Young Diplomats

Tony Benn said “War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy” and waging a war is mean to be failed. Yuval Noah Harari, in his book “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” also notes that “if somebody finds a formula to wage a successful wars in the twenty-first century conditions, that gates of hell might open with rush”. In the era when the world has Mass Destruction weapons (MDW), thinking to wage a war is to destroy the life on planet. If we look at the statistics, there are today more jihadi terrorist fighting in more countries than there were before the September 11, 2001. According to a report of Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as of January 31, 2018, 43.7 per cent of the afghan territory is still under the control of Taliban. What we have done is quite simple. We have applied the formula of exporting Extremism and importing Terrorism. By tracing the history, without going in detail, we find that the United Stated and the Kingdom Saudi Arabia have been the larger exporters of Extremism in the Muslim World during the Afghan War (1979-1989). Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, in March 2018, himself admitted that Wahhabism was spread at behest of West during the Cold War.

The fact is, in the eve of 9/11, USA turned aggressive, radical and racial. The country ultimately changed her way to see and perceive the world particularly the Muslim. Taking her allies on a side, United States, under the leadership of late and ex-President George W. Bush started bloodiest military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and then the entire region of Middle East which resulted in millions of innocent casualties, worst humanitarian crisis, and gave birth to century’s most radical terrorist organisations like Al-Qaida, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and so on. Afghan Taliban, instead of eighteen years of armed engagement, have grown rapidly. If we critically analyse the origin of Talibanism in Afghanistan, the finger rises against the USA itself and her so-called allies in the Muslim World. Unlike Francis Fukuyama, I also feel incomplete without discussing History. During the Cold war, in 1979, when the USSR launched the communist campaign of territorial expansion in Afghanistan that United Stated couldn’t digest and felt it against her interest. So, to fight against communism in Afghanistan, USA with the assistance of her Muslim allies started producing Jihadis. And the USA won the ground, but wait, wait. Soon after the fall of communism when USA left the reigns of Mujahidin (Jihadi Fighters), they turned more radical and aggressive, but with a little difference. The former Jihadi were against the communism, and the later are against the capitalist and the western capitalist empire.

The interventions always effect social and political structures. The USA’s intervention in the Middle East is one of the major cause of regional humanitarian crisis, political instability, and the disorder. Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the examples. Nineteenth and twentieth century’s scholars and thinkers believed that war is like a business of capitalists. Capitalists tend to expand their economy by military invasions (as done in Iraq) and by wagging full scaled war (as done in Afghanistan). I feel disappointed, when I read how the scholars of the time manage to cover the inhumane acts of the capitalists. Krugman has claimed (in the New York Times) that the September 11th attacks might improve economic conditions by stimulating business investment (Business of Arms). Krugman seems to believe in a kind of destructive creation where prosperity emerges from devastation.

Finally, the last measures, after a war, are always towards peace. The peaceful terminations of the Cold War is an example of when humans make rational and right decisions, even superpower conflict can be resolved peacefully. The need of the time is same. United Stated must also follow the peaceful way of talks with Taliban, as we see, after announcing withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Syria, US has started peace talks with Taliban in Doha. But the talks seem to be unproductive.  According to a report of Al-Jazeera, the talks were not so productive. And they were ended with no any agreement or treaty. To answer the question of ‘Next’, we have to look at the long term foreign policy of US which has always been imperialist for the Third World. The use of absolute military power as the United States has done so, is a threat to the peace of the world. To balance the power, there is a need of emergence of new power in order to restrict and compete with United States.

In his book, the Clash of Civilization and Remaking of World Oder, Samuel Huntington marks that a war produces violent ideologies and bloodiest civilizational conflicts. He argues that “First World War was the ‘war to end wars’ and make the world safe for democracy. Second World War, as Franklin Roosevelt put it, would ‘end the system of unilateral action, the executive alliances, and the balance of power and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries and have always failed. Instead, we will have ‘a universal organization of “peace-loving nations” and begging of a “permanent structure of peace.” WWI, however, generated Communism, Fascism, and reversal of a century-old trend toward democracy. WWII produced a Cold War that was truly global.”

The same case is with the so-called “War on Terror.” It was a campaign also started the end Talibanism, Wahhabism and Terrorism. Instead, it gave an energy boost to the terrorist organizations to expand.

