Young Diplomats

With Albanian, Bulgarian and Serbian nationalists claiming its territory and Greece lobbying against its name since the country declared independence in 1991, Republic of Macedonia has been a thorn in the eye of almost each of its neighbouring countries. Some members of the Greek right together with their Bulgarian counterparts even claim that the whole Macedonian identity was invented by the Yugoslavia’s leader, Josip Broz Tito, in order to solidify his rule over the land.

Unlike other Yugoslav republics, Macedonia seceded peacefully from Yugoslavia. However, it was not spared the ethnic conflict within its borders. The Kosovo War generated an influx of Albanian refugees to whom the Macedonian government opened its borders and in 2001 a rebel Albanian group started an insurgency in some areas on the border with Kosovo. NATO-brokered peace treaty was signed 9 months after the fighting began and thus laid foundation to ethnic reconciliation. Today the Albanians comprise 25 percent of the country’s population and their political representatives take part in the ruling coalition.

Macedonia’s efforts to join both the European Union and NATO have been obstructed by Greece, which has been stating that the country’s name implies a claim to a Greek region of the same name, but also Greek cultural and historical heritage. This resulted in the country being referred to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) by the international organizations which have dealings with it. In June 2018, after 27 years of dispute, an agreement was finally signed between Zoran Zaev and Alexis Tsipras, the prime ministers of Macedonia and Greece respectively. Macedonia was to change its name to Republic of North Macedonia while Greece would never veto Macedonia’s attempts to join EU and/or NATO. A non-binding national referendum followed in September with roughly 94 percent of the votes in favour of the name change, but with only 36.9 percent of the registered voters actually voting. The turnout had to be at least 50 percent in order for the referendum to be valid. One of the main reasons for the low turnout is the boycott campaign run by the right-wing opposition party VMRO-DPMNE and the country’s president Gjorge Ivanov who encouraged people not to vote. According to him, this agreement with Greece means treason.

Despite the failed referendum, the parliament of Macedonia (Sobranie) started to debate the constitutional changes which require two-thirds majority and on the 19th of October the required 80 deputies voted in favour of the name change. The NATO invited Macedonia to become its 30th member already in July and the accession talks with the European Union are expected to take place this year. The Greek parliament will also have to vote on the agreement for it to be enacted. However, Panos Kammenos, the Greek defence minister, has threatened to leave the ruling coalition if the deal passes. His small right-wing party Independent Greeks supports the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) and the loss of his party’s support would mean losing the majority in the Hellenic Parliament for the ruling party. New Democracy, the largest opposition party in Greece is also against the deal with Macedonia. Its leader Kyriakos Mitsotaki has urged other political parties to vote against the agreement as it would mean recognition of the Macedonian language and ethnicity.

Nevertheless, should everything go as the current prime ministers of the two countries have planned, Republic of North Macedonia will be on a secure path to join its neighbours Bulgaria and Greece in NATO and the European Union. Other Balkan countries, Albania, Serbia, and Montenegro are also expected to join the EU by 2025.

Over the past few years, an alteration in Pakistan’s foreign policy is quite visible. It has come up with a new alternative for its better relations with major powers other than the US. This shift in policy is remarked as a better option for ensuring development regionally. The pivotal period for regional countries mainly China, Russia and Pakistan triangular forum. In 2011, many events created a space for a fresh start of Pak-Russia relations. The main event of Raymond Davis, US mercenary person who killed two men on Pakistan’s territory. This deteriorated the relations between US and Pakistan. Later on, the deal was struck with affected families and the Pakistani government. A few days later US drone killed two dozen civilians which served as revenge of Raymond Davis as quoted by US state official. Additionally, the occurrence of the Abbottabad raid and killing of Osama bin Laden further weakened the relations. Islamabad was doomed for such action, as US forces infiltrated in its airspace and Pakistan was concerned about its International prestige and also critics regarding its Defense system. Later on, US attack on Army check-post of Salalah killing of 28 armed personnel grew more anti-US sentiments in the civil and military establishment and common public as well. It took seven months for the US to apologize, during this period NATO supply through the country was deferred. Political leaders were demanding their government to minimize its relations with the US. These events led to auxiliary option for Pakistan. At this point, China stirred Islamabad to renew Pak-Russian relations. The then foreign minister Hina Rabbani visited the Moscow where security and other matters of concern were discussed.
This also provided Moscow with an option for better trade and of course defence equipment market as well its keen interest in the energy sector as TAPI gas pipeline accord. In like manner defence liaison between Islamabad and Moscow instigated. In 2014, Russia lifted the Arms embargo on Islamabad. The first-ever joint military drills between both countries Armed forces were remarked as a sign of diplomatic and strategic relations. Likewise, Moscow is considering Pakistan’s role in the future of the Afghanistan peace process. In 2015 Russia connived trilateral meetings for Afghan peace solution. Meanwhile, Russia has also appreciated Pakistan’s efforts against terrorism. The recent talks led by Russia for the peace process in Afghanistan with Taliban leadership, the Afghan government, US and other major countries including Pakistan is an insignia of Russian regional approach and its increasing influence in the region as well.

Government officials of Pakistan who are very optimistic about relations as further development is being made. Officials are paying a visit to Moscow and their seriousness in cooperating at different levels is worth noticing. The visit of Pakistan’s COAS to Russia is seen as an intimation of further strategic relations. But the question here is, will Moscow leave its senior valued ally India in search of a new partner in the region. Secondly, Can Putin who is staunch and rational trust Pakistan. Let time decide this the hopes are all-time high as the new government of PTI has taken over the country with its maiden innings. Khan recent visit to China, an all-weather ally of Pakistan discussing the future of ongoing developmental project under CPEC moreover, khan’s keen interest in Chinese policies of controlling poverty and corruption. Similarly, the sideline meeting of PM with its Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Shanghai agreed to enhance bilateral relations in diverse areas as well as cooperation on multilateral fora, particularly the Shanghai Cooperation Organization an important forum for further deepening of cooperation in multiple dimensions. The accord between both militaries for the training of Pakistanis Army officers in Russian defence institutions as Pentagon has stopped taking Pakistan’s Army officers for training. Recently the Pakistan and Russia joint exercise Druzhba III in Pabbi mainly focused on counter-terrorism training of special operations forces of Pakistan and Russia, hence increasing the capabilities of armed forces in combating terrorism.
Likewise, China-Pakistan relations are all-time high as huge Chinese investment is coming in the country under CPEC projects. There has been the biggest shift in China-Pak relations after the event of 9/11. China likewise other nation supported the action against terrorism at that point. It has also supported Pakistan’s efforts against terrorism on different forums. Equally, China has a stake in Pakistan and its experts are working in different fields enhancing relationship to further peak point. Projects like Chashma nuclear power plant, Karakoram highway construction and its key role in defence industry has a significant role in bilateral relations.

