Young Diplomats

A teacher once asked her pupils that who proposed the first charter of human rights? The students were baffled by the question and after much debate, no one could reach the right answer. She was surprised to see the level of general knowledge of her pupils. She then carried on with her lecture, of course after informing her class about the “Cyrus Cylinder”. Cyrus Cylinder is known as the world’s first Charter of Human Rights and the provisions of the Cyrus Cylinder parallel to the first four articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human Rights were relevant in around 500 B.C. as they are relevant today. Therefore, this man deserves to be remembered today. In his human rights charter, Cyrus – The Great set a precedent of being a secular ruler “who practised tolerance towards other religions (Crompton, 2014, p. 80).” In this regard, Peter Weller (2014) adds that Cyrus-The Great believed in cultural and religious tolerance who freed captured Jews of Babylon to return back to their homeland Israel. Adding to this, he says that Cyrus presented himself as a liberator, not a conqueror to the people of Babylon (Documentary: The Persians: Engineering an Empire, 2014). Crompton (2014) also supports this argument. Spek (2014) considers Cyrus-The Great as a champion of religious tolerance (p. 235).

Cyrus-The Great’s date of birth is not clearly mentioned in the pages of history. However, according to Crompton (2008), he was born sometime between 590 to 580 B.C. (p. 22). Moreover, the documentary (The Persians: Engineering an Empire, 2014) mentions that he was born in 580 B.C. Farrokh (2007) mentions 575 B.C. as Cyrus’s year of birth. This means that he was born around 580 B.C. which indicates that he was in his twenties when he came into power in 559 B.C. (Crompton, 2008, p. 27).

Crompton (2014) further writes that Cyrus-The Great was the son of the Persian King Cambyses I. Religious beliefs were important for the ancient leaders but Cyrus’s religious beliefs are unclear. No one can ascertain that whether he was a follower of the prophet Zoroaster or a worshipper of Persian goddesses and gods. He was certainly a clever ruler and one of the greatest conquerors of the ancient world. Cyrus-The Great was one of those leaders of the ancient world who created a nexus between shrewd diplomacy and battlefield tactics. That is why, he is known as ‘The Shepherd’ by the Iranians (Crompton, 2014, p. 22 – 23).

Persian Empire that this man ruled was the largest empire the world has ever seen (Hunt, 2014). Cyrus – The Great came into power in 559 B.C. which proved to be the beginning of an extolled dynasty. His reign changed the course of history and redefined the architectural possibility. Moreover, he became undisputed world leader after crushing his all rivals by 554 B.C. (The Persians: Engineering an Empire, 2014). However, Briant (2002) argues that the chronology of Cyrus’s reign is uncertain. He further argues that two events of his life are only dated: one is the capture of Babylon in 539 B.C. and the other is his death in Central Asia in 530 B.C during a battle (p.34). The documentary (The Persians: Engineering an Empire, 2014) also supports these dates of these two events.

Interesting Events from Cyrus – The Great’s life:

Crompton (2014) quotes Herodotus about an event from Cyrus’s childhood. He writes that when Cyrus was a baby, his grandfather, King Astyages, had a disturbing dream. In his dream, he saw that there was a river flowing from his daughter Princess Mandane’s stomach. He summoned the Chief soothsayer who interpreted his dream and said his grandson from Mandane would conquer the whole of Asia and would overshadow his grandfather entirely. Since King Astyages did not want such an outcome so he decided that the baby (Cyrus) must die. He handed Cyrus to one of his trusted generals to do the needful. Instead of doing what he was ordered, to avoid divine reckoning the general handed Cyrus to a shepherd and directed him to leave Cyrus at a place where wild animals rambled on the hillside. The shepherd brought Cyrus to his home. His wife, who had recently given birth to a deceased child, proposed him to leave their dead child instead of Cyrus. He agreed. Therefore, Cyrus lived and was brought up at a shepherd’s house (Crompton, 2014, p. 27 & 29).

This leader was kind to the Jews and allowed them to return to Jerusalem in 538 B.C. He allowed them to rebuild their temple and city. For his kindness, the Jews considered him to be one of God’s anointed ones. Cyrus – The Great’s such act of kindness earned him mention in the Bible. Ezra – The Hebrew prophet tells his kindness in the Bible – 1:2-3 (Beck, et al. 2009, p. 100).