Before we are talking about the post-Islamism as a new momentum in the Middle East, we have to talk about the Islamism briefly to understand the post-Islamism as a new and strong phenomenal wave which recently hit the heart of the Middle East region. Islamism is a formulated and ideological direction of former Islamic movements in previous centuries particularly after the First World War in the Arab world, when the Ottoman Empire abolished and the Islamic political movements came out beyond the Turkish nation-state conspiracy to restore the lost geographical lands of the Ottoman Empire under the Islamic national enthuse in middle east nations, in order to trigger the fire of revolution to eject the colonial powers “Britain and France” and the restoration of Turkey to its own glory.

After the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and the imposition of nation-states system, the various Islamic movements emerged out and adopted the Islamic principles, inside these schools Muslim Brotherhood was the most a popular school which found in 1928 as an ideological religious school to resist the Islamic values on the one hand and on the other hand to speared the hostility sprites against western colonial powers to leave the middle east. The most prominent leaders of Muslims brotherhood school were “Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī and Muhammad Iqbal” and also many other schools which later found belong to the original- mother school of Muslims brotherhood but with a different perspective of beliefs like “flexible-belief, extremes belief and jihadist and movement beliefs”. Islamism demands the Islamic principles not only for religious and politic sections rather for all sections of life, like, individuals, families, societies, and the global as well.

The Islamism again categorized the Muslim peoples on the premise of dogmatic for Islamic principles or not, and Sayyid Qutb was the most popular theorist of this proclamation. He believed that all the other Islamic perspectives about the clean-Islam concept are weak and incomplete ideologies except himself ideology which has the complete and the truest belief one.  Islamism, directly and indirectly, rejects the hermits, Gnosticism and usually believes that all the other world religions communities “Jewish, Christians, Honduras” are ignorant or they are out of belief circle. That is obvious reliably they believed that Islam is the latest religion and other religions should be abandoned their beliefs and come to Islam embracement otherwise they are unbelief ideologies.

After several decades have passed with the model of Islamism, now the Middle East is walking through the circle of a new model which called post-Islamism period. This religious model has many different characteristics to explain. If the Islamism was working like narrow dogmatic ideology and less tried to mix itself with the world abroad, religions and also in part acted like Arabic cultural ruler and armed jihadist movements, however, the post-Islamism is acting like untwist ideology and opens its gates towards the western etiquettes principles and globalization of capitalism. The post-Islamism model carries the death of Islamism and facilitates to emerge the new model of Islam ideology like applying now in turkey, which on the individual level is Gnosticism while on the state and politic levels are secularism.

After the defeated of jihadist and armed Islamic groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the Islamic political parties have changed their style of struggling from closed and narrow interactions to the civil struggle after that they understood, they have to change their strives indeed to get the parliamentary sets and interests in this modernized system, which means that it was watershed for all the Islamic political parties to change their armed and jihadist notions to the civil strive to deal and make an alliance  with lefts and secularist parties in parliament square anymore, despite that they rejected democracy principles before but now they have to accept the conditions of democracy temporarily or intentionally.

Gradually the post-Islamism has abandoned the hostility attitudes and slogans against the myth of Illuminati and Masson, Zionism, America and western states, and also abounded the belief and unbelief blocks or in another word they pulled out the nerves of confrontations and chauvinistic, while both slogans were shining clearly in Islamism minds. Presently, the young classes of post-Islamism are tying themselves with material worlds and they are controlling the sport, internet channels with Social Media. Obviously the young class of post-Islamism is unusually focusing on all kinds of sports particularly the football sport, the subtitle of Islamic TVs are constantly covering the western football fields from the popular players to the stadiums, but still they do not focus on the female football players as part of their notion about the concept of inappropriately.

If during the Islamism period, the female classes were wearing the darken-color cloths like black and nail with wearing the triangle hair-scarfs, flat shoes, thick stocking, their eyebrows, lashes, and faces are clean of makeup. However, now in post-Islamism period the traditional style of clothing and prettify have expired, the female classes are wearing the most expensive Turkish suit brand cloth and their clothes are straitened and short like western etiquettes with hot and attractive colors which means that their psychological loops have untied now and also they are becoming calm with complexities.  Nevermore the Islamic females are wearing the heel-shoes, thin sock and trousers, and also their faces are masking by the expansive makeup.

Without any doubt, other features of post-Islamism are that, which how the extremism and radical Islamic groups become faded in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan,  and the countries of northern Africa, on the hands of America and western NATO alliances in sanded deserts or valleys and mountains. Gradually they become non-political and non-armed movements like “Salafism” who is representing the Islamic prophet leader “Mohamed Abdulla” behaviors in the region with civil soul without touching the political and organizational regulations.

