position of the US as the strongest military has not been replaced, but about the economy, the US is being pursued by China. The development of the Chinese economy is amazing until it can shake the US position. In this position, Trump’s view can be justified.

However, in the international sphere, Trump is taking a step that the world considers ‘controversial’. Trump withdrew the US from the Paris agreement, was not involved in the TPP and made a unilateral decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. In addition, he also started a “trade war” with China.

Trump’s move is seen as an act of unilateralism. A step that ignores existing values. He is an attitude where one country commits an arbitrary act, even though there are international rules that apply and are binding. The attitude of unilateralism does not consider the other parties involved in it.

In the minds of many, this Trump action deviates from the value of multilateral ism. But, I don’t think so. Indeed this step is very dramatic, but I am of the view that this is part of Make American Great Again. This slogan has two main essence: restore the US economy and show the extent of US influence and strength.

Take one example of the issue of Trade war. The current issue aims to reduce the trade deficit with China. Trump certainly doesn’t want if the US always experiences a deficit. As a businessman, his instincts say that he must always gain profit. This also reduces China’s export earnings to the US and returns profits back to the US.

Trump’s policies reap a lot of controversy as well as protests from his allied countries. Not a few countries also began to doubt the US commitment to solve global problems. However, if you look at the other side, this unilateral action carried out by the US shows that they still have a strong influence in the international world.

The US will withdraw if the agreement made is not profitable. The same case also occurs in NAFTA. In the end NAFTA was successfully updated but according to US will. This shows that the US has a very strong bargaining position. Trump knows that many parties depend on the US, so he is a bit ‘expensive’. “Expensive selling” is not without reason because the US has very high self-esteem. They do not want to be inferior in front of others for reasons of the interests of many parties.

After all, the US is the only superpower. China may be a superpower in the economy now, but the matter of politics-military, socio-cultural, geopolitical, US quality is still above all. During the year of the Trump administration, the US was very much considered in international decision making. Trump is also pragmatic and knows very well that the US is the strongest country. He uses it to shake the status quo of the international community.

It also have been realized by many parties, the election of Trump is also an anomaly and increases the confidence of populists throughout the world. Even though, economic recovery has been carried out during Obama’s time, Trump is in the right moment when the US economy slowly increases under his leadership, so that it becomes legitimacy and his weapon to be re-elected in 2020.

But, the biggest question is if Trump or anyone in power in the US, will this attitude of unilateralism continue? We can say yes or no. Unilateralism is the attitude shown when they do not believe in the mechanism of multilateral and the issue is quite specific. During the Bush administration, unilateralism was demonstrated by the issue of terrorism and weapons. In Trump’s time, he was more specific in showing unilateral actions in economic agreements although it expand into political-security issue such as Jerusalem, North Korea and Iran nuclear deal. The Paris agreement has an economic element, because reducing the use of fossils is tantamount to reducing economic growth. Likewise the TPP is possible in Trump’s view, this agreement is a fresh field for countries other than the US. But the point is, if the deal was acceptable to US, he will approve it.

I think it all depends on who the President is and what his orientation is. Is this act of unilateralism in accordance with its purpose or not. The attitude of unilateralism will continue to occur, but not every day that action will occur. The risk is quite high because it will reduce the level of trust of allies and also damage the international world order. The effect can be domino and the impact of the global system may return to the classical Westphalia order where skepticism will grow rapidly. Even for the US, this condition can be detrimental because it will develop potential conflicts.

This is in the case of the US, but what about the “stronghold” of the value of multilateral-ism like the European Union? The European Union is fighting hard to face the wave of populism. Populism brings alternative values that can destroy the current order. Therefore, the European Union wants to keep it from spreading to the corners of the world. However, that depends on how the liberal order and the value of multilateral-ism within it are able to resolve global issues. Hungary, Austria and the other two countries have been dominated by populists. If they cannot resolve global issues, then populists may dominate Europe faster. Just waiting for the time until the order is now destroyed. Unfortunately, it was destroyed because of the inability to overcome the problems and distrust of many parties.

Terrorism is a substantial threat to the national security of Pakistan. It has unprecedentedly distressed the human lives leading to induction of national socio-economic trauma. For instance, the country has suffered a large number of human casualties from terrorism-related incidents such as suicide bombings, mass shootings, target killings, and sectarian violence. For example, the death toll from terrorism-related incidents rose to 1808 from January 2016 to December 2017. Furthermore, the economy sustained direct and indirect losses since the beginning of the terror wave in the past decade. Direct losses were in the form of attacks on infrastructure and development resources. On the other hand, a worsened security situation led to indirect losses such as lack of tourism and foreign direct investment. Collectively, the economic losses are estimated to be a staggering amount of 10,497.06 Billion USD from 2001 to 2017.

