Young Diplomats

Tim Marshall in his book,’ Prisoners of Geography’ writes that in case, Kashmir becomes part of
Pakistan, it would deny India opportunities and strengthen foreign policy options for Pakistan.
Pakistan’s water insecurity issues would also be resolved. Originating from Himalayan Tibet,
Indus River passes through Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir before entering Pakistan from
where it runs the length of the country and empties in the Arabian Sea in Karachi.

In 2016, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said that this resource that belonged to India could
not be allowed to flow into Pakistan. The Indian government had threatened to revise the Indus
Water Treaty (IWT) during that time after Pathankot and Uri attacks. India is repeating the
same rhetoric after the Pulwama Attack in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. According to
Hindustan Times, the government of India has announced to divert the flow of this resource entering
into Pakistan which it calls ‘unutilised water’. The government plans to divert the flow into the
Yamuna River in order to improve its availability. Water flow coming from three rivers
Indus, Jhelum and Chenab to Pakistan would be diverted to Yamuna River where Indian
government plans to build a project. Pakistan is entitled to have the water from these three
rivers under the IWT.

This treaty was signed between India and Pakistan on September 19, 1960. The
treaty was brokered by the World Bank. The treaty gave India control over waters of three
eastern rivers, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi. Similarly, it gave Pakistan control over waters of three
western rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. This treaty is said to have stood even during the
wars between India and Pakistan. However, the BJP government under Modi has threatened in
several occasions to revise the treaty. Moreover, Indus River System Authority (IRSA) experts
complain that instead of using water from only three rivers which India has control over
according to IWT, India is constructing huge water storages on all six Indus basin rivers. This is a
clear violation of the treaty. The treaty, however, allows India to use this resource in non-consumptive
ways from the western rivers. As per the experts, this permits India to use water in a way that
does not reduce downstream water level and does not change the course of the rivers. India is
allowed to tap into 3.6 million acre-feet (MAF) of water only for transport, power and irrigation purposes.

The threat to revise the treaty and stop the flow of water to Pakistan is not only the
violation of IWT but also of the international law. International Law proscribes upper riparian to
divert or stop the flow of waters of rivers to the lower riparian. Therefore, India’s move to stop
or divert flow would be a clear violation of International Law.
The Indian government is definitely leaving no stone unturned to isolate Pakistan
internationally and sabotage its progress domestically. Pakistan is an agrarian state where
agriculture contributes approximately 20 per cent to its GDP and employs approximately 43 per
cent of its labour force. India is deliberately trying to weaken Pakistan’s already struggling
economy and it clearly knows its moves in this regard. However, the current wave of threats to
revise the IWT and isolate Pakistan internationally shows opportunism of Indian government
which is playing the hatred card against Pakistan to win the upcoming general elections. But
this is not it. This resource is more than just a war tool and BJP government in India is making the most
of it.

In 2013, William Sarni and Tamim Pechet wrote a book, ‘Water Tech: A Guide to Investment,
Innovation and Business Opportunities in the Water Sector’ in which they highlighted the
emergence of water cartels in future just like oil and gas cartels in the past. In 2010, the then
Secretary of Indian water resources ministry (retired) U.N. Panjiar had talked about business
opportunities in the Indian water sector. He highlighted opportunities within this sector
covering industry, desalination projects, agriculture, hydropower, storage and home
consumption. In this regard, India has invested billions of dollars in this sector which
includes investments from several banks and domestic companies. India’s such moves
apparently manifest its long-term desires to create a water cartel. Hence, the current war
rhetoric is not just a political gimmick to create hatred against Pakistan to win the elections but
also a deliberated long-term curved business opportunity to create a water cartel.

Japan and the European Union (EU) have begun the new year with a triple success. In addition to the entry into force on February 1 of the world’s largest free trade agreement, the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the past few weeks also brought the creation of “the world’s largest area of safe data flows” and the partial implementation of the EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA). The three agreements, strategic, economic and digital, are at the heart of what is becoming possibly the most important bilateral relationship when it comes to protecting and promoting free trade, multilateralism, and the rules-based order.

The Economic Partnership Agreement

Less than a decade ago, both Japan and the European Union were seen as protectionist and the odds of them signing a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) seemed low. Yet, here we are, with Japan and the EU ratifying the world’s largest FTA, surpassing both the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). The EU-Japan EPA doesn’t just connect two economies that are worth almost $25 trillion; it sets the standards for 21st century trade agreements.

Unlike a simple FTA, the agreement goes well beyond trade and tariffs, for example, by providing EU companies nondiscriminatory access as suppliers to the procurement markets of 54 cities in Japan. The EPA contains clauses pertaining to labor rights, environmental protection and climate change, state-owned enterprises, public procurement, market access, intellectual property, and data protection. According to the European Commission, the EPA is also the first free trade agreement that includes a specific reference to the Paris Agreement.

In 2017, the value of EU exports to Japan stood at 91 billion euros (60 billion euros in goods and 31 billion euros in services, for a total value of roughly $99 billion). On the other hand, the value of Japanese exports to the EU stood at 87 billion euros (69 billion euros in goods and 18 billion euros in services). The EU is thus Japan’s third largest trading partner.