The peoples of post-Islamism have reached the educational level to understand what is wrong and what is not wrong in moderations waves and they changed their extremes oratory to educational flexible oratory, thoroughly they will not go to suicide themselves for their religions and ideologies because of they have interacted with globalized moderation, and there is only the Gnosticism god praying beyond their ideologies, for instants recently turkey passed in Memoriam of   “Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi” anniversary. So that is logical expression to say, this model of Gnosticism Islamic waves will replace the armed and jihadist Islamic groups at future, never more the religions in the middle east will return to individual minds and hearts without political and armed interventions, in order to the western and eastern, will fall into the tolerance concepts without any hatred then we can live peacefully.

Australian military helicopters were targeted with lasers during operations in the South China Sea in May, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. It’s a new incident added to a long set of conflicts in the area. Suspicions are focused on China but have not been confirmed.

Just a day before, Beijing affirmed on Tuesday (May 28, 2019) its opposition to the security meeting between the US and Taiwan. John Bolton, the US National Security advisor and David Lee, one of the Taiwan security leaders, met in May to discuss the South China Sea, between May 13 and 21. It is the first time since 1979 that senior officials from both armies have met to discuss security in the South China Sea.

In addition, a few weeks ago, The Philippines once again alarmed the international community to claim its rights in the South China Sea, which it considers to be infringed by the Chinese presence. Indeed, the Philippines has reported more than 250 Chinese ships (mostly fishing) near the Philippines-occupied Thitu Island since the start of the year.

Since 1947, China’s Nine-Dash Line symbolizes its claims in the South China Sea. Since then, and especially in the last decade, the Chinese presence has grown instead of several warnings from the international community.

Let’s understand why the South China Sea is a strategic area and how international law intervenes in the dispute.

Why is China so harsh in its positions?

The South China Sea seems to be the theatre of internal conflicts in Asia. Like any international conflict, a rational analysis of the issues is necessary to understand it.

A fishery dispute

According to the contested statistics communicated by the Asian Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), from 10 to 12% of global fish catches took place in the South China Sea in 2015, and more than 50% of the fishing vessels in the world are estimated to operate in the South China Sea.

Fishing revenues makeup about 3% of China’s GDP and generate up to nearly $300 billion annually. China also employs between 7 and 9 million fishermen. This market size meets a growing demand as China’s fish consumption grew annually at 6% between 1990 and 2010 to represent nearly 35% of the global fish food supply. To meet such a supply, China needs to expand its new maritime fishing operations. Therefore, the South China Sea is an opportunity.

It gives an idea of the financial and economic influence stakes, that leads to diplomatic conflicts.

An energy dispute? Not really.

China is far from being self-sufficient in energy.

Massively using coal, it needs to satisfy a long-term supply and to overturn a strong dependence on its oil suppliers (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iraq, Oman, Brazil, Iran, Kuwait and others).

Nevertheless, the South China Sea represents less than 1% of global oil reserves and about 3% of the world’s gas reserves, according to the US. Geological Survey of 2012. These estimations support the thesis that the South China Sea cannot be the only matter of resources. If the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company often announces a 125-billion barrel figure, it is likely to be strategically excessive, almost certainly meant to distract attention from other motives, such as territorial control.

A very strategic territorial control

To know: One-third of the global shipping is supposed to operate in the South China Sea

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that roughly 80% of global trade by volume and 70% by value is transported by sea. Of that volume, 60% of maritime trade passes through Asia, with the South China Sea carrying an estimated one-third of global shipping (by most the sources).

Such estimations make of the South China Sea one of the most strategic places in the world in terms of control over the exchanges and transports of goods. Strong pressures in the area can be used in diplomatic conflicts as a precious tool.

That may be the reason why China has built for a few years artificial islands and military bases, granting a flow control in the area.

International law is not actually a protection to any infringement

If the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 states that the exclusive economic zone shall extend beyond 200 nautical miles, China Nine-Dash Line extends far beyond this limit. However, international law has not enough authority to counter Chinese power.

The impotence of international law was manifested through the decision of the Arbitral tribunal in charge of the UNCLOS enforcement. In its two rulings of 2015 and 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that China has “no historical rights” based on the “nine-dash line” map. This decision did not give rise to any coercive measures and did not in any way prevent the extent of Chinese presence in the area.

A land conflict or a maritime one, does it change anything?

South China Sea case is a maritime conflict and it differs in many sides from a land conflict. There is certain anarchy of the international law regarding the high seas, and the powerlessness to get international decisions enforced emphasizes this trend. In that sense, according to the principle of the seas, China is building artificial islands and building installations (civilian and military) on existing islands. Thanks to this presence in international areas, China is taking the opportunity to claim an exclusive economic zone from its newly annexed islands, that infringes the territorial rights claimed by neighbouring countries.