Boosting literacy rate is considered a necessity for combating terrorism. There is a direct relation between terrorism-fueled incidence and education levels. As illiterate youth are more likely to be radicalized and vice versa. Though, a minority of counterterrorism analysts disagree with this traditional view of the linkage between education and terrorism. Some researchers suggest that highly educated persons are more likely to be recruited by terrorist organizations as they increase the productivity of terrorism. They further argue that in countries with high labor competition and corruption levels, ‘education may actually facilitate mobilization by amplifying feelings of frustration and disenfranchisement that arise from unaddressed socioeconomic and politico-economic grievances.’ Partially, their claims are true as there is evidence of the radicalization of highly educated youth and university graduates have been found to be involved in terrorist attacks. However, a geospatial analysis about terrorism incidence and illiteracy rate from the year 1998 until 2012 proves that increase in illiterate population is directly proportional to the frequency of terrorism incidences in Pakistan.

State actions against terror outfits are also crucial to the process of rooting out terror. If instead of taking firm actions, state start to sponsor the proscribed outfits; the terrorist organizations can find a breeding ground where they can further their agenda without any fear of being policed. Thus, state-sponsored terrorist organizations can become far more deadly as compared to their non-state-sponsored counterparts, hence, making it impossible to eliminate terrorism. Evidence suggests that the Pakistan Intelligence Service has been lending support to certain terror outfits such as Haqqani Network and Afghan Taliban over the years for the sake of proxies, thus becoming an obstacle to counterterrorism efforts in the country. So, it is important that the government of Pakistan start taking firm actions against all kinds of proscribed outfits by putting an end to state-sponsored terrorism in order to fully eradicate the terrorism from Pakistan.

Finally, effectively combating the mainstreamed religious propaganda is inevitable in tackling the problem of terrorism in Pakistan. Propaganda is a decisive part of the recruitment process of terrorist organizations. For instance, it would be virtually impossible for global terror networks such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda to find recruits without spreading their Jihadist propaganda because generally there are no economic or social incentives for recruits to join terror outfits except to be brainwashed by extremist ideological propaganda. In Pakistan, terrorists use ‘Maddrassas’ as their hubs to further their propaganda. Widespread religious seminaries or so-called ‘Maddrassah’  provide terror outfits with an easy way to reach out to young minds and brainwash them for extremist purposes in Pakistan and in the neighboring countries. Maddrassah education is generally free of charge and also Madrassah students are provided with free accommodation and food. Majority of poverty-ridden families in rural areas choose to send their children to Maddrassas, thus leading to masses of religious students graduating with brainwashed minds  providing a fresh supply of recruits to terror networks. Hence, it is the need of the time to put a check on Maddrassah education to prevent terrorists from mainstreaming their propaganda in the country.

All three solutions are equally important to manage the problem of terrorism in Pakistan. Though taking firm actions against terrorist organizations is immediate need but increasing the literacy rates and combating the radical propaganda by terrorist networks are equally effective methods to counter terrorism. However, these solutions require different strategies to be applied correctly. For instance, increasing literacy rates requires the allocation of more resources for education from the national budget. Thus economic reforms are required to implement the first solution. On the other hand, the implementation of the second and third solution requires changes in the fundamental policies of the government to put an end to state-sponsored terrorism and mainstreamed radical ideologies. All in all, the implementation of three solutions need diverse and different reforms but only the combination of all these solutions can be the most effective way to combat terrorism in the country.

The Indian Ocean region currently faces some of the most challenging and exciting geopolitical transformations in its playground with China and India playing a major role in determining the larger strategic manoeuvres of other regional states and extra regional powers such as the United States. The rise of new and emerging states such as Australia in this Geo-economic space has given rise to new geo-strategies that the nation wishes to increasingly employ, looking back at a region that for a long time had been ignored by the country.

India and Australia, in 2008, signed a ‘Joint Declaration on Security and Cooperation’[1] which wished to bring together the strategic perspectives of both the nation states through a ‘cooperative security framework’. One of the key features of this declaration was increased cooperation in the maritime domain at a strategic level. For Australia, the Indian Ocean region has a prominent place in its strategic calculations, having the longest coastline and largest area of maritime jurisdiction, the emergence of newer nation states within Indian Ocean has made its role greater in the region.

India, on the other hand, focuses on the Indian Ocean Region as being a ‘strategic bridge with the nations in its immediate and extended maritime neighbourhood.’[2] India has since the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, refocused its maritime policy and more particularly within the region. Its increased emphasis on the protection and assurance of ‘safe passage’ in the region comes from two factors; one is China’s increased presence and linkages with other Indian Ocean Littorals and the second, is India’s ambition to be a ‘net security provider’[3] to the region. The nation is also increasingly looking towards expanding its influence in the fast emerging construct of an ‘Indo-Pacific’ region. The ‘QUAD’ (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) was a key enabler in expanding India-Australia partnership, within the Indian Ocean and the ‘Indo-Pacific’.

Geographically, Australia has approximately 86 million square km wide Exclusive Economic Zone along with the surveillance and defence of the AEEZ (Australian Antarctic EEZ) within the region[4]. The nation’s responsibility to provide safe passage and navigation to ships and submarines could be one of the reasons why an increasingly aggressive China within the Indo-Pacific region seems to be of great strategic concern. A brief assessment of Australia’s maritime strategy gives one an understanding of the need of a comprehensive strategic outlook’s for the country to effectively pursue its national interest in the region.