Recent president Xi project of belt and road initiative connecting more than 60 countries by three different routes under the CPEC project is going on in the country. This has given a different approach, unlike past relations, investing more than $50 billion worth project ranging from infrastructure to industrial development. China is considered a true partner of Pakistan and also a bridge between Islamabad and Moscow relations.
Beside this China’s look after Pakistan because of its better strategic location to counter US influence in the region. Similarly, instability in Xinjiang province can be undertaken this way. The decline in US-Pak relations is also the reason China is taking full advantage by putting such an influence on Pakistan’s policies. A lot Pakistan can benefit from China as much as it can. The Baluchistan province like Xinjiang province is an unstable part and CPEC project which has a main focus on that part can turn the situation in Pakistan’s favour. CPEC comes from Gwadar, a Pearl in CPEC crown and it should be firstly for Baluchistan.

Indebtedness by China on Islamabad’s role in the peace process of Afghanistan is satisfying as Russia is also maximizing its influence in the region and especially Afghanistan. They are in talks with the Taliban as well. Talks held on 9th November in Russia with Taliban leadership including Afghan government, US and other major regional countries is an updated stance of Moscow for an Afghan peace process. The basic emerging threat of ISIS is a cause of concern for Russia, Central Asian states, China, Pakistan and Iran. The reason is what Russia wants to keep ISIS named as ISKP (Islamic state Khurasan province) away mainly effecting Russian backyard of Central Asian States. All Russia can do to secure itself by pushing peace talks and it did, for this Moscow is ready to cooperate with the US.
Going towards US reaction on such steps in a region is also worth seeing as it had moved towards India and different projects including the defence deals have been signed. Sitting US authorities have moved file towards Congress for giving India Apache attack helicopters as in response to Pakistan’s recent deal with Turkey for attack helicopters. India has been also said to move its army in Afghanistan with NATO to have greater influence. Likewise, trump administration has also halted military aid to Pakistan and Pentagon had also stopped taking Army officers for training. Pak-US relations having many constraints are very low at this period of time. Declared US policy of refuting Chinese influence and resurgent Russia, China in a trade war and later facing US sanctions, an act which not only effects the countries like Pakistan but also international trade system. The future visit of US vice-president Mike pence to Asia holding trump message in his hand for those countries who have been influenced by Chinese policies is a resumed start of trump administration’s foreign policy as its attention was domestically engaged in midterm elections.

Looking at all critical circumstances this Triangular alliance to contain US influence is still vague expecting many further developments in US behaviour. As per Putin’s strategy is concerned, deep insight of Moscow’s rationality is to be keenly observed. Besides, it can’t leave such old ally like India and can be seen as a recent defence deal of S-400 state of an art missile defence system and nuclear reactors installation of worth $5billion.Pakistan and Russia will have to work more for mutual trust thus further development can be expected.

At last! After three weeks of waiting, China can celebrate the successful landing of the Chang’e 4 mission. Thursday, January 3 at 10:26 a.m. Beijing time (3:26 a.m. Paris time), the lander, which had left Earth on December 8, touched down on the lunar ground with a lunar exploration device on board, after a twenty-one day trip into space. He took a first picture of the little-known surface of the Moon, transmitted by the Queqiao satellite sent into lunar orbit in May 2018. A few hours later, the patroller made his first wheel turns on the lunar dust.

“A major event in the conquest of space,” enthuses the nationalist daily Global Times. On the national television platform of CCTV, the spokesman for the Chang’e 4 programme shines: “This is a major event for China, which is asserting itself as a great space power! »

This success is crucial for the Chinese space programme, with a view to a first manned flight by 2022. For the first time, Beijing is no longer a follower: everything that Chinese space had accomplished so far had already been achieved by the Americans or Russians – the first to photograph the hidden face of the Moon in 1959 – decades ago.

Beware of craters

“In the past, space exploration successes were reserved for the United States and the USSR. The successful landing of Chang’e 4 shows that China is also a scientific power in deep space exploration,” Chen Xuelei, deputy director of the cosmology department of the national astronomical observatory, told the World.

China is finally the first to install a device in an unexplored, little-known territory that poses technological challenges. First of all, because the dark side of the Moon is also the most hostile, with its rough relief and deep craters that complicate any approach.

Then because communication with a device placed on this side of the Moon always hidden from the Earth is difficult, the lunar mass being a barrier to radio communications. In May 2018, Beijing had therefore sent a satellite, now positioned 65,000 kilometres behind the Moon, to provide a relay for transmissions. “The place, the time, everything went exactly as we had anticipated,” said Sun Zezhou, the mission’s chief engineer, on national television.

This national celebration comes after a long wait in an anxious silence, because there are many risks for a mission of such difficulty. In the days leading up to the moon landing, the Chinese space programme did not provide any information: there was no question of reminding the general public that a Chinese rocket could land successfully as well as crash, defeating China’s hopes for a space conquest. While NASA offers live monitoring of smaller missions, only rumours were available to estimate when the Chinese probe would hit the lunar ground.

This is the second Chinese mission to touch the Moon, after Chang’e 3 and its “Jade Rabbit” (Yutu) whose adventures had captivated the Chinese in 2013. A mixed success since the robot had stopped after only a hundred meters. But it had continued to send signals intermittently to Earth for 31 months, giving a decisive boost to the country’s space programme.

Chang’e 4 carries with him six Chinese scientific experiments and four others provided by foreign teams. The rover, which is to be named soon following the results of a public competition, is expected to collect data for one or two months before dying.