Beyond the legal aspects, human issues in the South China Sea are less important than in land conflicts. However, China is considering populating the area in order to be able to defend itself under international humanitarian law.

However, if China wants to enforce its presence in the area, it would be appropriate to settle civilian populations there in order to make the humanitarian law applicable in its favour. That’s exactly what it is happening for instance in the Paracels Islands. According to the US Think Tank, China has reportedly increased in 2018 the presence of civilians in the Paracels Islands area by building appropriate facilities.

The problem is that Vietnam also claims the Paracels. Although infringed in its claimed right, Vietnam prefers civilian rather than military installations, which implicitly allows China to expand and be relatively better received by its neighbours. Therefore, by being in a first step military influent in the South China Sea, China plans to implement civilians in order to stabilize the area, that can strengthen its claimed sovereignty.

As a consequence, this conflict seems insolvable considering the harshness of China and its strategies. However, like any international matters, it is a balance of powers challenge.

The continuous peace process in Afghanistan appears to have advanced from the developing American acknowledgement that the Afghan conflict does not have any military answer. It has already claimed regular civilian and military losses and critical resources without accumulating to the financial improvement of Afghanistan.

It has been evaluated that since the start of US-led attack on Afghanistan, almost 38,480 Afghan civilians have been killed in the dispute and more than 30,000 injured. The US war in Afghanistan has been the country’s longest military invasion for 17 years. The number of civilian causalities of about 3,804 in 2018 has been one of the war’s highest. This war costs about $1.07 trillion for the US and has lost about 2,401 military personnel in Afghanistan since 2001. Moreover, about 3,937 US contractors have been killed in the country.

The peace talks in Afghanistan took off a year ago with senior American official reaching out to Doha to open peace talks with the Taliban. The arrangement of Zalmay Khalilzad as the US State Department’s special representative for Afghan conciliation has been sent for this purpose. Be that as it may, each round of talks, however beginning with some confidence, failed out, trailed by continuous attacks and increased insurgency.

Until this point, five rounds of talks have been held. The latest round-confronted momentary suspension with the Taliban’s refusal to talk legitimately to the Afghan government. The Afghan-to-Afghan talks planned to occur in Qatar, where the Taliban keep up their office and proposed to incorporate the Taliban, Kabul government representatives, the opposition, and other conspicuous figures failed as the opposite sides were unfit to concur on the members.

US representative Zalmay Khalilzad is desperately in need of assurance from the Taliban that they will not give sanctuary to any terrorist organization, for example, al-Qaeda and ISIS in future. US government is also trying to secure its maximum interest while giving greater space to the Taliban. In opposite, the Taliban leadership have been resolute on US withdrawal alongside the freeing of Taliban prisoners in Guantánamo and Afghanistan.

As per news reports, however, the American and Taliban have achieved a framework of a deal, amid all these progress attacks have remained active. In the midst of the positive progress described by visits and incessant events of talks, there exists a misty side to this.
Many regional powers are focusing on an “Afghan-owned” and “Afghan-led” peace process. It is worth noticing that Russia facilitated peace talks separate from the American. China, Pakistan, Iran and Russia directed various meetings and also communicated concerns diverse from US peace initiative.

Then, the US desperate effort to keep the Taliban on board has on occasionally driven the National Unity Government of Afghanistan to feel relinquished. The Afghan national security advisor, Hamdullah Mohib, did not hamburger words to blame Khalilzad for double-crossing the Afghan government.

It is widely believed that the peace talks have tilted towards the Taliban because of the long-delayed stay of Americans in Afghanistan. Many American scholars have kept up that the US commitment in Afghanistan has gone amiss in light of the fact that there has been no clear definition of what triumph in the war-ravaged country would look like. It is argued that the US only want an honourable exit from Afghanistan and this is what Zalmay Khalilzad is desperately working for. The flexibility of the Taliban fighters likewise incited the Afghan government to offer in welcoming the Taliban to frame a political party and participate in elections. While the Taliban declined this offer and time when the US is preparing to leave Afghanistan without putting genuine efforts in the peace process can hamper long term stability of Afghanistan.

The democratic peace process in Afghanistan has been delayed as the presidential election that had been scheduled for April has been deferred twice, to July and now to September 28. It is argued that whether the Taliban’s goal of establishing a “pure Islamic government” is compatible with the principles of the democratic process. This peace process will be strengthened only if the US put genuine efforts to end this long war not just for itself but for the interests of poor Afghans who are at war for almost four decades.