This article is one of our series published on history. The other one dealt about Jean of Arc you can find it here http://www.young-diplomats.com/learning-from-the-hundred-years-war-1337-1453-part-i/

According to a report presented at the National Public Radio (NPR)[1], 12% of Bernie Sanders voters during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries ended up voting for Donald Trump in the U.S. general election. The reasons of why it happened was not so obvious at how it looks: It was not their views on trade policy (what Trump and Sanders were closest to), but the lack of involvement of these voters with the Democratic Party what, in principle, would have determined their decision in the general elections. The 2016 election demonstrated that an ‘anti-elite’ discourse that directly addresses the improvement of the average worker’s living conditions (and not the ‘identity politics’[2] promoted by the liberal left) can generate an important electoral transit between an openly ‘socialist’ candidate towards a financial tycoon who, like never before in American political history, based his campaign on misogyny, xenophobia and racism. This fact should make us reflect on how far apart the lessons of the first half of the 20th century are when we address the resurgence of extreme right ideas and political proposals in today’s world.

Contemporary far-right politics requires a new debate on its ideological features, as well as its roots in the management of the contemporary economic crisis. However, what we usually see are common places that have been generated both by the progressive left and by libertarianism / neoliberalism, which, for different reasons, have contributed to feeding the extreme right in the Americas. While progressives tend to consider the far right as a mere oligarchic reaction towards the deepening of the neoliberal model (something that would not make them very different from traditional ‘rightist’ politics), libertarians / neoliberals have preferred to ignore their protectionist tendencies to have them as allies in their partisan struggles against ‘cultural Marxism’ and ‘gender ideology’ (especially in Latin America).

We believe that this is an mistake. This new ‘XXI century fascism’ does not operate under the traditional left-right parameters because of its deliberate disconnection between the internal front and the external front. For example, while outwardly Donald Trump opposes Free Trade Agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Agreement (TPP) and proposes to renew the NAFTA under more protectionist criteria; inward raises tax cuts in the style of the old ‘trickle down economics’[3] and more financial deregulations that favor the Wall Street bankers that Trump himself criticized in campaign. The same applies to Bolsonaro, who during his campaign proposed to maintain trade and tariff barriers that have sustained the country’s industrial structure, but inwardly it eliminates ministries and reduces social protections for indigenous and LGBT communities. Classifying both governments simply as ‘liberal’ or ‘nationalist / protectionist’ economically is a mistake; but it is also a mistake to classify them merely as ‘authoritarian’ or ‘populist (right)’ politically, if we consider that both still drive unpopular measures within the possibilities allowed within the current legal and constitutional framework. Despite their intentions and firebranded speeches, these governments have not yet taken concrete steps into dismantling their current constitutional models to move towards autocratic regimes. In the case of Bolsonaro, we still reserve our opinion due to his recent arrival to power; while, in the case of Trump, his most mediated and controversial campaign proposal, the new border wall with Mexico, can not be built without the approval of Congress, which is endorsed by the American Constitution[4].

References

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-identity-politics-couldnt-clinch-a-clinton-win/2016/11/11/ed3bf966-a773-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?utm_term=.937520aaff23

[3] https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/trickle-down-economics-doesnt-work-so-why-do-republicans-keep-trying-it-3987459108b5

[4] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-trump-constitution-20190108-story.html

Zimbabwe is on the brink of turmoil. Election fraud, fuel riots, and hyperinflation still being a problem, the country is seemingly tearing itself apart.

But it is not just the price of fuel Zimbabwe is batting over. It is the national identity of the country.

Robert Mugabe led the black gurellia armies to overthrow the white government of Rhodesia in 1979. He assumed the presidency a year later, and establishment supreme dictatorial powers in 1987 after a civil war.

But now Robert Mugabe, the icon of Zimbabwe, the man who founded the modern national identity of the Zimbabwe, is gone, and a new question remains: Who is to be the new leader of the Zimbabwean identity?

While Emmerson Mnangangwa is technically the leader of Zimbabwe, he cannot fill the enormous shoes Robert Mugabe left behind, and in order to unite the country, he must find a way to fill his shoes, or make his shoes smaller and therefore easier to fill. Until he does so, the problems in Zimbabwe will persist.

By Alessia Salzano, January 16, 2019

After 26 days of partial shutdown of the federal government and about 800,000 employees who are not receiving their paychecks, the U.S. remain in deadlock and this confirms to be the longest shutdown in the whole american history. This situation results in Trump breaking the record reached by the Clinton presidency in the winter between 1995 and 1996, when the former President was debating with republicans that for the first time in 40 years were in control of the Congress’ budgetary timeline.