One of the main interests of the mission will be to explore the universe. Indeed, the position of the rover on the hidden face of the Moon opens up a scientific opportunity: sheltered from the Earth’s radio signals, the devices on board the probe should be able to pick up signals that are still unknown.

“Sounds of the Universe”

“For astronomers, this is a unique observation post: we can pick up signals that are not audible on Earth. Chang’e is carrying with it new low-frequency radio spectrum detectors, for which we have worked with the Netherlands. We will be able to study the explosion of the Sun, the environment of the Moon, the low-frequency fields of the planets of the Solar System, and listen to the sounds of the universe,” enthuses Chen Xuelei.

But Chang’e 4’s primary mission remains the exploration of the Moon, its topography and geology,” says Professor Chen. The Chinese probe landed in the Von Karman crater, the oldest and deepest crater on the Moon. Chang’e 4 could be used to study the origins and evolution of the Earth’s satellite. The basin could also be rich in mineral resources, a development opportunity for future Chinese space missions.

Also read Ultima Thule, a surprising red “snowman” at the edge of the solar system
The current mission is another step in China’s ambitious exploration program. Chang’e 5 is expected to continue lunar exploration this year by taking mineral samples to bring them back to Earth. By 2021, China plans to have a reusable rocket launcher in service.

A decisive step for Beijing

In the medium term, Beijing is also preparing to launch a rocket capable of carrying heavier loads than NASA, manned flights in space, and an exploration mission to Mars. This is enough to compete directly with American space ambitions. Lunar exploration is of limited scientific interest in itself, but it is a decisive step in the conquest of space.

Philippe Coué, a specialist in the Chinese space program and author of Shenzhou, the Chinese in Space (The Spirit of Time, 2013), recently considered that “the scientific interest of the Moon for China consists in having its own data to prepare its future automatic and manned missions – knowledge of the lunar regions to develop its devices and to search for the most interesting areas to exploit scientifically and possibly mining”.

Despite a renewed interest on Beijing’s part, China’s relationship with the European Union encountered a number of setbacks in 2018, the latest being the tightening of foreign direct investments by the European Commission. In December, Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, made it even harder byestablishing new rules against foreign acquisitions of German companies in technology.

In the Balkans, just outside the EU, China is enjoying a different experience. A non-EU member, Serbia claims to have become one of China’s best friends in Europe. Beijing has engaged in a number of massive projects in the Balkans, although the most high-profile one, the Belgrade-Budapest high-speed railway, has failed to materialize so far.

China’s relationship with Yugoslavia had ups and downs from 1949 on. Originally, Marshal Josip Broz Tito, leader of Communist Yugoslavia, of which Serbia was a constituent republic, wanted to engage with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) but was rebuffed by Mao Zedong because of Tito’s split with Stalin. Although Yugoslavia started recognizing the PRC diplomatically in 1949, Tito waited until 1977 to visit Beijing for the first time.

As China’s relations with Enver Hoxha’s Albania started to deteriorate, Yugoslavia — then Serbia — became the partner of choice, giving China an entry point into Southwestern Europe. The relationship continued to be smooth through the 1980s (Tito died in 1980) and 1990s, well into Slobodan Milosevic’s presidency. Following the civil war and the breakup of Yugoslavia, Milosevic visited China as the Serbian president in 1997 and was able to claim China’s diplomatic support two years after the Dayton peace agreement. This breakthrough was seen as important in Sino-Serbian relations. Beijing was keen to support Belgrade’s view on Kosovo, reflecting its own situation vis-a-vis Taiwan, and even Hong Kong, under the principle. “Just as Serbia supports the one-China policy, China supports Serbia as its best and most stable friend in southeastern Europe,” Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Bozidar Delic said in Beijing in 2009. Serbia would later receive Beijing’s support against EU pressure to recognize Kosovo’s independence.

Another serious event brought China and Serbia even closer together: On May 7, 1999, five U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guided bombs, part of a NATO operation, hit the PRC embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese reporters and leading to a reaction of outrage by Beijing. Although the U.S. administration stated that this strike was accidental, there have been continuous doubts in China, with many feeling that it was an intentional act on the part of the United States.

Serbia’s drive to strengthen political and diplomatic relationship with China has been greatly driven by the Kosovo issue, but also by Serbian perceptions of a shift in the balance of power. The 2008 financial crisis instilled a sense among Serbian leadership that the West is vulnerable and that China is rising. The notion of rising China is also acknowledged by the incumbent President Aleksandar Vucic: “Thirty years ago you had one, absolutely dominant military, political, and economic power [the U.S.] …With its economic, but also with its military and political power [the] People’s Republic of China dramatically catches up.”

The closeness between the two regimes appeared striking during the 10th anniversary celebration of the ruling Progressive Party of Serbia (SNS), where the Chinese Ambassador to Serbia Li Manchang was the guest of honor. More recently, Serbian leadership also consulted with the Chinese ambassador on the issue of Kosovo, which is another role that the incumbent Serbian government traditionally reserved for the Russian Embassy. This implies the growing diplomatic influence of China in Belgrade.

The Level of Chinese Involvement Today

The Serbian government, which has been knocking on the EU’s door for some years without much success, is now turning to China as an economic partner. “It would not be immodest or wrong to call Serbia China’s main partner in Europe,” stated Minister for Construction Zorana Mihajlovic. As it tries to identify opportunities in this formerly troubled region, Beijing is more than willing to engage economically with Belgrade, which is not averse to “state-led decisions, with the politicization of investment, subsidy and contract decisions, rejecting the EU’s model of open and transparent bidding procedures.” Since 2017, the two countries have abolished visa requirements and stepped up political cooperation.

Trade between China and Serbia tripled between 2005 and 2016, to $1.6 billion, but it is a very unbalanced relationship: China exports $1 billion in goods, whereas Serbia exports $1 million of goods to China. Investments are rising because the Belgrade government is able to move quickly as a non-EU member.

In 2016, while President Xi Jinping visited Belgrade, Vucic (then the prime minister) insisted that China would bring more jobs, improve living standards, and lift the country’s economic growth. That same year, China’s state-owned HBIS Group took over Smederevo’s steel mill for 46 million euros ($55 million). The steel mill generates 5,200 jobs in Smederevo, a city of 100,000 that has depended on the mill for decades. Its previous owner, U.S. Steel, had sold the mill back to the Serbian government in 2012 for a symbolic $1.