Once fully implemented, over the next 15 years, the EPA will remove 97 percent of Japanese tariff lines on imported EU goods, which will save around 1 billion euros in paid duties. By then, 99 percent of European tariff lines on imported Japanese goods will also be eliminated, equivalent to around 2 billion euros in paid duties. It is estimated that thanks to these reductions, annual EU-Japan trade could increase by almost 36 billion euros, once the EPA is fully implemented.

The EPA’s biggest European winner is the agriculture sector, as Japan will remove duties on many cheeses (tariffs were as high as 29.8 percent) and wines (the average tariff stood at 15 percent), allow more imports of beef and pork, and ensure the protection of more than 200 European Geographical Indications such as: Roquefort, Parmigiano Reggiano, Feta cheese, Scottish Farmed Salmon, Lübecker Marzipan, Mortadella Bologna, Prosciutto di Parma, and numerous wines and spirits, like Champagne, Prosecco, Cotnari wine, Cognac, and Scotch Whisky.

Japan, on the other hand, will reap most rewards in the automotive industry. While EU customs duties on Japanese automobiles used to be 10 percent, they will be fully eliminated in eight years. More than 90 percentof European customs duties on car parts imported from Japan have already been eliminated.

For Japan, the EPA, which the government sees as “an important pillar of Abenomics’ growth strategy,” is the second great success in just two months. Last December, the CPTPP entered into force, as a testament to Japan’s transformation into a staunch promoter of free trade. It was Japan’s leadership that saved the CPTPPfrom demise after the United States withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in January 2017. With both the CPTPP and the EPA in force, Japanese companies and consumers stand to benefit from stronger trade links with markets worth more than a quarter of world GDP.

The EPA and the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) were both envisioned in 2011, soon after the tragedy of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Negotiations for the EPA began in April 2013 and at first, moved rather slowly. But the pace picked up once the international environment started to change. The two sides reached an agreement in principle in July 2017, soon after the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, in a clear signal that the EU and Japan remain committed to free trade. Negotiations for the EPA were finally concludedin December 2017 and the leaders of Japan and the EU signed the agreement in Tokyo last summer, subsequently proceeding with a speedy ratification.

One drawback of the EU-Japan EPA is tied to the reason it was possible for this agreement to be concluded so quickly and without any incidents. In 2016, when the EU was in the process of signing its agreement with Canada, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), it had an unpleasant surprise, as the Walloon Region of Belgium opposed the agreement and threatened to block it. Later, in regard to the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that its dispute settlement mechanism for investments fell within competences shared between the EU and member states, so the agreement needs to be jointly concluded by the EU and its member states. Considering that negotiations for an investment agreement were moving slower, while also taking into account these two previous events, the issue of investment protection was kept out of the EU-Japan EPA, so that the agreement’s entry into force cannot be delayed or prevented altogether by a single member state. Negotiations on investments continue, as the EU does not want to use the traditional Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, but instead create a permanent Investment Court System. The next meeting between EU and Japan negotiators is scheduled for March 2019.

The entry into force of the EPA alone would have been a notable achievement. But the EU and Japan are also celebrating a strategic and a digital agreement, which bolster the EPA.

The Data Movement Agreement

The EPA was connected to the formation of an EU-Japan area of safe data flows. On January 23, the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision on Japan, certifying the equivalency of its data protection norms, so that the personal data of European citizens can be freely moved to Japan. The Japanese government adopted an equivalent decision regarding the EU, bringing to life an idea for a 21st century agreement. Companies can now move data between the EU and Japan, creating new opportunities for the two digital markets.

Věra Jourová, the EU commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality, highlighted the fact that “data is the fuel of global economy and this agreement will allow for data to travel safely between us to the benefit of both our citizens and our economies.” As the European Commission noted, through this agreement the two sides “affirm that, in the digital era, promoting high privacy and personal data protection standards and facilitating international trade must and can go hand in hand.”

As others have noted, this data agreement isn’t perfect, as recognition can be unilaterally withdrawn at any time. The ideal solution would have been to integrate the data agreement into the Economic Partnership Agreement. Nonetheless, it’s an important step forward in contrast with other FTAs that have been signed worldwide over the past years. In the 21st century, data has become one of the most important commodities and no discussion about free trade is really complete without addressing the free and safe flow of data between nations. The EU-Japan deal represents a model that can be replicated or improved by future agreements.

The Strategic Partnership Agreement

The final piece of the puzzle is the EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA). While the SPA will enter into force only after all EU member states ratify or approve the agreement, parts of the agreement have been provisionally applied since February 1. The SPA is based on shared values and principles, such as democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. What makes the agreement special is the fact that it is legally binding, separating it from the sea of rhetorical “strategic partnerships” that the EU maintains with other important countries. The SPA establishes an EU-Japan Joint Committee that will coordinate the implementation of the partnership and resolve disputes.