The clash between the President and the government has its roots in an issue that is of paramount importance for the Tycoon: the building of a wall at the border with Mexico. During his presidential campaign, Donald J.Trump underlined the necessity for the U.S. to become a more safe country, and the key point on the agenda in order to achieve this purpose would have been a wall to prevent the entrance in the United States of illegal immigrants, criminals and international terrorists. For this project, Mr. Trump requested $ 5.7 billion, but the Congress, especially the democratic branch, denied the sum. The parts failed to reach an agreement, and at the moment neither the President nor the democrats seem to be willing to give up their positions. The current paralysis has affected several services across the country, including National Parks, Historic Sites, Museums, Cultural Centers and Federal Agencies, which are now without funds.

In the last few days, the President spoke about imminent negative impacts on the american economy, and he is also planning to declare national emergency status. This strategy would lead Trump to have all the necessary funds for the wall but, in case of an extended shutdown, he threatens not to showing up in the next World Economic Forum, a summit in which the President’s presence is crucial, considering the crucial moment that the global economy is going through. Mr. Trump, who is already famous for its provocative posts on Twitter, started the troubles by criticizing Nancy Pelosi for collecting a paycheck during the federal closure: “Why is Nancy Pelosi getting a paycheck when people who are working are not?”, early followed by another twitter saying: “Nancy and Cryin’ Chunk can end the shutdown in 15 minutes. At this point it has become their, and the Democrats, fault!”. Mr. Trump referred to Speaker House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer over the border wall issue. He has been at loggerheads with Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer, and he added: “Democrats should come back to Washington and work to end the shutdown.”

Yet, according to a survey realized by Washington-Post-Abc News, 35% of Americans are convinced that the shutdown is the President’s fault and of the republican public. Only 29% would support Trump in blaming the democrats, whereas only 13% would attribute the fault to both the parts. American media also reported that Lindsey Graham, republican Senator of South Carolina, who proposed to the President the restoring of government’s activities in a temporary way, taking time for some weeks, in order to gain the time to look for a way out. But Trump refuses to sign any agreement which doesn’t contain the funds for the wall.

In the meantime, experts imagine what will happen when the Congress and the President will find a solution: in the case of Trump’s victory, he would realize an important part of the program presented in the electoral campaign. Another iron curtain, this time all stars and stripes, would descend upon the U.S. and Mexico, separating economically and physically the wealthy north from the poor south of the continent. For republican voters, this would be a victory that could reinforce the position of their candidate. The democratic majority of the Congress is standing up for a different solution: not refinancing the public administration to avoid the rise of the wall. In case of a victory of the democrats, the Trump presidency, after troubled events, would be further discredited, putting a serious barrier on the re-election of the President for a second term in 2020.
For the moment the border security battle continues. The end of the shutdown is uncertain and ensuring security to citizens is undoubtedly a core component for U.S. policies. But are
we sure that a wall would definitely resolve it?

Use of Longbow in the Hundred Years’ war:

In 1346, the English Forces demonstrated the power of longbow in the Battle of Crecy which changed the warfare. Because of the usage of Longbow, the English forces defeated the French forces in three battles i.e. the Battle of Crecy in 1346, the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 and the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. “The success of the longbow in these battles spelt doom for chivalric warfare (Beck, et al. 2009, p. 402).”

Joan of Arc:

A 13-year-old French girl, Joan of Arc, who started having visions which she believed were from the saints. These visions urged her to drive the English out of France to give the crown of France back to its rightful heir Charles VII, son of Charles VI.  After a treaty signed in 1420, Henry V inherited the French crown upon the death of Charles VI. In order to drive the English forces out of France, Joan led the French army into the battle near Orleans in 1429. The battled was hard-fought for both the French and English. Eventually, Joan of Arc led the French army to the path of victory. Because of her bravery, Charles VII was crowned king in July 1429. She was later on captured in 1430 by the Burgundian, allies of England. She was handed over to the Church by the English which condemned her as a heretic and witch and was burned in 1431 (Beck, et al. 2009, p. 402 – 403 & Keen, 2017).

Impacts and the legacy of the Hundred Years’ War:
In the context of the impacts of this war, Beck, et al. (2009) argue that both sides experienced major changes. The end of the war resulted in the emergence of the feeling of nationalism in England and France. People no more considered the king a simple feudal lord but a national leader. Allmond (1988) in this regards argues, “War served to bring all members of a society, soldier and civilian, under the umbrella of national consciousness (p. 23).”