Chinese companies also are actively building infrastructures — for example, the Zemun-Borca Bridge, built by the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC), using Chinese materials for 50 percent of the construction.

A local businessman who served as a subcontractor for the project explained in an interview, “As Serbia does not have the funds for such [a] project, having a Chinese company in the lead with financial backing from Exim Bank with local subcontractors was part of the deal.” There is no procurement process; the government decides on the arrangements. It is clear that the “Chinese way,” which has been in full swing in Africa or South Asia, for example, is more suitable to less regulated, pluralistic countries. Serbia is one of them. The CRBC is also involved in building the Surcin-Obrenovac section of highway E793, which leads to a “China-Serbia industrial park.” During the summer of 2018, it was also announced that a Chinese company, Shandong Linglong, would be investing $1 billion investment in a new tire company from April 2019 in Serbia’s Zrenjanin Free Trade Zone, with a completion date of March 2025. A deal was also reached about China supplying military drones to Serbia, which will be producing some of the drone systems in the future.

Other Balkan countries have also benefited from Beijing’s “generosity”: Montenegro received a $500 million loan from the Export-Import Bank of China (Exim) for its portion of the highway, and Northern Macedonia was offered a $580 million loan in 2013 to help build its own highway.

Meanwhile, China Pacific Construction Group, one of China’s largest construction companies, has begun building an expressway between Montenegro and Albania. In January 2018, Vucic — who became Serbia’s president in 2017 — called on China to invest in RTB Bor, a copper miner and smelter. This was finalized in August 2018 when Chinese company Zijin Mining took a 63 percent stake in RTB Bor.

It is hard not to notice China’s physical presence in Belgrade. First, there are more Chinese nationals in the Serbian capital than in most European cities. Many are tourists, businessmen, or employees of major Chinese companies, such as Huawei, a semi-private Chinese company with a very visible presence in Belgrade (as in other countries, it has been supplying equipment to government entities), or the Bank of China, which has opened a representative office there. China North Industries Group Corporation Limited (Norinco), a company directly under the supervision of the People’s Liberation Army, is also represented in the city but operates mainly in Albania, Northern Macedonia, and Montenegro. The no-visa policy for Chinese visitors has been a major factor in encouraging their increased presence.

China has not yet bought up the Balkans. In fact, the EU’s structural funds in the form of grants are larger and cheaper than Chinese loans, but politics — and poor governance on the part of some local politicians — play a major role in favoring China. The Brussels grants come with strings, rules often unwelcome by the political elites of the Balkans. The EU bureaucracy can be slow — a problem when governments try to move fast to gain electoral capital — hence the success of the Chinese model “aligned with local political cycles.” Ironically, the six Balkan countries still are hoping to join the EU in the not-too-distant future.

In addition to trade, recent statements by Vucic imply a growing political relationship between China and Serbia. In 2019, Xi is expected to pay his second visit to Serbia as China’s top leader. It will be a statement of China’s strategic interest for southeast Europe, where it has been building a strong presence. Serbia, Montenegro, Northern Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Albania (all former socialist countries) are all members of the 16+1 forum, China’s main platform in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). With an important presence in Greece, China now aims to open a transport route through Central and Southeastern Europe, and south all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. To the north, in Central, Eastern, and Southeast Europe. The Balkans have become a top priority of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, on which 16+1 meetings now center, even though most projects over the past few years have been the result of strong bilateral links — for example, between China and Serbia. “China sees the Balkan countries as potential EU members, which could be of utmost importance,” says Sonja Licht, who chairs the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence.

Unlike in Central Europe, the role of Russia in the Balkans is also a factor. Moscow has been a strong supporter of Serbian policy, especially vis-à-vis Kosovo. Moscow’s main purpose is to keep Serbia away from NATO (unlike Montenegro, a small nation of 600,000 people, which joined NATO in 2017), and possibly the EU. Russia also wants to remain the largest supplier of energy to Serbia. The Russian leadership has remained highly influential with successive Serbian governments. In this region, a light China-Russia collaboration is not impossible, as suggested by the creation of a rather opaque “council of economic cooperation with Russia and China” chaired by former President Tomislav Nikolic, an ally whom Vucic persuaded not to run for president in 2017.

As in many countries, China has been inviting numerous Serbian journalists, especially to BRI-related events. “Everything to do with China is treated and covered positively in government circles and in the Serbian media,” said Jelena Milić of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies in Belgrade.

There are active Chinese language schools, including at the two Confucius Institutes in Belgrade and Novi Sad University. A new massive eight-story Chinese cultural center is under construction on the site of the bombed Chinese embassy. Despite the increased presence of Chinese nationals in Serbia, China is still seen as a “remote” country, with little cultural appeal to young Serbians, who are emigrating to Western countries in large numbers, driven away by the lack of job opportunities at home. Perhaps out of frustration over past specific Western policies, many Serbians have become somewhat anti-Western, favoring closer links with powers like Russia and China. Although it is hard to detail China’s influence on Serbian political elites, there is undoubtedly a shift in a society still recovering from its long period of war.

China’s growing opportunistic interest in Serbia has been described as a form of “neocolonization” by a local observer. Vucic says otherwise: “This friendship [between China and Serbia] has been demonstrated, proven, and confirmed in the most difficult moments through Serbian history, and we are grateful to its leadership, headed by President Xi Jinping, for the support it provides to Serbia, our people and citizens.”

Serbia’s special situation as a European country outside of the EU — with an uncertain path toward membership — has made it a special target for outside major powers. Russia is one of the most obvious ones, but China is increasingly active.

As analyst Milos Popovic wrote in his report for the Belgrade Center for Security Policy (BCSP), Serbian foreign policy and security policy remains unsure, especially when it comes to the concept of “military neutrality” and the scope of Serbia’s ties to Russia.

In a survey conducted for BCSP in 2016-2017, Popovic asked respondents what they thought of the major powers and their influence on Serbia. China ranked second (after Germany) among “credible investors,” ahead of the United States, Russia, and the EU as a whole.