There is however seen, a lack of coordination between national and state level instrumentalities wherein responsibility of Australian policy makers towards its maritime affairs seems to be largely ignored with some analysts calling it ‘sea-blindness’[5]. In 2005, the then Chief Admiral of the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Chris Richie remarked on the ‘ambiguous place of the seas’[6] in Australian National life, urging for a re-examination of Australia’s land based identities.

India on the other hand is marking the 21st century as the ‘century of the seas’[7] for itself. The Indian Navy is central in promotion of the country’s national interest and security in the maritime domain. The country’s maritime security strategy, under the present leadership seems to be carrying a larger ‘strategic angle’ and wishes to embody an ‘Indian naval vision’ for the region. Former Admiral and Chief of the Indian Navy, R.K. Dhowan remarks on three significant developments in the nation’s maritime security architecture[8]; First is India’s move from a ‘Euro-Atlantic’ to an ‘Indo-Pacific’ focus which seems to have largely repositioned the country’s global economic and military power within the region. Second, is the recognition of ‘new and emerging threats’ in the form of piracy and terrorism which has made India to relook its offshore and coastal security. Third is an acknowledgement on the part of the administration in enabling the Indian navy to perform a more strong and enhanced role in the country’s maritime security.

Australia has been one of the most vocal supporters to India’s ambition of being a ‘net security provider’ to the region. Australia aims to create a deeper maritime relation with India so as to present it as a counterbalancing force against China. The island state wants to avoid itself and the region to get embroiled in a confrontation between US and China and thereby find it picking sides.  The country has been subtly stepping up its security cooperation with India, through extensive maritime exercises such as the ‘Indo-Pacific Endeavour’ which was hosted in March 2019,across the Indo-Pacific region and hosted at states of Vishakhapatnam and Chennai in India specifically[9].

India’s policies towards the Indian Ocean have a global perspective and appeal that could work in Australia’s favour as they continue to deepen and establish more meaningful bilateral security arrangements so as to ensure security of the Indian Ocean. There are however, some challenges to a fruitful maritime cooperation between both the nation states. The increasingly aligned intentions and interests of both the nations have been conducive in establishing a dialogue in academic circles of moving the partnership between India and Australia to a more concrete phase. Australia’s efforts to woo India have been more than evident whereas India still chooses to take measured steps towards enriching its relationship with the country. In 2011, Australia removed its ban on Uranium sales to India after years of its hesitation, showing clear intentions of the nation[10].

The ‘QUAD’, even when seems to have re-energised the spirits of the ‘maritime democracies’ of the Indian ocean states and the ‘Indo-Pacific’ states, has largely been a talking shop giving the reflection of the dialogue having more rhetoric than action. Another challenge for Australia is India’s insecurity as a nation wherein it believes that visibility is vulnerability and therefore feels that by closely aligning itself with US and its allies it may disturb an already delicate maritime chessboard of the Indian Ocean region and trigger the dragon. Apart from this, India also fears that Australia, which has been a strategic ally to the United States for a very long time may eventually isolate India in order to promote US predominance within the Indian Ocean leaving it high and dry.

The two nations therefore have vast opportunities to explore so as to ensure greater maritime cooperation. Joint exploration efforts in the region can be one of the ways by which a stable growth of both the nations’ economies can be benefitted. Participation of both the nations in institutions such as IORA( Indian Ocean Rim Association) and IONS(Indian Ocean Naval Symposium) can also be a catalyst in deepening relations between the two. However, different traditional instincts about security collaboration and a fear on the part of both the states to not instigate China is becoming a major hindrance in an otherwise fated marriage between both the nation states.

[1]‘PA5009 India-Australia Joint Declaration On Security Cooperation’, Australia High Commission, November, 2009, See website, https://india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/pa5009jsb.html

[2]India and the Indian Ocean: A Briefing’, Institute For Defence Studies and Analyses, April,2016, See Website, https://idsa.in/idsanews/india-and-the-indian-ocean_skundu

[3]‘ Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy’, Indian Naval Strategic Publication(NSP)1.2, Ministry of Defence, October,2015, See Website, file:///C:/Users/hp1/Documents/admin%20material/geopol/semester%20two/maritime/Indian_Maritime_Security_Strategy_Document_25Jan16.pdf

[4]‘Inquiry into Australia’s Maritime Strategy’, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs , Defence and Trade, The Australian Centre for Maritime Studies, November,2002, see website, http://www.tamilnation.co/intframe/indian_ocean/australia_centre_for_maritime_studies.pdf

[5]Michael Evans, ‘The Third Way: Towards an Australian Maritime Strategy for the 21st Century’, The Australian Army, Commonwealth of Australia Army 2014, See Website, https://www.army.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1846/f/thethirdway_evans.pdf

[6]Ibid

[7]n.3

[8]n.3

[9]Sidhant Sibal, ‘Australia Welcomes India’s Leadership in the Indian Ocean: Foreign Minister Marisse Payne’, DNA India, January, 2019, See Website, https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-australia-welcomes-india-s-leadership-in-indian-ocean-foreign-minister-marise-payne-2706152

[10]Fredric Grare, ‘India-Australia Strategic Relationship: Defining Realistic Expectations’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March, 2014, See Website, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/india_australia_strat_rel.pdf

“Build a wall! Build a wall!” This chant is echoed throughout the room at every single MAGA rally across the United States. The call for a wall between the United States and Mexico remains popular among-st Republican voters, even though such a wall will in all likelihood never be built.