Libya stays in a disorderly state after the fall of Muammar Gadhafi. The United Nations-sponsored government battles to practice command over an area held by opponent groups, heightening topographical and political divisions between the East, West, and South. Be that as it may, it’s political and security emergency proceeds as the two specialists vie for authenticity and regional control and have left scores of thousands uprooted inside Libya and interfered with access to fundamental administrations to the Libyans.

At present, an unsafe military clash is continuous in Libya between east-based powers faithful to Field Marshal Haftar and equipped gatherings united to the UN-supported government in Tripoli. The WHO has given higher assessments of setbacks where 392 individuals have been murdered and around 2,000 injured in the continuous outfitted conflicts south of Tripoli. As of late, Khalifa Haftar’s offered to tumble the UN-perceived government has uprooted 50,000 individuals and encouraged his powers to “show the foe a more noteworthy and greater exercise than the past ones” amid Ramadan, saying the heavenly month had not been motivation to stop past fights in the eastern urban communities of Benghazi and Derma.
The equipped local armies and fear based oppressor bunches are utilizing the country as a base for radicalization and composed wrongdoing, further fanning the flame and representing a risk to the district and past. The regular citizens are bugged and misled by the local armies and equipped gatherings, however nothing has been done as such far as the universal association has remained too anxious to even consider averting a full scale battle for the capital.

The contention raises further when Libyan National Army (LNA) under Haftar’s direction propelled an assault, named ‘Surge of Dignity’, with the predefined point of catching the capital, regardless of rehashed admonitions by Libya’s worldwide accomplices. LNA started to progress on Tripoli after Haftar came back from Riyadh, trusting that the worldwide supporters, i.e., the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France and Russia would remain by them. In spite of the fact that the US had cautioned him verbally not to move into western Libya, where the UN-supported government is based and has endeavored to impact Haftar to acknowledge a political arrangement with Faiez Serraj, the leader of the Tripoli-based government, to bring together Libya’s isolated establishments, including the military, making Haftar the leader of the military, however he differ contending that the nearness of state armies in Tripoli would build the security issue and disappoint the normal Libyans.

The military quality and outside help of LNA is obvious yet its triumph in Tripoli can’t be anticipated. With respect to now, this contention could spread to different pieces of Libya, as Misratan powers have straightforwardly expressed that they plan to cut-off LNA supply lines in focal Libya which will in the long run compound the contention. To maintain a strategic distance from this calamitous strengthening in Tripoli including local powers, Libya’s accomplices should take genuine activities. The territorial forces ought to refrain from supporting the hostile militarily, and underwrite their help for UN-drove arrangements. In addition, the UN Security Council should interest for a moment perfection of threats, and force endorses on military officers and political pioneers raising showdowns.

Moreover, the UN ought to present a three-pronged system including a political track, which ought not exclusively be confined to an arrangement among Haftar and Serraj rather ought to likewise incorporate political delegates from adversary gatherings to guarantee an equivalent and down to earth arrangement. Second, a military track ought to be exhibited, including senior military authorities from the two sides, along the lines of the Egypt-drove military exchange to concede to new security courses of action for the capital; and in the last spot, a money related track, to overcome any issues of the monetary foundations which rose in 2014 because of political unsettling influences, by uniting delegates from Libya’s isolated Central Bank.
Taking everything into account, Libya has seen visit mishaps and outer obstruction in the course of recent years which have encouraged the non-state on-screen characters, for example, ISIS to pick up an a dependable balance. Keeping in view the present situation, the threat of psychological warfare could turn into an unavoidable outcome as new jihadists are joining the contention. What will occur in the battle for Tripoli is presently to a great extent dependent on how the UN and universal players of the area will react to it. In spite of the fact that the outer forces, including the US, UK, France, Italy, the UAE, Egypt and Russia, have censured the acceleration, however none of them incorporated the danger of approvals and made any unequivocal notice to help the UN-supported Government of National Accord in Tripoli. In this manner, it very well may be accepted that the outside forces are giving help to Haftar in his aspiration to catch the capital and power.
The author is the student of Defense and Diplomatic studies.