The general public does not seem to have strong views on the domestic situation in China; it sees China in the Serbian context. International media reports are sparse, and Serbians seem focused on the recovery of their own country rather than geopolitics. Most perceive China as a friendly country that has come to invest in the (slowly recovering) Serbian economy.

There is obviously an EU concern — including in Berlin — that China will use the Balkans as a new entry point into the European market and try to promote its own political model in countries with weaker governance as opposed to the EU model of liberal democracy. But as the EU is facing increased divisions over a large number of issues, it looks unrealistic to envisage the Balkans joining the Union anytime soon – leaving China and others to occupy a somewhat empty space.

Philippe Le Corre is a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, a research associate with Harvard’s Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies and a nonresident senior fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Vuk Vuksanovic is a Ph.D. researcher in International Relations at the London School of Economics. He formerly worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia and as a political risk consultant in Belgrade.

this article is taken from the website the Diplomat ! read it just here https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/serbia-chinas-open-door-to-the-balkans/

It may not seem like it with the news from Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Yemen, Cameroon, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but 2018 may be remembered as a year of peace.

The two Koreas have entered a period of Detente, Eritrea and Ethiopia have formally ended hostilities, a new peace agreement has been launched in South Sudan, Serbia has opened up peace negotiations with Kosovo, and the Macedonian name dispute has been virtually resolved.

However, 2019 will prove to be the year that determines whether or not these new developments in the pursuit of global peace will hold.

Indeed, there have been setbacks. The Saudi-UAE alliance was briefly fractured when UAE troops occupied the island of Socrota. The name dispute resolution was met with considerable outrage in both Athens and Skopje. The negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina have not made any advancement, and while tensions between North Korea and South Korea have lessened, tensions between North Korea and the United States have not.

And there will be wars that will carry over into 2019. The war in Syria may very well end in 2019 with Assad launching an offensive to retake Idlib, the war in Cameroon is reaching the boiling point, violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo Continues, the Taliban wreak havoc all over Afghanistan, and post-civil war Iraq is realizing it has the same corruption problems pre-civil war Iraq had.

And new conflicts will take their place. Socrota proves that sooner or later, the Saudi-UAE alliance will collapse, Iran will become a vocal point for the Trump administration to distract the public from domestic scandals, the war in Pakistan, though having died down in recent years, msy heat up again as the government tries to crack down on corruption, and India will finally decide whether or not it is commited to her preffered outcome of the war in Afghanistan.

YoungDiplomats decided to publish the list of the 10 most powerful man according to Forbes.

Most of the people on the list are from governments or related to policy. Nevertheless, two of them are strictly tied with business and Bill Gates remains, albeit farly, connected with business. The geopolitical equilibrium of the 21st century is complex. The classical power of nation-States is eroded by big companies and religious people. Islam doesn’t have a centralistic way of functioning. If it had, the leader of Islam would have a place in that list. The downing influence of States is the first element that we have to put the light on.

Besides, year after year, the influence of the US seems to go downward. Although the US remains by far the first military and economical power its ability to influence and affect the whole world. The recent decision taken by the US to withdraw its troop is once again iconic. On the paramount Syrian field, the US withdrew its military assets. One could argue that this was a Trump decision. It doesn’t matter because History will primarily retain the consequence and the trend.

Finally, the rise of China is confirmed as well as the resurgence of Russia. The world seems to appear as more and more poly-centric. To a lesser extent, India is proving that it belongs to the greatest power. Europeans could be proud of Angela Merkel. But it is likely that she’ll leave this ranking in the years to come. This woman is facing more and more ennemies and a split occurred between her and a part of the country.

YoungDiplomats decided to publish an interview of Roland Lombardi specialist on the Middle-East.

Columnist: Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from Syria. Russia will therefore be the main force in this particularly troubled region. Will it be able to “hold” the region? To avoid that the power relations already at work get worse? Can it even allow conflicts to be resolved, for example by allowing, once the USA has left, several opposing forces to sit at the same table?

Roland Lombardi: Once again, we can note that Donald Trump is keeping his promises. Throughout his campaign in 2016, the Republican candidate repeatedly denounced (which was highly appreciated by the American electorate) the interventionism of his predecessors in the White House. As for Syria, the main objective of sending and maintaining American troops to support the Kurdish forces was to fight Daesh. In practice, this also made it possible to undermine Iran’s influence, while physically obstructing the Tehran-Damascus axis on the ground and thus the deployment of the Revolutionary Guards. However, Trump had several times announced the withdrawal of his soldiers, but his relatives and staff advised him to wait. Now that the Islamic state is practically defeated (there are only 2,000 fighters left, entrenched in a few villages on the Syrian-Iraqi border), the American president has therefore decided that it is necessary to withdraw. You know, the Americans are now independent in terms of energy and Gulf oil has become secondary to them. Especially since Trump despises this region, its complexity, its violence and its endemic conflicts. And then, it is also a way of setting the record straight with his allies, in whom he has no confidence and who finally exasperate him, a point that I will develop further… Then yes, this personal decision of the tenant of the White House seems at first sight to “give” the region to Russia, the other great power back in the area. But let’s be careful, the United States is still there in the Middle East. They still have large bases (not to mention secret facilities) in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan, but especially in Qatar (where a CENTCOM forward headquarters is located) and Turkey. Moreover, let us not forget that the 5th and 6th fleets will continue for a while to travel the Gulf and the Mediterranean…
In the end, this American withdrawal from Syria, hailed as “just” by Putin, also seems to be the beginning of the “regional Yalta” between Russia and the United States that I have been announcing for a very long time. Indeed, Moscow (whose main objective is to contain any Islamic contagion on its territory and borders) and Washington (in order to turn calmly to Asia), despite appearances, wish (as also China, for its new “silk routes”) stability in the region.
So leaving “the hot potato” or for some, “this poisoned gift”, to the Russians is a good way for Americans to wash their hands of the problems of this world so far away for them. Some of them, perhaps hoping secretly and perhaps, for a future and possible failure of Russia, who knows?
For the time being, Putin does not have the financial power to finalize this much desired stability on his own. Will it then be supported by China? We’ll see about that. In the meantime, since its direct intervention in Syria and the military and diplomatic successes that followed, Russia quickly proved to be essential and finally spoke to everyone (Israel, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey…). But if the Russians, thanks to their realism, pragmatism and very good knowledge of Islam and the Arab world, are establishing themselves as the new “masters of the game” and regulators of regional conflicts and differences, they also owe it above all to their loyalty in their alliances, as in Syria with Assad. And indeed, unlike the West, as the Americans with the Kurds have just demonstrated, they have proved that they are not abandoning their allies. And that, in the Arab world, is much more important than we think!