But, there is one wall will be built. Indeed, it is currently in the process of being built right now. There is currently a wall being built across the North Atlantic Ocean being Europe and the United States.

Now, of course, no actual wall is being built across the ocean. But, slowly but surely, cultural differences between Europe and United States are causing schisms that will make these two Western powerhouses go from being allies to bitter enemies.

The main issue that is driving this is globalization and cultural integration. Due to a history of allowing immigration to the country, the United States has had more of an open mind towards globalization, while Europe has had more of a backlash to the idea of a globalization.

Now, due to the invention of containerized shipping and, more importantly, the internet, globalization is here to stay, whether the Europeans like it or not. And due to this ultra-competitive global world, if you do not embrace globalism and change, and insist on clinging to tradition, you will fall behind and cease to exist very quickly. Indeed, Europe is starting to slump in the world as the amount of innovation and new startup companies on the continent is dramatically

But, arguably, the bigger issue that will divide Europe is the issue of cultural integration, and the migrant crisis.

Now, here I have to state the obvious: Europe is not the United States. And the reason I have to state this is primarily due to right-wing European reactionary political commentators on the supposed dangers of allowing Muslims into your country.

However, unlike Europe, the United States has a history of successfully assimilating migrants into their country, which is why you never see a lot of American Muslims being recruited into Islamic terrorist groups.

There are many reasons why cultural integration has worked in the United States but not in Europe. First, immigrant neighborhoods in the United States are often times not walled off and excluded from the rest of society. But, arguably, the biggest reason is that Americans, unlike Europeans, have no national identity to fall back on.

This means that while Europe shifts further to the right, America will shift further to the left. And ultimately these differences will result in a European-American split as big as the ocean that separates them.

Now, these are cultural differences, yet not enough to make Europeans and Americans detest each other, at least, not at first. But, ultimately, the attitudes of American culture that make the United States more open to the idea of globalism will make the United States the symbol of globalism, the institution that Europeans have come to reject. This will ultimately make the Europeans come to view the Americans as an adversary and want to move away from the Americans and pursue their own policy.

But, what affect would this split have for the United States? Well, one of the main geopolitical objectives of the United States is to keep Europe at peace, as the United States has a long history of being sucked into European affairs whether it wants to or not. Such a split may result in Europe collapsing into conflict again, which is why the United States has been so keen on keeping the EU in place.

So, Trump can chant “Build that wall” as much as he wants, but this particular wall will be one the Americans cannot afford to have built.

I live and study in India – a country that has witnessed a sea wave change in the global internet users’ atlas in the recent years. With over 460 million internet users, India is the second largest online market. By 2021, there will be about 635.8 million internet users in India. So, the internet has played an extremely crucial part in shaping my ideologies, framing my thoughts, changing my perspectives and making me who I’m/ what I stand for today.

And in a rapidly evolving internet-reliant & internet-addicted world, it is important to understand how the internet should be governed in order to make its access – universal, unconstrained, and unconditional. This is what drew me to the arena of internet governance. I was 19 (probably the youngest person in the crowd) when I stepped into the spellbindingly spectacular Hall of the magnificent Kobe Portopia Hotel as a NextGen representative of India. I became friends with people almost 3 times my age and had absolutely intelligent exchanges of ideas with people who were Moguls and Magnates in their respective fields. And it was during one such exchanges that an idea hit my mind – Project “Safe In Surfing” (SIS) – to incorporate a compulsory “Skills Enhancement Course” (SEC) on “Digital Literacy and Digital Rights” (DLDR) for young girls in the school and university curricula throughout India. It aims to redesign the cyberspace as a sandbox for secured and smart web-surfing for young girls, assisting them to become “informed digital citizens”. Project SIS will encompass a “cyber clinic” to diagnose the online threats challenging young girls and a “cyber crèche” to impart digital defense/rights training to young girls. Project SIS will, thus, train young girls to become smart digital citizens with enhanced competence to “claim, create, carry, and continue change” digitally.

But this idea that took birth during an ICANN meeting could metamorphose only after I got selected as a Young Fellow for the She Creates Change 5.0. There were over 1200 applications from all over India and I’m glad to have been chosen as “the one who can create change”. This program is sponsored and hosted by the Change.org Foundation, and requires the fellow to be a part of their Lab for one long year to develop their projects.

This campaign comes at a time when about 30% of the 460 million internet users in India are women but at the same time, there’s been a surge in cyber crimes against women in the recent years.

Therefore, it’s high time that India not only considers but also implements a nation-wide policy to impart “Digital Literacy and Digital Rights” for girls as a compulsory and gradable part of the syllabus in all the educational institutions of India. This will pave the way for the long neglected and almost absent issue of “internet governance” and “women’s online space and cyber entitlements” in the policy debates and public discourses of the world’s largest democracy – India. A small step could ACTUALLY lead to landmark legislations.