Most importantly, the SPA opens a whole new era of EU-Japan global cooperation in numerous sectors, such as climate change and environmental protection, information society and cyber issues, outer space, development and economic policy, culture, science, technology and industrial cooperation, combating corruption, money laundering, illicit drugs, and terrorism, or the issue of weapons of mass destruction and conventional arms. Over the next few years, Brussels and Tokyo should make good use of each and every clause of this agreement to maximize its impact. The SPA also offers new opportunities for EU-Japan cooperation in the security realm, which could be an important geopolitical development.

The EU is in the process of intensifying military cooperation between member states and could even establish a European Army, while Japan, under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has announced the policy of “Proactive Contribution to Peace.” Thus the EU-Japan SPA is a perfect fit, enabling the two sides to identify new ways through which they can promote peace and security. The EU and Japan have already cooperated in counterpiracy activities near the Horn of Africa or in providing assistance in Niger and Mali. The SPA will enable the two powers to extend this cooperation at a time when the global security environment has become unstable.

A Bright Future for EU-Japan Cooperation

This trifecta of agreements greatly enhances EU-Japan relations, with global implications. While geography has placed them far apart, common values and principles have brought the EU and Japan close to each other, together defending these values.

In order to strengthen their ties in the long term, the EU and Japan should now look to intensify and diversify people-to-people ties, which are ultimately the basis of strong relations. EU-Japan people-to-people ties are, unfortunately, not as deep as current economic or political relations. The two sides should fund programs that enhance the quality and multiply the number of academic, educational, and cultural contacts and exchanges, which will bridge the cultural and linguistic gaps, bringing European and Japanese people closer. Academic and educational programs will also enable tighter scientific and research cooperation, whose achievements could ultimately boost the two economies.

In an era of disorder, growing protectionism, and reaction against globalization, the European Union and Japan have stood up as some of the strongest defenders of free trade and of a rules-based order. A decade ago, both the EPA and the SPA might have seemed far-fetched, yet they are now reality. The strengthening of EU-Japan relations is good news not just for their almost 600 million citizens, but also for the rest of the world, as a model of how international cooperation can overcome barriers and contribute to a better future.

This article is written by the excellent website The Diplomat, you can find it here https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/japan-and-europes-triple-partnership/

Launched by America, the war in Afghanistan is at a turning point. People born after September 11, 2001, are now being deployed there. Peace negotiations continue, but with little impact.

Yet, there is one question that has not been answered: What is to be the future of India in the region?

India has played a considerable part in the future of Afghanistan. Many Afghani people watch Bollywood movie. India was the first country to send in construction workers following the 2001 Invasion. The Mughal Empire originated in Kabul, and while many Afghani’s consider the United States to be imperialist country, as they had viewed the Soviet Union, they consider India to be a brother.

But, little has been done on India’s part other than these symbolic gestures. The country has seen what fighting in Afghanistan has done to the British, the Russians, the Americans, and others. Yet India is still interested in the long-term future of Afghanistan, as it relates to their larger  cold-war with Pakistan that since resulted in 4 direct wars between the two states and the standoffs that have flared up routinely since September 11, 2001.

But now the Americans are considering pulling out. But Afghanistan is far from perfect, and the simple truth of the matter is is that the United States has no real concerns for the long-term future of Afghanistan. The United States concern is fighting terrorism, nothing more. India, however, does. And so does India’s arch rival, Pakistan.

When, in 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the Pakistani government was one of the big three founders of the Afghan Mujaheddin, the United States and Saudi Arabia being the other two. Each of the three nations was involved in Afghanistan for different reasons, and they often clashed. For Pakistan, it was to prevent Soviet-allied India from using Afghanistan as a base to launch a two-front war against Pakistan. After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan and the Communist government of Afghanistan in 1992, Pakistan created the Taliban and intervened in the Afghan Civil War to further their agenda.

Although the Pakistani government backed the United States following 9/11 and has co-operated with the United States by a fighting a war against the Taliban of it’s own since 2004, geopolitical circumstances still favor a Pakistan-Taliban alliance, something that the ISI has most certainly tried to fulfill, such as airlifting several top Taliban officials out of Kunduz before the city fell to the Advancing American forces, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden was conveniently found next to the main Pakistani military training academy in a secure compound.

With the Americans gone and no one to take their place, it could enable the Pakistanis to return Afghanistan under their sphere of Influence.

This means that India is at a moment that will decide it’s future standing in the world. India is already taking the lead in the effort to contain the growing power of the Chinese. They are undertaking efforts to be the next great manufacturing powerhouse, and they have already spent so much effort into ensuring the long-term future of the Afghan people. India may very well be the only nation that can defeat the Taliban. They have the numbers, the war machine, the commitment, and they are not seen as outside intruders by mainstream Afghani society.

India has a choice to make. It can take America’s current role in Afghanistan or it can do nothing. Whatever choice it makes, India will live with the consequences.

Algeria, in mid-crisis since the announcement of President Bouteflika’s candidacy, lives at the rhythm of demonstrations against the regime in power and of political announcement by the presidential Palace.