In France, the prestige and power of the monarch increased. In England, two noble houses fought for the throne which caused internal turmoil known as the War of the Roses. The end of Hundred Years’ of war is considered the end of the Middle Ages by some historians. Moreover, the religious devotion and the code of chivalry crumbled (Beck, et al. 2009, p. 403).
Within this context, Green (2014) highlights that the Hundred Years’ War refashioned the place of the Church, the role of the monarch, the reach of government, the relationships between the noble and ignoble, rich and poor and very identities of both England and France (p. 139). In addition to this, Green (2014) argues that the Hundred Years’ War brought about a revolution that fundamentally changed the character of military conduct and organization. It professionalized the warfare, ensued in the decline of chivalric warfare and the rise of artillery and infantry (p. 140). Keen (2017) also supports the argument of Green regarding the professionalization of the warfare. Rogers (1993) considers this change in the warfare a “military revolution”. He argues that during the Hundred Years’ War, “the most truly revolutionary changes in European military affairs took place.”

Conclusion:

The Hundred Years’ War fought between England and France lasted for 116 years but came to be known as the Hundred Years’ War in the nineteenth century. Although the relationship between England and France was acrimonious long before the 1337 and it remained so after the end of the hundreds years’ war in 1453 but the trigger of this long-lasting war was the claim of the English kings over the crown of France. There had been many phases of this war in which victory moved between England and France until France succeeded in taking over its territory except Calais in 1453. The rise of nationalism among the people of France and England and military revolution are the long-lasting legacy of the Hundred Years’ War.

Jimmy Carter is often portrayed by modern American Progressives as a man who championed peace and human rights. Indeed, since he left office in 1981, he has been involved in numerous efforts to eradicate homeless and diseases like Guinea Worm.

But does this idea that we have of Jimmy Carter, a man who persevered on foreign policy, yet unresponsive of the massive domestic issues of his day, really end up holding any truth?

While it is True that Jimmy Carter did not commit American troops to war during his administration, the only President since Herbert Hoover to have done so, there will several foreign policy dilemma’s during his administration that would make many anti-war activists stop and rethink their beloved icon.

One north-worthy example of this was the civil war in Angola. Angola’s biggest rivals in the regions were South Africa and Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. To sow disorder in Zaire, Angola supported insurgents in Sha’ba to rebel against the Zaire dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and destabilize the country.

Carter send advisers to help Mobutu repel the insurgents and keep the influence of Communist Angola retained within its own borders, enabling the brutal regime of Mobutu to continue oppressing it’s people. Although Mobutu had been an American client since he took power in 1965, under Carter, Zaire became firmly grasped in America’s politics and remained so until the fall of Mobutu in 1997, marking the only time that America intervened in the politics of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The famous equation of the US during the Cold War

To foster an anti-communist movement in Africa, Carter forged close ties with the apartheid regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia, allowing them continue the human rights violations Jimmy Carter said he would protect.

Now, this isn’t the only instance of Jimmy Carter supporting regimes that violate human rights, as he did ignore the atrocities committed by the leaders of Chile, Nicaragua, and Iran. Indeed, when push comes to solve, security matters and geopolitical matters will dominate over human rights concerns 100% of the time.

But the dilemma that made up 1979 for the Middle East is where he made his mark. The political upheaval in the Muslim World caused by events such as the Soviet Union’s Invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian Revolution, the Anti-American Riots in Pakistan, the Coming to Power of Saddam Hussein, the Camp David Accords (pictured), the Siege of Mecca, the Yemen War,  and the uprising in Eastern Saudi Arabia created a huge energy crisis for the world, the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since the Yom Kippur War six years earlier.

Geopolitical doctrine

Jimmy Carter responded to this by signing the Carter Doctrine, meaning that the United States would go to war to protect the oil reserves of the Middle East in order to see to it that the United States does not witness another energy crisis. This guaranteed the Gulf War, as well as the Subsequent Invasion of Iraq and United States Intervention in Syria, Libya, and elsewhere.

The truth of the matter is while Jimmy Carter is someone who wanted to move America past the Humiliations of the 1970’s, with Vietnam, Watergate, Energy, Inflation, a Stagnating Economy, and the threat of Nuclear Armageddon, he was still a Cold War President, and thought alongside Cold War terms. He may have taken a less-militaristic stance on the affairs of the world, but he still had to intervene, whether or not the local population suffered.