And I must mention that none of this ideation, creation, or negotiation would’ve been possible without ICANN. It’s the body which transformed the way I used to view the internet. Now, when I look at the internet – I view it as a “common resource” that must be both affordable and accessible to all, regardless of disparities in region, religion, race, etc. And as an economist-in-making, I strongly opine that the internet is in fact “the most non-discriminatory, non-exclusive, non-rivalrous commodity” on Earth which we “all” must take maximum advantage of to pursue “our” collective vision and mission of creating a stable, scientific, and strong world.

As civil rights groups continue to battle for the rights of people all across the world, there is one group that continues to be left out: People on the autism spectrum.

Now, there are no laws which prohibit people on the autism spectrum from attaining rights that people who are not on the autism spectrum already have. However, there are major setbacks that people on the autism spectrum face that prohibit their success in society, notably in 3 areas: Education, employment, and housing.

First, education. Many people on the autism spectrum face severe discrimination in education. There is not enough money going to special education programs. Furthermore, many people on the autism spectrum do not interact with people who are not on the autism spectrum, further prohibiting their social development.

This bring up the issue of employment. The unemployment rate for people on the autism spectrum is at 90%. Furthermore, many of those 10% work part-time jobs in low-skilled labor, such as stuffing bags in a grocery-store. This means low wages and little opportunity to advance.

And finally, the third issue: Housing. Many people on the autism spectrum do not live in their own housing. Many still live with their parents or in an assisted living home.

And yet, despite this disparity, many politicians still do not address these issues. Many activists group do not address these problems.

The International Order is divided into three types of polarity: uni, bi, and multi-polarity. In the post-Westphalia system there emerged multiple powers like France, United Kingdom and Russian empire but the French empire having a superior power for the dominance of the European order till the industrial age. However, the industrial age brought the unipolarity of the world where Britain dominated. And, the end of Second World War brought the world to the bipolar and its end ultimately birthed the unipolarity of the world.

In post-1945, US had been the dominant power in the international arena. During the time of Cold War, United States of America had a very strong and liberal economy which led to its sustainability towards the ideological and political war. Its economy, military capability and technological sophistication were far greater than its counterpart, Soviet Union.

After the end of Second World War, US was the prime mover in the creation of different international institutions such as United Nations, International Momentary Fund (IMF), and North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) which were its testament to the new international order. Following the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, proved American supremacy and enhanced its authority in the global order and provoked the former Soviet states to ally with US for support and aid. Never before, not in the heyday of British Empire did have such wide triumph.

The US dollar became the preferred currency of the world, most of the trades and foreign reserves were dependent on it. The US began to dominant the international institutions like United Nations; it enjoyed military presence in every part of the world. Its global dominance was unassailable and was termed as the “the American century” by Henry Luce for what appeared to seem as a unique and new dominant power.

For the last few years, the American century seems to be waning. The death of the American century is of the external factors or stimulated by internal dynamics for which U.S. is responsible because of its ‘bad habits and bad behavior’? are still debatable.

“The tallest building in the world is now in Dubai, the biggest factory in the world is in China, the largest oil refinery is in India, the largest investment fund in the world is in Abu Dhabi, the largest Ferris wheel in the world is in Singapore…” writes Fareed Zakaria in Post-American World. An international order born amid the collapse of Berlin Wall in 1989 is on the wane. And there is much evidence that the American century is on the erosion.

In Latin America, its authority is in its lowest point over a century; in East Asia the US dominance is increasingly being overshadowed by China; in Africa Chinese influence is in taking the US dominance; while the power of American dominant international institutions like World Bank, and IMF have declined significantly. The American made world which has held sway since 1945 is on its wane.

In Diplomacy (1994) Henry Kissinger predicted the dawn of multipolar age. Of the external factors of American century decline is the rise of China.

Since 1980s, China’s spur economic growth and in a few decades of its hegemonic influence in the Southeast Asian region indicates a wider picture to analyze. Since 2010, China displaced the United States as the world’s leading manufacturing nation –something which United States had held for centuries. However, the spur of Chinese economic rise from 2% in 1980 to 6% in 1995 and to 15% in 2014 are evident example that China is about to take US as the world’s largest economy—which can justify the recent Trade War between them.

In another account Fareed Zakaria says that, “Rising powers become wealthier, their political ambitions increase and they convert their new found economic muscle into military clout.” China has asked to build a world-class military and is engage in an impressive military modernization and buildup. However, China has not yet caught up the United State’s military sophistification but is clearly narrowing it (having a military budget of $117.6 billion in 2019 according to SIPRI).

Of the internal factors, Bush and Trump’s foreign policies who acted like a thrashing wounded lion tearing down alliances and norms. The George Bush’s administration in its first two years walked away from more international alliances than any administration had. Similarly, Trump had surpassed the record and had unilaterally withdrawn from international protocols, alliances and norms such as JCPA (Joint Comprehensive Plane Action) despite misgivings expressed by international community, Trans-Pacific Partnership etc.

Trump’s foreign policy has been more ‘isolationist’, he has withdrawn from TPP and from engaging in Asia—the recent expel of India (an ally) from Generalized System of Preferences, has dealt Latin America with the prism of immigration—where China has exerted its influence through BRI, and Trump has also applied a concentrated policy for Middle East to Israel and Saudi Arabia. All these can be policies can be of Trump’s protectionist, and nationalist to put “America great/first”.