On March the 3rd, Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika announced his candidacy for a fifth term in the form of a letter to the nation read out on state television, also offering for a constitutional reform.

The new Constitution would be adopted by a popular referendum, as a revision on the electoral law would be set, along with the creation of an independent mechanism in charge of organizing the elections with exclusive responsibility over this organization. Bouteflika promised that this reform would lead to early elections in which he would not contest.

It is important to note that while this reform could be an opportunity for the government to settle a peaceful transition of power, it will have to occur quickly, given President Bouteflika’s declining health. Indeed, his last public address to Algerians dates back to 2014, two years after he suffered a severe stroke that left him considerably weakened and disabled.

The current issue is to determine what future awaits Algerians, as President Bouteflika’s health is declining.

Demonstrations took place throughout the country after the announcement last month of his candidacy and after his registration on Sunday. Teachers, university students, lawyers and journalists, as waves of anger spread, decided to move on to the streets in Algiers to protest against the corruption undermining the country, as well as against the lack of democratic representation of the people and of plurality of viable candidates to the electoral elections.

A new issue to cope with: Bouteflika, or the ghost running the country

Recent news gave a new light on the issue of the vacancy of power in Algeria. President Bouteflika has been hospitalized on the 24th of February in Geneva’s university-affiliated hospital, while his candidacy was announced several days later.

A report issued on the 6th March deals with health problems such as respiratory problems, neurologic issues and permanent vital threat affecting the leader of the country. This report led to protests all over the world, since the last official news released from the presidential palace on Sunday about his health reported “good health”.

Hence a new issue surfaces : could President Bouteflika carry on with another mandate?

A unique candidate?

Seven other candidates are competing for the presidential elections of April. Four of them are unknown from the general public, while businessman Rachid Nekkaz, General Ali Ghediri and Abdelaziz Belaïd, president of the political party Front El-Moustakbal are more known. None of them seem to possess enough political power to be considered as a direct threat for President Bouteflika. However, as the opposition is far too divided to put forward new viable candidates, the ruling elite stays in power, paralyzing any political change. Indeed, the National Liberation Front has ruled the country since its independence from France in 1962. Moreover, ”le pouvoir” (the power), as many Algerians have come to describe those ruling the country, has been centered on the party, some powerful generals and businessmen.

Even if Bouteflika were not to serve for another term, the regime in place would not be likely to change, as no move of political regime took place since 1999.

The haunting shadow of the civil war

But it is the legacy of Algeria’s recent civil war against Islamist insurgents which seems to have frozen all attempts at reform. Collective memory for all the deaths and the events that occurred during the “Black Decade” is still live memory. The brutal conflict ended in 2002, leaving an estimated 150,000 Algerians dead, some of whom were “forcibly disappeared” by the security forces. These events led to a deep distrust at all levels of society, leaving little hope for any compromises or meaningful national dialogue to instigate change between the people and the government.

Conclusion

All that remains to expect is official announcement from the government to clarify the situation, as it is not only a major preoccupation for elections concerning the people, for Algeria’s future is at stake. Until the presidential elections are held, Algeria will keep its eyes riveted on the presidential Palace, as news may be issued at any time.

Tensions between China and Taiwan seems at a high level. On March 7th, Taiwan has started a process to buy U.S warplanes. Governments and ministers are willing to defend their island at any costs. Nevertheless,  the Taiwanese have to deal with an impossible equation, leading them towards failure or dependance regarding China.

The feeling of being Taiwanese is well and truly strong 

Even if more and more analysts argue that war are about to be made by machines, it remains obvious that the will of men will always lead war. At the end of the 80s, around 20% of the population felt Taiwanese before Chinese. Today, more than 60% of the citizens stresses on their Taiwanese identity. Behind those numbers, it means that the nationalist feeling has been on the rise since several decades. The inhabitants of Taiwan are proud of their country and its very specific model in the region. The political situation inside Taiwan is indeed excellent. Citizens trust medias and democracy perfectly functions. Besides, the image of an isolated island resisting against a global power can also explain this rising pride.

The toughness of economy and Realpolitik

In geopolitics the understanding of a situation is perfect when every factors are taken into account. The solid national identity is an important element but there are numerous other aspects of the issues. On the economy, it has to be said that Taiwan is highly dependent on its Chinese neighbor. More than 40% of the Taiwanese exports headed to China in 2017. Taiwan needs this neighbor and especially its huge market. On tourism, the Chinese government attempts to reduce the number of Chinese tourists visiting the island. On other sides, the little island seems completely out of date by China. 2 millions of soldiers compose the army of China. This is a little bit less than 10% of the Taiwanese population. Moreover, China has the atomic bomb and can wipe out the island (even if this scenario remains highly unlikely).

What about the US ally ? 

Many would reply that the US will never leave Taiwan. However, the trend indicates the opposite. On economy and trade the US is eager to have a voice in Asia. But on military, the American people is no longer ready to lost thousands of his sons in a faraway conflict… On the military aspect, Japan seems also willing to stand on its own two feet. The remilitarization of Japan is more realistic today than it has ever been in the past decades. The long-term trend reflects a relative withdrawal of the US from different places but this analysis remains subject to evolutions.