Brazil is getting involved in the Venezuelan crisis. Nicolás Maduro’s days as president of Venezuela appear to be numbered. The country is hurtling towards rock bottom, with the International Monetary Fund projecting its inflation rate could reach an almost unreal 10,000,000 percent in 2019. A humanitarian crisis has seen over 1.6 million flee the nation, which is undergoing an extreme supply crisis.

Mr. Maduro was sworn in for a second term last week, won by way of elections held last May. However, a number of anti-democratic maneuvers and suspicions of fraud have led Brazil to declare that it does not recognize the legitimacy of the government in its neighbor to the north.

Brazil is not alone in doing so, either. Thirteen of the 14 members of the Lima Group—the Latin American multilateral body established in 2017 to negotiate an end to the Venezuelan crisis—also signed a declaration stating they do not recognize Mr. Maduro’s new term. Only Mexico, which claimed it wanted to maintain relations with the country in order to help with its humanitarian crisis, did not sign. The European Union and the U.S. have also refused to acknowledge Mr. Maduro as president.

READ MORE

According to historic traditions, the hundred years’ war is dated from 1337 to 1453 (Keen, 2007). In this context, Curry (2005) argues that the term “The Hundred Years’ War” is a mid-nineteenth century invention; however, the war between England and France lasted for 116 years. Curry (2005) further adds that because of the tenurial relationship of their rulers, England and France had been at war on numerous occasions before 1337. Although the Kings of England were dukes of Aquitaine, an area in France, the sovereignty of the area still belonged to France. The war started in 1337 between the two when English kings claimed to be the crown of France (Curry, 2005, p. 1).

 After the death of Capetian King without a successor, grandson of Philip IV, Edward III of England claimed the right to the French Throne. For the throne, Edward III launched a war which continued from 1337 to 1453 on and off. This war, later on, came to be known as The Hundred Years’ War. From 1337 to 1421, the victory passed between England and France until the French drove the English out entirely from France except for Calais, a port city  in 1453 (Beck, et al. 2009, p. 401).

 According to Beck, et al. (2009), for over a century, France and England battled with each other on French soil. The warfare style in Europe changed after the Hundred Year’s War. During the war, medieval ideals of chivalry were still operational among some combatants. The Longbow changed the warfare style in Europe (p. 401-402).  Moreover, this century of war between France and England proved to be the end point of medieval Europe’s society (Beck, et al. 2009, p. 401). Tuchman (1978) in this context writes that this hundred years’ war broke medieval Europe’s unity (p. 486).

Causes of the Hundred Years’ War:
According to Allmand (1988), the war was accepted with fatalism in the Middle Ages. War was the part of the divine plan linked with the flood, plague and famines as an indicator of God’s wrath for sins committed by the people. However, the fundamental cause of the Hundred Years War was the breakdown of the historic feudal order in England and France which could no longer meet the demands of changing times. Moreover, there was a gradual increase in the understanding of the national characteristics which led to the event (p. 25).  Additionally, Allmond (1988) argues that the major changes in the society’s development cause the war. There was a long historic link between France and England, both being the two most powerful western countries of the late Middle Ages, links were getting feeble gradually (p. 26). However, the trigger of the Hundred Years’ War was the claim of the English kings over the crown of France. The English Kings were the dukes of Aquitaine which belonged to France. In 1337, the claim of Kings of England over the crown proved to be the starting point of the hundred years’ war (Curry, 2005, p. 1).

Nevertheless, Green (2014) in this context argues that the relationship between England and France was rancorous long before the 1337 and it remained so after the end of the Hundreds Years’ War in 1453 (p. 161).  This argument is also supported by Anne Curry in her book “The Hundred Years’ War 1337 – 1453”. In this regard, she argues that because of the tenurial relationship of their rulers, English and France had been at war on numerous instances before 1337 (p.1).