The secret nature of the back-channel that was established in Oslo in 1992-93 is entangled in a number of myths and legends regarding its establishment and conduct. It was established by a series of individuals, as opposed to a government or an international organization. They were held in secret, in an atmosphere radically different from anything that had been attempted before.

When they were signed, the Oslo Accords were a milestone. For Norway, they represented the victory of a small third party, as opposed to a great power like the US. It was a case of national pride – we were important. Internationally, the Accords were also celebrated, as talks had stagnated for a long time. Nevertheless, the Accords would soon crash.

Considering what a great achievement the Accords were, and what they were assumed to achieve, how could the feelings of good-will and hope die so quickly? This article explores some of the causes of why the Oslo Accords failed so horribly.

Norway, the Middle East, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Understanding the Oslo Accords’ composition is key to understanding why they failed. To understand the composition, we must also understand the role Norway played in the Arab-Israeli peace process. The relations that allowed a small country like Norway to facilitate and negotiate an agreement that no great power had previously managed are important to the way the Accords were shaped.

Norwegian-Israeli relations go back to Israel’s proclamation and war for independence – the two countries developed friendly relations almost immediately. [1] At first, skepticism reigned in the Norwegian Labor government, but these doubts were soon replaced. Waag (2000) proposes general guilt for the Holocaust, felt all across Europe, as an important factor. [2] This is a sound argument – Norwegian police helped deport 773 Norwegian Jews, and only 38 survived. [3][4] There exists a great pride in the resistance to the occupation during the War, and the deportations are often viewed as a blight on the war effort. This is likely to have provided Norway with more reason to support Israel, both in the late 40s and beyond.

The situation started changing in the wake of the Six Day War of 1967, and
interest in the Palestinian cause grew further in the 1970s and 80s, with increased contact between Norway and the PLO – particularly with its leader, Yasser Arafat. [5] This has been an important contributor to Norway’s role in the Middle East. Its history of contact with and understanding for both sides made Norway a good third party to host and lead negotiations.

Lastly, a unique feature of Norwegian involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict was the extent of that involvement considering the size of the country. The ‘Great Powers’ of the world, such as the US, UK, France, and Russia, have long been involved, due to their extensive foreign interests. Norway as a ‘peace nation’ was different, and that peaceful profile was maintained throughout the 20th century. [6] Individuals like Fridtjof Nansen championed the cause of refugees and prisoners after WWI, earning a Nobel Peace Prize in 1922,[7] and the country attempted neutrality in both world wars. After the war, it was a devoted champion of the UN and attempted amicable relations with both its eastern and western neighbors. [8] Norway had actually been proposed as a mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict as early as 1979, but had also been mentioned several times prior – former UN ambassador Hans Engen had played a mediating role in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez Crisis. [9] Until 2016, Norway prohibited foreign troops to be posted on Norwegian soil. [10] In other words, Norway’s commitment to peace was clear.

I argue that the factors outlined above contributed to the willingness of the
Palestinian and Israeli delegates to engage in talks, especially considering the failures of the Madrid Conference and its following negotiations. A commitment to mediation and sympathy, rather than the more direct involvement of countries like the US and the USSR gave Norway credibility as a peacemaker – a reputation few
others could boast.

The Oslo Accords

What is most remarkable about the Oslo talks is its format. The ‘negotiations’ were, in fact, merely a secret back-channel alongside existing negotiations after the Madrid Conference. Removed from the tumult of international negotiations with numerous delegates, assistants, press corps, and opposing sides at a long table, the Israeli and Palestinian delegates were subjected to ‘the Norwegian Treatment’. [11]

The literature on conflict mediation is broad, and has reached several conclusions on an important aspect: when does mediation occur? Greig (2005) shows that mediation is less likely to occur in enduring rivalries and likelier to be initiated by a third party when the cost of nonintervention is too high. [12] The Palestine-Israel conflict features these reasons – by 1993, the rivalry between Palestinians and Israelis had lasted for decades, and the international community had long since realized the cost of no solution.

When discussing the actual negotiations happening in the back-channel, it is important to consider the differences between facilitation and mediation: the Norwegians initially viewed themselves as facilitators, not mediators. [13] Jones (1999) addresses the role of the facilitator as the following: “(…) the facilitator, like the psychoanalyst, does not attempt to impose a solution on the disputants (…) the facilitator only invokes the specter of communicative power.” [14] This was the role the Norwegians first played – to provide the disputants with a setting in which they could negotiate, not mediate between them. [15]

The role of facilitator presents the first issue of the talks. In assuming a more passive role, the Norwegians allowed the power asymmetry between the two parties to dominate. [16] Waage argues that, while the facilitators indeed attempted to create an atmosphere of equality – the same cars, hotel rooms, and food for both parties – they still bowed primarily to Israel’s security demands. The primary responsibility was to be accepted by the stronger party. [17] The Norwegians allegedly knew of and accepted this, encouraging the Palestinians to acquiesce to Israeli demands. [18] The Israelis were also very aware of both the positions of the PLO and the Norwegian mediators. [19]

The Norwegians’ knowledge of the power asymmetry, and neglect of its impact, damaged attempts at mediation. The initial aim was to merely be facilitators, which was achieved with some success. With this urging, however, the mantle of the mediator was assumed, and this mediation was flawed from conception after this action. This is the second weakness of the Oslo back-channel. The strength of the gradual approach of the talks turned into a major weakness, as many topics were deemed beyond the scope of the talks, such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and Palestinian borders. [20][21] Given the importance of these issues in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, their neglect greatly harmed the Oslo Accords.