What are the possibilities for Taiwan ? 

The Taiwanese economy is solid and growth remains steady, guaranteeing investors profits and safe investments. Nevertheless biggest investors might be cautious regarding the sword of Damocles hanging over Taiwan. The Taiwanese citizens are eager to live on their own. They want their State to save its political model. On the other strand, China and Xi Jinping can not conceive that such a country stands at its doors. Besides, the 2016-elected president, TSAI Ing Wen have seemingly adopted a ” tough ” line against China. The cornerstone of the issue is the claim for independence. Indeed, mainland China and Taiwan have been ruled by rival regimes since 1949, after a civil war between communists and nationalists. The U.N does not recognize island as a country, despite it is managed independently. However, Taiwan has never declared its independence. Such a symbolic gesture could set fire to the powder. To sum up : Taiwanese are proud, but Taiwan is weak.

In January 2019, the whole world watched as a new United States Congress was sworn in. One thing that one was able to take notice was all the new faces that were brought in. In particular, four new Democrat members of the House of Representatives: Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-5), Rashida Talib (MI-13), and Ayanna Pressley (MA-7).

However, despite being new-comers, they do, in many respects, follow traditional Democrat party strategies.

In their book “Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats,” David Hopkins and Matt Grossmann state that the two political parties in the United States operate under two different Power Systems.  the Republican Party operates under the philosophy of pure ideology, the notion that government is bad and that business is good fundamentally whatever the circumstances. the Democrat Party on the other hand with me of splitting the American people into certain specific groups that each have their own agenda and interest and thus formulating a different approach to each particular group.

This analysis, in the age of Trump, has, in many respects, proven to be true. For this particular op-ed piece, I will focus on the Democrat strategy among the new Progressive wing.

A lot of these new progressive mavericks, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez in particular, like to say that they won thanks to an alliance of gay voters, black voters, working class voters, immigrant voters, young voters, etc. This practice, however, if not done carefully, may end up backfiring on them. And it may proceed to backfire on them for one simple reason: It is identity politics by another name.

Indeed, it was theorized by many political analysts, such as Mark Lilla, that the Democrat Base;s obsession with identity politics in 2016 cost them the Presidential election, and that they need to once again be the 1930’s-style blue-collar FDR Democrats and appeal to the working man.

Now, the idea of splitting the country up into different voting interests isn’t itself a bad idea, far from it, it is a wonderful idea. But you cannot do so via diving voters up into women voters, black voters, gay voters, Muslim voters, etc. because these things do not take into the account the various livelihoods of the various voters. What does, however, is if you divide the country up into various professions and collars: Farmers, factory workers, inner-city voters, small business owners, inner-city residences, scarlet collar workers, other blue-collar workers, coal miners, etc.

This was beautifully demonstrated in a poster from the 1936 United States Presidential election. Made for a small rural town, it stated “Look at what the Democrat Party has given you (the farmer)” And stated things like electricity, indoor plumbing, all things that mattered to farmers.

While the new progressive wave is strong, and has in many respects, returned the Democrat Party to its FDR roots, if they are not careful, and thinking of politics in term of the worker, the farmer, the business owner, etc. the wave may come to an abrupt end.

In his book ‘How India sees the World’, former Foreign Secretary of India Shyam Saran describes the India-Pakistan relationship to have a singular trajectory of ‘dialogue-disruption-dialogue-repeat’ in endless cycles. Ever since the partition of India in 1947, it has been the same course with most instances of disruption spiraling into armed conflicts. The major powers of the world had accepted this narrative until both the countries became nuclear weapons capable in 1998. The nuclear tests attracted the world’s attention towards their conflict, since now any escalation could easily build-up into a full-scale nuclear war. Even India and Pakistan came to realize that squaring off at the border was not a decision that leaders and policy makers in either of the countries would make in their right senses anymore.  So no matter how hard India bled due to the menace of terrorism, backed by its notorious neighbor, it had no other choice but to return to the talks table negotiating peace with Pakistan.

Since 1998, India lived through deadly terror attacks – upon the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and the Indian Parliament in 2001, the Kaluchak ambush in 2002, and the infamous Mumbai terror attacks in 2008. The status quo did not change- Pakistan denied involvement, asked for ‘credible’ evidence and took no action on the terror infrastructure emanating through its soil and hampering peace in the region. Even the comity of nations stuck to its one principal statement: expressing condolence for loss of lives and urging both countries to exercise restraint. Hence, it cannot be denied that Pakistan’s establishment had found in its terror proxies an effective tool to keep India off balance and the Indian strategic community had its hands tied due to the nuclear deterrence and risk of escalation.