The Hundred Years’ War:
According to Beck, et al. (2009), Edward III of England claimed the right to the French throne after the Capetian king died without a successor. In order to get the throne, he launched the war which came to be known as the Hundred Years’ War. The war had two phases. The first phase was from 1337 to 1421 in which the victory passed between France and England. The second phase was from 1421 to 1453 during which the French drove English completely out of France except for the port city of Calais (p. 401). However, Anne Curry (2005) describes the war in five phases. The first phase starts when Philip VI of France declares Edward III’s lands annexation in 1337 and ends with the treaty of Bretigny/Calais in which Edward III lands in complete sovereignty in 1360. In 1369, with the declaration of Edward III’s lands confiscation by Charles V, the second phase begins which ends with a truce in 1389 extended in 1396 to 28 years. The third phase began when Henry IV sent his army to support Armagnacs in 1412. This phase was full of events from the defeat of French at Agincourt in 1415 to the assassination of John, Duke of Burgundy in 1419. From 1425-1428, English forces took over Maine and moved towards the Loire which marked the end of the third phase of this war. With French siege of Orleans and defeat of English at Patay along with the crowning of Charles VII at Reims began the fourth phase of the Hundred Years’ War. Henry VI was also crown during this phase in 1431 in Paris. In 1444, Truce of Tours ended this phases. Curry (2005) calls the last phase, the end of the war which lasted for 5 years from 1449 to 1453. During the beginning of the end of the war phase, French started reconquest of Normandy and English took Fougeres in 1449. In 1450, French gained a victory at Formigny and during the next year, French gained the sovereignty of Gascony. French forces defeated the English at Castillon in 1453. In the context of French victory at Castillon, Allmond (1988) writes that with the murder of English Commander John Talbot by the fire of cannon, the English were defeated and The Hundred Years’ War came to an end. “Although men of the day may not have known it, the Hundred Years War was effectively over (p. 54 – 55).”

N’Djamena – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in N’Djamena this morning of January 20, 2019. It is the first visit by an Israeli authority to Chad since the breakup of diplomatic relations in 1972. A visit Netanyahu described as a “historic breakthrough” in this Central African country with a Muslim majority with which Israel is preparing to resume relations.

The Arab-Israeli wars

It seems to be obvious that diplomatic ties with Africa is one of Netanyahu’s central foreign policy strategy, as this is his fourth visit to the African continent since July 2016, he formerly visited Liberia in June 2017 and Kenya for the swearing in of President Uhuru Kenyatta.

The pressure of African Muslim nations, accentuated by the Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1967 and 1973, led a number of African states to break with the Jewish state. However, this trip follows by just two months Idriss Déby’s visit to Jerusalem came to turn the page and open a new chapter for the two nations as Israel has offered opportunities for cooperation in areas ranging from security to technology, military equipments and agriculture to develop its relations on the African continent – in recent years.

The Chadian President Idriss Deby said during his historic visit to Israel earlier that “the cutting of diplomatic ties in the 1970s did not prevent good relations” between the two nations, though renewed ties will not remove the Palestinian problem.

It’s obvious that Deby’s official visit to Jerusalem is mainly focused on security issues, as Israel has already supplied the Chadian government with weaponry and other equipment; according to some sources.

Chad is one of the African states engaged in the fight against Boko Haram and some terror organizations in West Africa and the Sahel strip. In November, it received military vehicles and ships worth $1.3 million (approximately €1.15 million) from the United States, Israel’s major ally.

Mutual interests  

“Chad is a very important country in Africa, and a very important country for Israel, I am happy we are resuming our friendship” Netanyahu said

Of course Chad holds strategic significance for Israel since it is a Muslim-majority state that borders Libya and Sudan. Ties with this central African country could afford Israel the opportunity to monitor any operation in Africa, and particularly; what is moving south out of Libya – a major breeding ground for terrorism that includes ISIS, Boko Haram, a-Qaeda or any futuristic terror threats.

On the other hand, as Chad is a poor landlocked country; Israel can help it face its major problems, from agriculture, water scarcity to securing its borders and dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Public discourse or strategic game?

It is worth mentioning that the 54 African states make up an important bloc in the 193-state UN; as most of the African states reflexively vote against Israel on every UN vote, therefore, the Jewish state needs their voices to balance the voices in the U.N. Chad which historically used to vote against Israel at the UN – did not vote on a measure in December condemning Hamas, the country would definitely have voted against in the past years.

There is absolutely a strategic benefit to Israel in ties with Chad, as the country borders Sudan, Libya and Central African Republic, which is giving Israel better capability of monitoring developments in all those countries. Meanwhile, Chad also needs Israel in border security surveillance, as protecting the country’s northern border is vital to its national security for the moment.

Even though both of the countries need each other as strategic partners, however, Netanyahu meeting Chadian President Deby in N’Djamena today may just be a reason to feature in the elections campaign as Netanyahu will underline the strong relations Israel has forged during his tenure with China, India, Latin America and Africa.

By Idriss Zackaria