Terrorism as phenomena has dominated World of security studies, discussions of security studies used to entail discussion of Power dynamics of European powers or of the consequences of new power centers like China in Asia or Israeli presence in the Middle East.  As such, there has been a lot of literature about the issues of Terrorism as a global menace. Unfortunately, the issue of Terrorism is largely interpreted in terms of Power Politics or International intrigue, which no doubt plays a role but the role of Sociological perspective is essential because it sees terrorism as Political Behavior and not a security risk. This leads to the Rationalization of Human Behavior which essentially means that Terrorism like all human behavior is motivated with some sort of reason, some sort of rationale rather than the simplistic rhetoric of most Terrorism Literature describing it as a “fanatic” movement. This article tries to understand the madness behind it all as it were.

Extremism in isolation can never be understood, like all behavior, Terrorism too (a violent political behavior) is contextual. All human beings are a product of their time and age. People are socialized to have particular political thought and political behavior leanings, through their interaction of political culture. Under normal circumstances, such Political discourse leads to the formulation of Political ideas which then leads to Political action like voting and protests.

However these are under normal circumstances, under extreme circumstances however, Political socialization can take a very violent turn, these extreme circumstances may be due to war, economic crisis or identity crisis which can, in turn, create a violent political culture, as feelings of tolerance are evaporated and are motivated and moved by feelings anger and resentment against the other groups, which taken to the extreme is called “Terrorism”.

This paper breaks down the process of terrorism into simpler steps, into a linear progression each stage refers to an important stage which leads to the final act of Terrorism. The Linear Progression Theory follows the development of violent behavior in the form of Stages.  The First stage is Extremism, Second Stage is Radicalism, the Third Stage is Militant and the last Stage is Active Terrorism.

This paper refutes the claim that terrorism is grown overnight; rather it is a progression process, socialized due to extreme Political cultures in which they inhibit which then exhibits Extremist behavior. This article claims that terrorism is a response, to extreme scenarios which the “terrorist” claim as its only “logical and moral responsibility”, we will see in this article how their sense of rationalism and morality gets distorted as each stage progresses.

Stage 1 Extremism

The first stage of terrorism, is Political Opinion formulation, like all terrorist organizations fight for some cause or the other, the first stage of Organized terror, is having a cause. Most people consider themselves free from extremist views this however is not true. We live in a highly complex society, with people living under different conditions, due to their Class, Religion or Race. All these differences entail people having unpopular opinions which are kept at check by society’s morals. However, this does not stop, extremist views being formed. People have extreme views, largely in part due to a perceived sense or real sense of injustice that is linked to their own identity someway. Man in his own nature is Ego-Centric that is he understands the world under his own terms, and as such acts particularly violently when people who share the same characteristics suffer, largely due to association. And as such develop extreme views about any particular group. Hitler’s wrath against the Jews is one such example, which then leads to a generalized hatred for the Jewish creed, as he saw the Political and Economic suffering of Germans responsible in large part to the Jews.

Stage 2 Radical

After the formation of Extreme views, Extremist see that the current order is not sustainable and a great change in society needs to happen in order to solve the injustices in society. This sense of injustice is what drives them what can only be called a “drive to Radical Politics”, Radical Politics is not necessarily bad if there are appropriate Political channels, and Radicalization make take appropriate measures. However, if Radicalization does not have any appropriate channels then it can lead to some serious repercussions including Revolutions if Revolutions seem unlikely they tend to foster deep hatred against the “other” group in question and increasingly ask ideas which do not service the Political spectrum of the State hence Radical.

Stage 3 Militant

Militant Stage briefly put is the stage in which the Radicals decide to employ but do not act Violent means to pursue their political goals via Terrorism

Militant is the Stage in which the Radical actively supports insurgent activities on a moral level but simply cannot find appropriate means to do Terrorism. It is important to note that Terrorism is the combinations of Unsustainable Radicalism (Extremist Opinions with no Political Outlets) and Weapon availability in society.

Intellectuals of various backgrounds fail to understand that the Guns in it themselves have no will it is people that give will to the guns themselves. Moreover, if terrorist truly wants to commit an act of wanton violence any act, would suffice modern terrorism does not drastic measures, appropriate measures such as simple pocket knife can act as a weapon of terrorism, as we see many knife attacks in Jerusalem against Jews and Muslims respectively.

Stage 4 Active Terrorism

The last Stage is Active Terrorism in this Stage the Militant has found access to the necessary methodology of Terrorism this may include lone gunman attacks as we say in New Zealand, Suicide bombings like in Syria, Iraq and many others or can include Kidnapping, forced ransoms and enforced disappearances like the TTP and BLA forces in Pakistan.