But things changed in India with Narendra Modi in the Prime Minister’s chair. Backed by a majority government and headed by a decisive leader who enjoyed a mass appeal, the country increased its global outreach and strengthened its foreign policy. With Pakistan, PM Modi followed a two-phased policy – in the first phase, he extended his hand for peace with Pakistan, with gestures such as inviting Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif, and other SAARC leaders, to the swearing-in ceremony of the new government and holding bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the SCO summit in 2015. However, on every single occasion when relations between both countries warmed up, they plummeted due to acts of violence and terror. Consider this: PM Modi scripted history by making an unscheduled stop at Lahore on his return from Kabul to attend PM Sharif’s granddaughter’s wedding in December 2015, attempting to give dialogue a chance, which had broken down in August that year. Barely a week after the meeting, there was a terrorist attack on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot, Punjab, by Pakistani terrorists causing the death of six Indian soldiers. In the aftermath, India agreed to allow a Pakistani special team to come to India and assist in the investigation of the terror attack. But even after conducting thorough investigation in India for three days, Pakistan government did not take action against the accused Jaish-e-Muhammad. Rather, Pakistan accused India of falsely staging the attack to malign Pakistan’s image before the international community.

So in the second phase, India used its proximity to major powers, influence in neighboring countries and its projection as a rising global power to exercise coercive diplomacy in its relations with Pakistan. Not only did it diplomatically isolate Pakistan as a rogue state but, on the strategic front, also changed its policy of playing defensive (after Parliament Attack in 2001, then PM A.B. Vajpayee amassed troops at the Line of Control leading to a confrontation for 3 months) to that of ‘defensive offence’. This shift was significant and came to light in September 2016, after terror attacks on its military base in Uri which led to 20 soldiers being martyred, when it conducted anti-terror strikes on terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. Regardless of the hype given to the strikes by the Indian media, the move had the effect of changing perceptions regarding India’s ability to counter the ‘death by thousand cuts’ inflicted by Pakistan. It had set a new narrative which called for an equal response to the terror attacks. So, the next time when a major attack took place, a new template was already in place: that short of war, Indian establishment could respond as it pleases. This also left the ball in Pakistan’s court as to how far could it attempt to perpetrate such attacks and bear the response that followed.

Something similar happened in the past few days. A deadly terror attack took place on the 14th February, 2019 when a convoy of Indian paramilitary personnel was struck by an explosive laden SUV leading to more than 40 casualties. The SUV was driven by a militant of the Jaish-e-Muhammad which claimed responsibility for the attack. Since the number of deaths was higher than before, the response had to be stronger than before, but not in a tit-for-tat measure rather as a stronger deterrent. So after 12 days of the Pulwama attack, on 26th February, 2019, India conducted pre-dawn aerial strikes against terror camps in Balakot, Muzaffarabad and Chikoti, deep inside Pakistan. After the strikes, in its official statement, India termed the strikes as ‘a non-military, preemptive action’ which was an ‘intelligence-led operation’. The wisely-crafted statement took away from Pakistan any reasonable ground to retaliate, although it was well expected that Pakistan will retaliate to appear strong before its domestic audience. On the very next day, Pakistan Air Force crossed over to the Indian side and attempted to hit Indian military installations, including a brigade headquarters, a battalion headquarters, an ammunition dump and a logistics depot, but missed the target. In the aerial engagement between the IAF and the PAF, each of the forces lost a jet and a pilot of the IAF fell into Pakistani hands. He was subsequently returned two days later.

Three things must be noted. First, Indian jets crossed over not only into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, which India claims as its own territory, but in mainland Pakistan. This is a significant shift since no Indian aircraft had ever crossed LOC since 1971, not even during the Kargil war in 1999. It shows that if Pakistan chooses to act through proxies, India can retaliate upon proxies no matter where they are holed up, which in turn inflicts damage on the Pakistan establishment. Second, it displayed the elite Indian Foreign Service at its finest. The fact that India not only got support from the west but also from Pakistan’s middle-eastern partners such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Iran and its all-weather ally China in isolating Pakistan and getting a strong statement from the UN Security Council proves India’s diplomatic skills. Third, in a SPELT (Social, Political, Economical, Legal and Technical) analysis of the aerial strikes, the strikes proved to be a victory for the Narendra Modi government, both domestically and internationally, and reaffirmed PM Modi’s image as a decisive leader among his domestic voter base.

To say that these strikes alone will lead to a change in Pakistan’s support for terror is immature. As Professor Harsh V. Pant, Director of Strategic Studies Programme at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi puts it: “Terrorism from Pakistan will be with us for as long as a fundamental transformation in the institutional fabric of Pakistan does not materialize.”  On the other hand, these strikes will certainly send a tough message to Pakistan that terrorism as an instrument of State policy has outlived its existence.

The Roots of the Past

In recent years, the world set sight on a state that is in a tremendous failure even though it had not been ever imagined as it had amused by everlasting wealth. The situation gets overwhelming as the country floods with lack of superior administration and sworn order. A state without a well settled structure would be expected to be on shaky ground. South American countries had been struggled with autocratic regimes throughout the history. Communities could not acquire an environment to stand and demonstrate constructive considerations upon fundamental principles that a society has to possess. As such this conditions, this could not be supposed for a community to get together and build up participative occasion to stretch through future. Alike the past of the continent, still there is a community out there that tremendously destitute to see a sign of a better future.