Columnist : What impact can this new situation have on Iran in the region?

Roland Lombardi : At first sight, the unilateral American withdrawal may, literally and figuratively, open up a real boulevard for Iran. Moreover, the allies of the United States, Saudi Arabia and especially Israel are very worried. Admittedly, coordination between Jerusalem and Moscow, in order to stem Iranian influence in Syria, is effective. However, the American departure leaves, as Israeli officials themselves say, the Jewish state alone against Iran. In addition to the reasons I mentioned above, Donald Trump’s decision is therefore also a way to send a strong message to Netanyahu. Indeed, the latter turned a deaf ear to American demands for the future Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, the “deal of the century”, so much desired by Trump. Very angry, the American President is really beginning to lose patience, even though he has so far given the Israeli Prime Minister a lot of guarantees.

Columnist : For the Kurds and Syria?

Roland Lombardi : Of course, the Kurds are the big losers in the American withdrawal. For them, it is a real betrayal. Currently, the Syrian Kurds (covered by the Turkish Kurds of the PKK, hence Ankara’s hatred against them) control one third of Syrian territory, mainly east of the Euphrates. For the time being, they will continue to have the discreet support of Israel and the support of private soldiers, American mercenaries, and especially some Western special forces, particularly French ones (between 200 and 300 men), but this will not last. In their resentment, they can very well embark on a policy of the worst and free the thousands of Islamists they have taken prisoner and let the Arab areas of their territory fall back into the hands of the Daesh jihadists. But in the face of the Turkish threat, which is becoming more and more urgent, the most reasonable thing for them would be to finally get closer to Assad and the Russians. However, as my colleague and Syrian specialist Fabrice Balanche rightly points out, the negotiations will be difficult, although the Kurds, isolated, are now in a very weak position. Especially since in 2017, preferring the United States, they rejected the Russian support proposal…

Columnist : for Turkey

Roland Lombardi : Clearly, we can say that the Kurds were sacrificed at the altar of the Turkish-American alliance. The United States has two major allies in the Middle East: Israel and Saudi Arabia. But in the Sunni world, especially in the face of Iran, Washington needs Turkey too much, which is an important member of NATO and has the most powerful army in the region. Saudi Arabia’s stability is not at all assured in the near future and, above all, we will have noticed the “effectiveness” of the Saudi soldier in Yemen! Trump is not stupid and he knows all this. In addition, for the United States and rightly so, Turkey has moved too close to Iran and Russia. Reasonably, this had to be remedied. Thus, after the tensions, we have seen in recent months, through the Khashoggi affair and following American financial pressures, a warming between Ankara and Washington (release of the American pastor and especially, recently, the purchase by Turkey of American Patriot missiles! Finally, Erdogan was warned by Trump himself of his upcoming withdrawal from Syria. Thus, it would seem that the Turks, with this diplomatic success, now have carte blanche to finally solve their “Kurdish problem”. In the end, this new situation may also, at first, embarrass the Russians. Because the new “justices of the peace” of the region will still have to redouble their diplomatic efforts in order to calm the Turkish fervour, preserve and ensure the territorial reconquests of Damascus and finally, succeed in bringing all the actors together once again around the negotiating table… which is not at all won, and here again, perhaps not without displeasure in Washington…

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

AT LOGGERHEADS: LEGALITY VS LEGITIMACY

The post-electoral crisis in Zimbabwe is far from over. The debate between law and politics has engulfed the post election period in the country. Legality or legitimacy is the bone of contention between President Mnangagwa and Opposition leader Chamisa. The 31 July 2018 election took place amidst a volatile political atmosphere that followed the military intervention that toppled Mugabe in November 2017.

“Legality” is a question of action – whether or not something that you’re doing is a violation of either statutory or common law. Legitimacy is a question of origin or support for an action – whether or not an authority figure has “legitimately” taken their role, for example. In simpler contrast, legality is a question of law while legitimacy is a question of politics. This is the battle that has apprehended intellectual minds in the country.

The Enlightenment-era British social philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: “The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed.” The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said that “legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the government’s part that it has a right to govern, and with some recognition by the governed of that right”.

The results released by ZEC showed that Mnangagwa narrowly scrapped victory by approx. 300,000 votes in a 50.8 to 44.3-percentage difference. Chamisa appealed against the results released by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to the Constitutional Court (CC) alleging that ZEC stole the vote in favour of Mnangagwa. Chamisa through his lawyer Advocate Thabani Mpofu, cited statistical irregularities to that effect as proof of the ballot theft by ZEC. In the judgment, Chief Justice Luke Malaba stated the lack of evidence in the form of v11 forms by the appellant. Therefore, Chamisa had no case against ZEC meaning to say the CC upheld the results released by ZEC confirming Mnangagwa as the duly elected president of Zimbabwe. On the contrary, Chamisa claims he won the ballot and he is the people’s choice before ZEC manipulated the numbers.

In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government—wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”. An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse.

The political reality in Zimbabwe is that the citizens are disgruntled. The recognition by the citizens of the ZANU PF administration is in serious jeopardy especially by the urban electorate. The urban taxpayers have been hardest hit by the economic freefall in the country. The Chamisa led protests in the Harare metropolitan and the rallies in the urban cities and towns around the country are testimony of the legitimacy crisis facing the Mnangagwa government. The urban citizenry is sour as the cost of living continues to rise beyond the reach of the lower and middle working class. The salaries and wages have been eroded by the spike in prices and the high cost of living standards.