Unfortunately, however people simply see and are understandably shocked by the incident but they do not see how the Extremist opinion has been formulated and how it lead to terrorism, which is the end product. As they say the process is more important than the product, however, States see Terrorism more as a Statistic and less as a Political and Social breakdown of their respective political societies.

Conclusion

The Truth of the matter is that Terrorism is not a Global Issue, for it was it should garner the support of all States into one united goal to eliminate Terrorism, however, such actions would cause harm to the perceived National Interests of the State. The truth of the matter is that States have used proxies as weapons against each other, this trend sadly does not end in the so-called free world, as States sponsor these groups to fight against each other for either survival or Political gain.

Perhaps, the problem lies in the perception of Terrorist, Terrorist are not the irrational and stupid beast that has been wooed by Religious zeal and Ideological fervor. Nay, rather they are the product of State struggles against each other which creates appropriate conditions for the socialization for such violent behavior. As the Extremist rally against the perceived or real injustice against each other, to take up arms and fight the State, through any and all means necessary. The barbarity of War and the spiral of violence creates a descent which humbles most men, as Man in his zeal for “justice” does terrible thinks which under normal circumstances would be impossible.

“I’m sorry for the mishaps. I wasn’t born to be president, but [I was born] to be a military man.” Last week, Jair Bolsonaro confessed his sins to journalists and showed some concern with his performance. “Sometimes I ask God, what have I done to deserve this? It’s problem after problem, but we can push Brazil forward,” he said.

In recent days, the president has given meek signs that he could be more open to a bit of governmental soul-searching. Last week, he decided to meet with congressional party leaders, tossing aside his “new politics v. old politics” rhetoric—and even apologized to an ally for calling him a “piece of s—.” While that is no more than basic courtesy, it represents a major leap for Mr. Bolsonaro.

He will need all the self-awareness he can muster in order to continue his term. A new poll by Datafolha—Brazil’s most respected survey institute—confirms a desperately negative trend for the administration: Mr. Bolsonaro has consistently lost popular support since taking office. Today, only 32 percent of Brazilians believe he is doing either a “good or great” job—with almost as many people saying his performance is “bad or terrible.”

READ MORE

Academia is considered one of the most prestigious institutions on the planet, and is considered to be an institution of utter perfection, and that, it if weren’t for what it is in it’s present form, humanity would not have advanced in its present form.

But academia is an institution riddles with holes, and rooted in an outdated mindset that will come back to bite its own tale, and make cease to exist if it does not change its ways. What is needed to reform academia, to save academia, and to see to it that academia flourishes well into the future.

In that, what is needed is an academic manifesto.

The biggest problem with academia in its current state is its standardization. Academia standardizes people with wide varieties of talents. But if the fall of communism proved anything, it is that standardization of human talent doesn’t work. Academia must evaluate people on a long list of talents. One may not be good at writing in a structured manner, but can compensate by arguing his/her case upon a floor in front of fellow peers in a very free flowing way. In a system that made sense, both levels of showing one’s self deserved equal banter. But, in the current academic system, writing is favored over all else.

This is largely due to, in part, the mass production mentality. The mass production mentality is centered around the notion that one can only prove their works how much productivity (in the case of academia, it is assignments such as essays, research parers, thesis, etc.) that one can do in a set quarter. This is largely due to the economic system that has become mainstream since the industrial revolution.

This, ultimately, is the root source, and in fact is, academia’s biggest problem. Academia does not think for itself, it has been structured for the purpose of serving a greater good. In this case, the greater good being the economy. This is shown most noticeably by politicians talking about the need to reform education, not for the purpose of unlocking children’s full potential, but rather to prepare them for the jobs of the future, and by launching new initiatives like “workforce preparedness.”

The mass production mentality, aside from being incredibly reductionist, is also obsolete. Because the economic system that mass-production based mentality academia was designed around is obsolete. It was great for the blue-collar economy, when low-skilled manufacturing jobs were abundant, and so education wasn’t a priority for politicians because if they fail, there was always room on the assembly line. But we don’t live in that era anymore. Blue collar is changing. White collar jobs are now mainstream. Rather than have a mass-production based mentality, academia must adopt a white collar approach and adopt an intuition-based mentality.

This brings up a fundamental core problem with academia as it stands now. People learn to enrich themselves, not to serve a greater purpose. Furthermore, anyone who has ever invested in the stock market will tell you that one cannot fully say that “This shall be the future.” One cannot predict future jobs, and one shouldn’t even try. Rather than having education revolve around jobs, jobs should revolve around education. One should not look at education as a pyramid hierarchical structure, or, as George Carlin once put it, “A few winners, a whole lot of losers” when doing a comedy skit on children. One should view education and academia in a more egalitarian manner.