Over the past decade, Venezuela’s political system has been in a consistent situation as carismatic leader Hugo Chavez who is passed away in May 2013 headed out the country for almost fourteen years with a hegemonic appearance. His charismatic figure emerged up in the eyes of Venezuelan society with an enormous impact. During his time, mass of citizens did not hesitate to regard him as the “Successor of Simon Bolivar” who is the father of Venezuela. Several clashes have taken place against the Spanish colonial advocaters. After numerous struggles finally Venezuelan people obtained their independence. His eagerness to build up an indpendence society from external powers have continued to inspire Venezuelan society even after the Cold War. South America is a continent where ideological movements held sway over the political structure and create influence over people. Hugo Chavez was an anti-imperial leader. During his administration Venezuela have carried out “Anti-American” policies. He articulated his considerations about US as vawe of invaders on behalf of the Venezuelan people. One of his sharp implementation could be depicted as his decision to expel American oil companies as they had businesses in the country. He marked up the facilities of these companies as “Exploitation” of the resources of Venezuelan generations. Venezuela’s economy is utterly dependent on the price of oil. If the price is high, there is wealth. If not, there is deprivation leading to failure.

Venezuela At The Moment

After charismatic leader Hugo Chavez passed away Nicolas Maduro became the head of Venezuela. Their relations date back to syndicate time as both chased a bright political career. Within a few time, Maduro succeded to have positive impression on Chavez and became the second dominant man in the politics. He functioned as Foreign Minister of Venezuela between 2006-2013. In the first presidency election after Chavez passed away, Maduro got voted a bit much to half of total votes and became the new leader of Venezuela. According to opposition side, he manipulated the result of election. Therefore his presidency is not legal. This has not been only contradictive action that he made.  Maduro knew that if he is willing to strenghten his supreme control throughout the country, the dissedents should be vilificated harshly. Regarding to this, his administration did not hesitate over occuring caotic situation. His allies in the Supreme Court tried to dissolve the country’s opposition-controlled legislative branch. That prompted a swift backlash, with thousands of Venezuelans participating in regular, sustained protest efforts.[1] Following news, Venezuelan community began to polarise around Maduro and opponents. Many casulties has been broke out and the situation continued to be more catastrophic in each day. According to experts, people in Venezuela loses weight and starving. Many countriers suggested to deliver aids. Maduro have rejected all of those offers by asserting that they conspire to have him ”overthrown”.

Besides, how Maduro is able to implement his policies without any sign of resistance? The answer could be find in Hugo Chavez’s era. It was not Maduro who secured “enactment” but Chavez. Thanks to enactment authorisation, Maduro is capable of seizing his power. He is holding sway over jurisdiction branch as he holds right to appoint members as he wishes by publishing a decree. In 2015, 2/3 of the Assembly attempted to dismiss him. Afterward, he abolished the parliament of Venezuela. Also, he appointed many crucial people standing by him to the Court of  Cassation. The juridical failure seems nearest than ever.

Vagueness on Venezuela’s Future

            Even though Maduro is the superior person in Venezuela, there are such and increasing opposition against him which is being led by Juan Guaido. Mass of people stand for him and see him as the “saviour” of Venezula. Unlike supporters, Maduro says Guaido is “ puppet ” of USA and wants to hand in resources of Venezuela to external powers. However, Guaido demonstrates no hesitation to grasp the seat of presidency. “The anti-government demonstration, organized by opposition leader Juan Guaido, takes place on Youth Day in Venezuela. The day commemorates young people who fought and died in the Battle of La Victoria in 1814 during Venezuela’s war for independence. It is widely recognized as a day to recognize the role that the youth play in shaping the country’s economic and social future.”[2]

Numerous states such as Germany, France, Japan recognized Juan Guaido as the “Head of State.” Also, United Nations made a statement including recognization of Juan Guaido as the head until a new election about presidency held. Maduro, several times made announcements about he is willing to hold it. In contrast, opposition side puts forward this is an action just to soften movements against him. There will be no election and there will be a political failure.

Hereby, uncertanity about the future of Venezuela still stands sworn. It would be hard to make positive interpretations about the future of Venezuelan community. This should be guaranteed that only Venezuelan people can decide on their own future. Nevertheless, the only point matters upon this case is that when there is starvation, ideologies die. International community should be aware of that risk of major failure. Even Mr. Maduro has to be.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/03/how-nicolas-maduro-went-from-a-bus-driver-to-venezuelan-president/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.255fe9a27e6b

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/how-a-nationwide-protest-against-maduro-could-shape-venezuelas-future.html

This month of February marks the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution of 1979, which overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty, whose last representative is Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Ayatollah Khomeini then took the lead in Iran and establish a theocratic republic. The year 1979 is an historic turning point in the Arab world and still jostle, 40 years later, the geopolitic of the entire Middle-East. Today Iran is in a complicated economic situation because of its conflict with the United States. It is also becoming a target of many neighboring Arab countries. I propose to redraw the history of this iranian revolution.