The economy is on a kamikaze suicidal tailspin into the abyss. The prices of goods are spiraling out of control without government intervention. It seems the authorities are clueless in bringing sanity to the economic madness. This has already cast doubts in the viability of the 2019 Budget pronouncements in the backdrop of industrial closure and dire foreign currency shortages. The current demands by workers for salary increments commensurate with the price increase have put the government in a quandary. The bond note surrogate currency has been eroded and the three tier pricing system in the retail market has added insult to economic injury.

The conscience of the government is not at ease. The legitimate expectations of Zimbabweans to President Emmerson Mnangagwa as the savior to turn around the fortunes of Zimbabwe has hit record rock bottom. Mnangagwa however has remained elusive to the skyrocketing prices choosing to plead with the citizens to be patient with the government. The calls by citizens for talks between Mnangagwa and Chamisa have grown amidst desperation for a lasting solution.

The issue in question is whether legality or legitimacy or a fusion of the two will end the post election crisis facing Zimbabwe. Mnangagwa maintains that the highest court in the land upheld the results released by ZEC confirming him as the president of Zimbabwe and therefore that decision by the CC must be respected. Chamisa on the other hand claims that ZEC was impartial and the CC was biased in its ruling against him. He claimed there was overwhelming evidence to show there was ballot theft, which the CC chose to sweep under the carpet of bias. As such, he calls for a return to legitimacy in Zimbabwe and that the people’s vote must be respected.

The economic woes bedeviling the country is justification by Chamisa and his MDC party to argue that indeed there is a legitimacy crisis in Zimbabwe. Chamisa has maintained that the solution to the country’s problems is the return to legitimacy. He asserted that ZANU PF could rig the elections but not the economy. The legality of Mnangagwa as the president confirmed by the CC has failed to appease the international community that democracy has returned to Zimbabwe. The military crackdown on innocent unarmed protesters on August 1 2018 sent wrong SOS messages across the continental divide that the tyrannical tendency of ZANU PF is continuing with a new driver.

International observer missions such as the European Union have submitted that the elections were not altogether free and fair. Hence the reservations of the international community to invest in a politically volatile nation. The results released by ZEC are testimony to the effect that Zimbabwe is deeply politically divided. At least 2.1 million voters out of the 4.6 million registered voters voted for Chamisa. To make it even more interesting and complex is that the MDC now control 81% of all urban councils in Zimbabwe showing the strength of Chamisa in the urban electorate.

The Constitutional Court ruling addressed legality (albeit an alleged flawed electoral process) but the economy of Zimbabwe is seeking a political solution to the post-electoral crisis. Mnangagwa holds the legal power as conferred by ZEC while Chamisa holds the legitimacy vested by the people’s support in the urban areas. The demonstrations held by the opposition are an indication of a widely polarized nation. As such, political dialogue between the ruling party ZANU PF and the main opposition party MDC is necessary to solve the political impasse.

Chamisa has called for dialogue with President Mnangagwa but Mnangagwa has maintained that talks are possible only if Chamisa recognizes his presidency. Chamisa has also submitted his 5-point plan for negotiations. The major point being the return to legitimacy and the respect of the general will of Zimbabweans that voted for him ahead of Mnangagwa. Hence the political standoff has frozen the hopes of Zimbabweans for a better future if the economy is fixed.

The international community has called for political dialogue in Zimbabwe in order to get the nation forward. Neither legality alone nor legitimacy can solve the myriad of problems facing the country. A fusion of legality and legitimacy is essential and necessary in Zimbabwe. Legality is in need of legitimacy and vice versa. Come what may, the two have to find each other out for progress’ sake.

The writer is a young local independent political analyst. He holds a BSc Hon in Political Science, Applied Law and Diplomacy & International Relations. He is currently studying a Masters degree in Peace, Leadership and Conflict Resolution. You can contact him on chengenziramasanga@gmail.com or +263734583445

Couple weeks ago, protest has been happened in France as a result of Macron energy policy. The President has made a call to raise fuel tax. The policy is in line with France commitment to reduce global warming. As we know, Paris agreement demands all the countries to contribute to save our planet from overheat temperature. And last year, Macron said to place the commitment to fight climate change. After the protest, Macron has temporarily pulled out energy policies, but the protest has been concluding something.

The name “Gilets jaunes or Yellow Vest” protest has been the face of France media for some time. Protest has been triggered by Macron energy policy. If we look in long-term effect, I agree with Macron that carbon tax will reduce global temperature, but to achieve that, need some insurance to ensure the policy set in motion. The big question: Is Macron providing the insurance for people of France? Gas and fuel has been centered for economy development in the last century. From Industrial revolution until now, we rely on fossil energy to enhance our economy capabilities. If there’s slight change on energy price, the impact will be so wide and affect countries development. Remember when oil price on its highest price some decade ago? That’s the time when Middle East countries gain their wealth. When Saudi Arabia embargo US on oil supply, their government is frantic and dizzy. You know the reason, right?

In global situation when economic enter “New Normal”, uncertainties is raised. The technology innovation has led new system which WTO not yet regulates it. Financial technology is the new phenomenon which will changes economic face in the future. Thanks to the internet, people has cut cost on distribution and with the fingers only, they can order many things. Prediction about some job losses in the future and there are high chance that it will be happening has made people, especially low-skilled labor face uncertainties. The reason is very valid and fact has been provided by some big companies that already use robot to enhance production and efficient the production cost.

When we face global situation like that, what is our priorities as a leader of the state? To ensure that high unemployment number reduces to certain degree and economy development is good to go. But can we blame Macron to make policy like that? Not entirely. Global situation is complex maybe vulnerable and demand quick decision in critical situation.  I can say that we place more burdens into developed countries to solve global problems, and that’s because we think that they are major player in international system which have capabilities bigger than emerging countries. But, what we don’t realize is major countries has faced bigger problem in domestic than we think and in international meeting, they success cover it up well: more you have power, more responsibilities you have.

And France is developed countries right? Of course they shoulder big responsibility, mainly on Euro zone. We are well aware that Macron is Euro supporter and key player in European Union. As their status embedded, Macron wants to answer the role as good as it should be. I think rising fuel tax is one of the ways in his mind to fulfill the role. I already aware that climate change is having large impact on Earth biosphere, but when I have to choose between fight for climate change or ensure my prosperity, will I have fight for things that the impact is not felt? Of course not, I need money to survive in realities and I rather fight for money rather struggles to save the earth and you cannot blame me to think like that, because my life depends on money. I am well aware about that issue but it still not popular in my mind.