The Oslo back-channel also suffers from its foundation. Barak (2005) criticizes the Oslo process for relying too heavily on the legacy of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. [22] The Oslo talks negotiated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The two differ fundamentally in that the former is an intrastate conflict, while the latter is, effectively, an interstate conflict. The same tools cannot be applied, yet the Oslo back-channel tried. The power disparity between the two parties – a state and a people – was simply too large for a peace process headed by a small nation like Norway. This ultimately severely obstructed the tenability of the peace. [23][24]

Concluding Remarks

The secret peace talks in Oslo held great promise. They were initiated not by states, but by individuals, and featured a unique model of facilitation and mediation, that promised new results in a prolonged negotiation. A nation with a long history of peace and ties to both sides tried to achieve what the world’s great nations could not – a tenable Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Facing this hope, however, were a series of grim realities. The conflict was too asymmetric for a country of modest stature – like Norway – to effectively mediate it. Norway could not alleviate Israeli dominance and thus resorted to urging the Palestinians to acquiesce – not a sustainable tactic for a mediator. Groundbreaking approaches to facilitation and mediation could not alleviate the detrimental effects of these factors, and thus the interim agreement could not survive the years that followed.

Works Cited

[1] Hilde H. Waage, “How Norway Became One of Israel’s Best Friends,” Journal of Peace Studies 37, no. 2 (2000): pp. 199.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Vibeke K. Banik, “Holocaust I Norge,” Store Norske Leksikon, June 14, 2018, https://snl.no/Holocaust_i_Norge (Accessed 27 June, 2019).

[4] Barte Bruland, “Deportasjonen av de norske jødene,” Universitetet I Oslo, norgeshistorie.no, November 30, 2015, https://www.norgeshistorie.no/andre-verdenskrig/artikler/1742-
deportasjonen-av-de-norske-jodene.html (Accessed 27 June, 2019).

[5] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Norway’s Involvement in the Peace Process in the Middle East,” Utenriksdepartementet, December 31, 1999, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/involvement/id420034/ (Accessed 30 June, 2019).

[6] Halvard Leira, “‘Our entire people are natural born friends of peace’: The Norwegian foreign policy of peace,” Swiss Political Science Review 19, no. 3 (2013): 347 – 348.

[7] The Nobel Institute, “Fridtjof Nansen – Facts,” nobelprize.org, October 2, 2018, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1922/nansen/facts/ (Accessed June 30, 2019).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Waage (2000), pp. 338 – 340.

[10] Maloy, Terje, “US Militarization of Scandinavia: Less Than a Year After First US Base in Norway, a Second One in the Offing,” Global Research, October 13, 2017, https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-militarization-of-scandinavia-less-than-a-year-after-first-us-base-in-norway-a-second-one-in-the-offing/5613039. (Accessed July 1, 2019).

[11] Hilde H. Waage, “Norway’s Role in the Middle East Peace Talks: Between a Strong State and a Weak Belligerent,” Journal of Palestine Studies 34, no. 4 (2005): 13 – 18.

[12] J. Michael Greig, “Stepping Into the Fray: When Do Mediators Mediate?” American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 2 (2005): 263 – 264.

[13] Waage (2005), pp. 18.

[14] Deiniol Jones, “Cosmopolitan Mediation? Conflict resolution and the Oslo Accords (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 19.

[15] Hilde H. Waage, “Norwegians? Who needs Norwegians?”Statsministerens Kontor, October 31, 2000, https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/fredsarbeid/
hhw_2000.pdf (Accessed 3 July, 2019)

[16] Waage (2005), pp. 18.

[17] Ibid. pp 19.

[18] Hilde H. Waage, “Peacemaking is a Risky Business: Norway’s Role in the Middle East, 1993-96 (Oslo: Peace Research Institute of Oslo, 2005), 127.

[19] Shlaim, Avi, “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Process,” In International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd ed., edited by Louise Fawcett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 272.

[20] Louis Kriesberg, “Mediation and the Transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,”
Journal of Peace Research 38, no. 3 (2001): 388.

[21] Barak, “The Failure of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, 1993 – 2000,” 727.

[22] Oren Barak, “The Failure of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, 1993 – 2000,” Journal of Peace Research 42, no. 6 (2005): 720.

[23] Barak, “The Failure of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, 1993 – 2000,” 729.

[24] Waage (2005), pp. 20.

CNN Library. “Oslo Accords Fast Facts.” https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/oslo-accords-fast-facts/index.html (Accessed 5 July, 2019).