Presages of a Revolution

In the 1970s, Iran experienced a major economic crisis, linked to the oil crisis. A gap is created between the rich and the poor, but also between the city and the countryside. The Shah family is the first to benefit from oil incomes, and the regime seems as very corrupted in the eyes of the population.

During the year 1977 US President Jimmy Carter applies pressure against Iran. He threatens the cessation of arms sales, and calls for greater respect of human rights, including greater freedom of expression in the country. The Shah regime is then seen as brutal and oppressive towards its people. An Iranian opposition is constituted then. The great figure of this emerging movement opposing the Shah is Mehdi Bazargan. He leads the “Movement for Freedom of Iran”. In October 1977, a first popular demonstration took place in Tehran, with economic and political demands. 1977 is also the year when the influential Islamic theorist Ali Shariati died in unknown circumstances. He was erected as a martyr by the revolutionary people.

From that moment, intellectual and political elites no longer hesitate to criticize the government. In addition, Mostafa Khomeini’s son Ayatollah Khomeini is also found dead. His father accuses the Shah regime. This one goes to Iraq, but in Iran the protests are more virulent.

The end of a dynasty

The Shah was taken by surprise by the numerous protests in more than 50 cities in the country. To ease tensions he put in place a liberalization plan and decides to negotiate instead of using force. He reduces the censorship and made sure to reduce the corruption of the royal family. The demonstrations will then stagnate for a while, until the terrorist attack in the city of Abadan, where 422 people were burned live in the Rex cinema. Khomeini accuses the Shah’s government, and the people will do the same.

The black friday event marks a turning point, breaking any possibility of negotiations between the government and its opposition. On September 8, 1978 thousands of protesters walked in the streets of Tehran to oppose the introduction of martial law in more than 11 cities by the Shah. The army fired on the crowd, and used tanks and helicopters to control them. The opposition counts nearly 4,000 dead, while the government counted only 87. Since this tragic event, the Shah lost the little support he had left. A series of protests gathering even more people followed the massacre, including a general strike that paralyzed the oil industry, essential to the survival of the regime. The Shah is also militarily supported by the United States.

Nevertheless, demonstrations will not stop growing, and the Shah decides to give up to the military government. He decided in January 1979 to leave the country. He went to Egypt, and after few stops, went to the United States. The new prime minister, Shapour Kakhtiar, remains in Tehran and still thinks he can pacify the situation. Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Tehran and decides to organize a provisional government, considering Shapour as illegitimate.

After many tensions, the army decided on February 11, 1979 to remain neutral. That same evening, Ayatollah took power, appointing Mehdi Barzagan as prime minister. April 1st, the Islamic Republic is proclaimed in Iran, the day after its 98% approval by a referendum. In June, the movement for freedom publishes its constitution.

40 years after

it’s now 40 years since the Islamic Republic has been proclaimed. Ali Khameini succeeds Ayatollah Khomenei in 1989 as « guide of the Revolution ». This Iranian revolution had an international impact and disrupted the geopolitics of the Middle East. Among other things, it redrew the relations with the United States. Ayatollah Khomeini and the revolutionaries were very hostile to the Americans, and the hostage-taking of the US embassy in Tehran signs the beginnings of an Iranian-American hostility. Their political strategy has since been to prevent the United States from gaining foothold in the Middle East. Moreover, this revolution inspires Sunni Islamist movements and Shia minorities. In addition, Iran’s position frightened neighboring countries, which partly explained the invasion of Iraq in Iran in September 1980. Futhermore, 1979 marks the period of the emergence of a strong and influential political Islam.

The foreign policy of president Jair Bolsonaro will be the result of conflicts between three groups within the government: the populists that call themselves “anti-globalists;” the military officers at the top of the administration; and the economic technocrats in the Ministries of Agriculture and of the Economy. There are several points of disagreement between them: how to deal with China and the Arab countries, Brazil’s role in Latin America, and the country’s participation in multilateral agreements on the environment and migration.
The Anti-Globalists
The anti-globalists orbit around Minister of Foreign Affairs Ernesto Araújo, Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro—one of the president’s sons—and Filipe Martins, an advisor for foreign affairs of President Bolsonaro and of his Social Liberal Party.

They reject the consensus of the cosmopolitan elites about liberal values and instead they present a populist cocktail of nationalism, religion, and unilateralism along the lines of the agenda promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump and his former advisor Steve Bannon, or similar movements on the European extreme right. This group also defends close relations with the U.S. and Israel, as well as recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. They want Brazil out of the Paris Climate Change Accordand the Global Pact on Migration.

These positions are ruptures with the basic pillars of Brazilian diplomacy in the 30 years since the return of democracy and would jeopardize many alliances and coalitions that Brazilian diplomacy carefully built along the years. The anti-globalists are mainly young and somewhat of outsiders—Mr. Araújo, for example, was until a few months ago a middle-ranked diplomat, who was never the head of a foreign mission or held high office in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Araújo is facing unprecedented rejection from his colleagues, who already published an anonymous manifesto against him and gave him the nickname “Beato Salu,” after a crazy religious fanatic in a popular soap opera of the 1980s.
The Armed Forces

READ MORE