This is also a necessity. Many people complain about robots taking away jobs. And yet this would not be a problem if academia had not dulled people down into robots. The human mind is a mind of great potential, not meant to be doing dull tasks robots should do anyway. With the rise of automation, society may be headed towards a more knowledge-based economy. So while there may be less mechanics, plumbers, and waiters, there will be more doctors, scholars, scientists, etc. And ultimately, is that not a good thing? Do we not want more doctors in this world?

Academia must evolve into the future. Academia must be more inclusive, more open to different ways of thinking, less conservative in its approach. Academia must center around focusing a mind, rather than disciplining a mind. A manifesto is in due order.

From “Collaborating rivals” to “Contending rivals” ,China and U.S relationship has shifted, due to  China’s development as a super power after United States, challenges the unipolarity of U.S and is viewed as a danger to U.S interests for the most part and to the Trump’s organization especially. Regardless of having diverse political frameworks, vital interests, and social conventions, both the nations remained to a great extent agreeable , for as far back as four decades. China and U.S can be alluded as coordinating opponents in this period.

On the worldwide esteem chain, they were in various positions and the focused part of their economies was not as conspicuous. Win-win monetary commitment was a significant foundation for their nonstop participation. Other than having geopolitical and ideological contrasts both the gatherings were intelligible and handy. So as to create, China required U.S collaboration to enter the U.S ruled worldwide organized commerce framework and markets, while U.S appended noteworthy significance to the business openings the Chinese market managed.

So why have the two states started to see each other today as “Contending rivals” as opposed to “Participating adversaries”? The progressions in U.S residential legislative issues and huge moves in the U.S view of the world is firmly identified with the reason for this contention. China has been formally recognized as a “noteworthy key adversary” by U.S National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy. This isn’t the result of a craving with respect to President Trump nor his “hawkish” counselors. Infact it is a key judgment the U.S government and American open have made after cautious contemplations of the actualities, which it may not change temporarily.

Since January 2018, China and U.S have occupied with an “Trade War” which includes the imposing of tariffs. So as to fix China’s long-term maltreatment of the messed up worldwide framework , Trump had announced the crusade. China and the US have both officially forced taxes on steel, aluminum and some agrarian products, which have set out full scale exchange war.

Trump has slapped levies on $50 billion worth of imports from China , as the financial arrangements of Beijing has brought about the loss of American employments. Additionally Trump has reprimanded the developing exchange deficiency between both the nations. The US exchange gap with China demonstrates that Americans utilize more Chinese items than the other way around.

Despite the fact that the US economy stays solid, the exchange war has thrown a shadow over the worldwide economy and upsets monetary markets. Both US and global firms have said they are being hurt. The IMF cautioned an all out exchange war would debilitate the worldwide economy.

Considering the effects of heightening Trade war, both China and the United States seem nearer than any time in recent memory to an agreement that would end their exchange war. Will they achieve an understanding? Nothing can be anticipated as there are numerous obstacles thusly. In the event that the understanding occur, will it lead to stable exchange stage between the two super powers? Will this exchange understanding lead towards participation? The appropriate response is “No”, it is only one stage towards the relationship.

The trade agreement has certain elements, including China’s guarantee to buy progressively American merchandise. Will China-US exchange is end of all conflicts? China and US will have a lot more fights to battle when exchange war closes. Arbitrators are centered around settling a long-running duty debate yet the contention among Washington and Beijing stretches out a long ways past offers of soybeans and aluminum. Strains have widened to incorporate innovative, political, ideological and military measurements.

The two biggest economies on the planet fight for ideological , mechanical and monetary predominance, and exchange understanding won’t end these fights. Both the forces having various ideologues, business people versus socialists need to rule the world. China is centering to advance the socialist philosophy around the globe. In past U.S has been containing those forces who endeavors to overwhelm the world, presently it will do to oppose China for ascending as a worldwide power.

It is inappropriate to think about that any exchange understanding among China and U.S will reduce the strains. Infact, aside from trade, China will make progress toward universal speculation, monetary common reliance, and mechanical predominance. The impacts of China’s belt and street, its job in global fiscal assets and endeavors to partition European Union will additionally build pressures.

Presently the inquiry emerges that whether china and us will keep on collaborating in not so distant future after exchange understanding ? This is only the start of new stage in exchange contest. Nobody can foresee the ” end everything being equal” with China-U.S trade, both are associated with a challenge for predominance and compulsiveness.