                                            INTRODUCTION

Whilst discussing the post-Brexit era- and, indeed, its aura- general public and analysts usually focus upon impacts of Brexit on the economy and industrial sector of UK, much less research has been carried out to determine the impacts of Brexit on national security, diplomacy, international order, military strategy, legislation, local government system, standing in international system and taxation system of UK. Although, much rhetoric along with discourse has been added, to describe the probable theme and taste of relations of post-Brexit UK with EU and USA. On the other hand, fear of break-up of UK has been widely spread and argued on. All the above mentioned factors that are going to be affected by Brexit, are actually different dimensions of strategic implications of Brexit on UK.

Since the British voted to leave EU, their decision has sparked outrage not only in Europe but also in UK itself, ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ campaigners have been presenting many facts and figures to support their stance but the most heated and controversial issue is the possibility of degeneration of UK, according to some, in ‘four’ constituent countries, which seems to be more exaggeration near some but alarmingly another Scottish independence referendum is on the table now. Thus, the integrity of UK seems to be more jeopardized than anything else due to Brexit.

Nature of relation between UK and EU after Brexit is sort of ambiguous still as some people refers to Brexit as ‘complete’ break-up of UK with EU, but it can be generally presumed that UK-EU relations will be of good nature, as UK might withdraw itself from EU but surely UK can never break up with Europe geographically, which will have effects on its relations as well.

Sino-UK relations are hoped to be get more positive signs from UK side, as exiting UK from free EU market, requires new partners for a smooth trade flow and investment. But for China, it’ll be better to have more strong ties with a more appealing and powerful ally EU than a small player UK. So, for its national interest, Beijing has to opt for EU rather than UK for trade and investment. In the case of US, Washington has always been a close ally of London not only sharing common grounds based upon linguistics and values but also as a partner in security and this ‘special relationship’ is reinforced by the president of US, Donald Trump, who has shown his overwhelming support for UK considering Brexit as a right choice.

Brexit is likely to have very less impact upon military strategy and alliances of UK, as it’s in interest of both UK and EU to cooperate in the security matters to counter terrorism and address various other issues related to security. However, a perpetual flux in economy due to Brexit can affect the defense budget.

UK standing in international political system is going to decline, as it’s converting itself from a state being part of EU, having a common foreign policy of 28 nations, to a state with no such perks in future and thus becoming a relative small player.

Brexit will affect the constitution order, legislation, immigration laws, local government and tax system of UK all for a single reason that laws of EU no longer applies to UK, and thus UK has to formulate its own laws accordingly.

Strategic Implications of Brexit on UK:

1.0   Jeopardizing the National Integrity

It’ll the same for Scotland to quit UK, as it is for UK to exit European Union, not only majority in Scotland but also in Ireland voted to remain in EU. So, there exists a tremendous difference between the demands and ideas of England and above two mentioned.

1.1.    Scotland

UK standing in international political system is going to decline, as it’s converting itself from a state being part of EU, having a common foreign policy of 28 nations, to a state with no such perks in future and thus becoming a relative small player.

1.1.1. Sturgeon’s Stance

Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon has dismissed the promise of Theresa May of new power offers for Scotland and has rejected Brexit calling that it would result in economy decline and huge job losses. Sturgeon has pledged to hold another referendum in order to secede from UK.

1.1.2. Public Opinion

People of Scotland have already been divided over the question to either remain with UK or to leave it, but now Brexit has triggered general opinion of Scottish people in favor of Europe and against that of UK.

1.1.3. Second Referendum

There is talk to hold second Scottish independence referendum. Although, during Brexit processing, referendum plan is off the table but in future it’s unavoidable as study polls have shown that the support to ‘leave’ UK has increased over the years to 49%.

1.1.4    Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland isn’t only financially independent on Europe but historically is way much more attached to Europe than is to UK. 55.8% of Irish people voted to remain with EU. Irish people particularly farmers are troubled whose source of income are EU coffers.

       2. Diplomacy

2.1.    Relations with EU after Brexit

Despite of its breaking ties with EU, UK will maintain good relations with EU even after

Brexit, good relations are the need of both above mentioned.

2.2.    Relations with USA

Donald Trump has pledged its support for UK and has praised UK decision to leave EU, this could further strengthen the ‘special relationship’ between US and UK. Nigel Farage, ex- leader of the British UKIP party, which is pro-Brexit, spoke at Trump’s campaign rally in Jackson. Thus, there exists a nexus among Brexiteens and Trump.

2.3.    Sino-UK Relationship

Instead of keen interest shown by UK, China isn’t much into UK because China finds big

European market more lucrative than that of small UK.

3. International Influence

Having withdrawn from EU, UK wouldn’t be able to influence International politics as it used to be. Now UK may have small role in international organizations as G8 etc.

4. Military Strategy and Military Alliances

Brexit isn’t going to affect this factor at all, after all, whatever the regional politics is, enemy of UK, EU and the remaining world at large is the same, ISIS and other terrorists organizations.

5. Internal Security and Technology Sector

Economic consequences of Brexit will lead to cut on military budget. And there can be laws to direct the usage and ownership of weaponry as it was previously supervised by EU. Network affects will be damaging to UK tech-industry.

6. Constitution, legislation, Tax Power and Local Government

New rules and regulation of UK will change the previously existing structure of above mentioned.

CONCLUSION: We can conclude that strategically, integrity and diplomacy will be the two main factors affecting UK, having more negative impacts even leading to break down of UK.