And I think the protesters in France and middle-low class have the same state of mind as me. The issue is already spread across the world and people know that. Here again, we face unprecedented complex global situation which force us to choose between environment and economic issue, between long-term issue and short term issue or unpopular issue and popular issue. Macron face very tough situation and he must find delicate balance between those two so France can get out of this situation. Long term policy need large insurance and the people in France want that insurance. They need certainties to their prosperity and their fate of course. It’s the same when foods are run out in the midst of battle of Crusade, how can soldier survive the next day battle. In battle, food it’s like the energy, and if we correlate in present era, money is like the energy to survive in everyday battle. They rely on money to live and without it, how can they fight for Earth biosphere. You have to fulfill the basic needs so environmental issue can go in to people state of mind.

Source of image: https://www.thelocal.fr/20181009/how-will-tuesdays-day-of-protest-impact-france

President Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw its forces from Syria comes at a critical moment for the region, as the different actors involved in the war prepare for the post-conflict political order in Syria and as the U.S.-led campaign attempts to eliminate the last pockets of ISIS resistance.

The presence of approximately 2,000 U.S. troops might seem low, but there is an important broader picture. There is symbolic significance to maintaining troops in Syria, for one. Moreover, America’s presence is almost always amplified by the sizeable, unrivaled, and uncontested military infrastructure it enjoys in the region. Regime-aligned forces learned this the hard way back in February and U.S. enemies know that America’s military prowess in Syria can quickly extend beyond the troops it has on the ground—that prospect now appears to be gone.

A U.S. withdrawal from Syria could allow ISIS’s resurgence in both Syria and Iraq, create a vacuum that will most likely be filled by the Assad regime and Iran, and abandon Kurdish (and Arab) allies on the ground.

The pre-Trump problem

The United States has been here before. In its previous incarnation, al-Qaida in Iraq, ISIS had its back to the wall after the United States worked more closely with local Arab Sunni Iraqi forces known as the “Awakening Movement” to push back against the jihadis and liberate northern Iraq. But then U.S. troops withdrew in 2011 under the orders of President Obama. In the space of just three years, the jihadis re-emerged by taking control of swaths of territory across Syria and Iraq, capitalizing on the Syrian civil-war, sectarian tensions in Iraq, and the collapse of the Iraqi military by establishing and declaring its proto-state in June 2014.

As Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 also showed, Iran has a proven and effective capacity to fill the voids left by the United States to entrench and embolden its proxies, which directly weakens America’s interests and allies in the region. In Iraq, it resulted in the suppression of Arab Sunnis, the creation of parallel state institutions, and the ascendancy of sectarian Shiite militia groups backed by Iran, which collectively created the grievances and conditions that enabled ISIS in 2014.

What the withdrawal means for ISIS

ISIS may have lost its “caliphate” and is on the decline, but it is far from defeated. Rather, it continues to present a menacing threat to both Syria and Iraq. In both countries, the jihadi organization has proven a formidable and resilient force, maintaining pockets of resistance against local forces as it attempts to re-establish itself, as well as initiating a campaign of assassinations, predation, and extortion against local communities.

In other words, Trump is making the same mistakes President Obama made. Trump’s withdrawal from Syria will allow ISIS to revitalize itself in the coming months and years, as well as reinvent itself and retake control of territory in conflict environments that could help the group ascend for many years to come. ISIS and other extremists will enjoy a freer hand in mobilizing susceptible Syrians who have wide-ranging grievances, and although Trump may believe Russia will take on the task of confronting ISIS and its ilk, Moscow’s record during the conflict suggests otherwise.

What the withdrawal means for Iran

Beyond the ISIS concern, a U.S. withdrawal will inevitably leave a broader void that America’s enemies will fill. The tens of thousands of Iranian proxies in Syria—or a combination of those proxies and forces aligned with the Syrian regime—will be empowered following Trump’s decision.

In Syria, Iran will have an unrivalled capacity to shape the political landscape as a result of Trump’s withdrawal, emboldened to further influence Syria’s politics, economy, and security sector, as well as the reconstruction resources that the international community may at some point inject into the country. Withdrawing will help Iran strategically, giving it more space to pursue its long-sought land bridge linking Tehran to Beirut and the Mediterranean, for instance. Overall, the U.S. pull-out will have reverberations throughout the region, tilting the regional balance of power further in Iran’s favor.

All this comes at a moment when U.S. sanctions—as well as Israeli incursions into Syria—have put Tehran under substantial pressure in recent months. By maintaining its troops in the east, the United States constrained Iran and offered some Syrians a reprieve from the fighting.

What the withdrawal means for U.S allies in Syria

Finally, the U.S. withdrawal is a betrayal of U.S. allies, those groups on the ground that have done the fighting and bleeding. This includes the Kurdish and Arab components of the Syrian Democratic Forces. Backing the Kurds—who often share Western values and long for partnership with the U.S. in the face of repression by regional actors—has historically been seen as a moral imperative.

Problematically, of course, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) are affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkey and the United States consider a terrorist organization. The U.S.-YPG cooperation in Syria has thus produced a thorny conundrum vis-à-vis America’s NATO ally Turkey. But both Washington and Ankara are to blame for failing to devise a sustainable, viable strategy that made the YPG a more acceptable actor, by way of empowering its rivals and making U.S. support for the group conditional on its willingness to share power with other actors that Turkey has found to be more acceptable.

The United States has underperformed in developing and harnessing its partnerships with non-state actors in the Middle East, including Kurdish and Arab groups in Syria and Iraq. Unlike its rivals in the region, Washington does not sufficiently value the long-term importance of these groups in its attempts to influence the political landscape. Moving forward, the United States may find less than willing partners—including beyond the Levant, in places like Libya and Afghanistan.

Moving forward, the YPG will most likely enter into negotiations with the Syrian regime to forestall a full-scale Turkish incursion and maintain some degree of autonomy. One way or another, the YPG will continue to be a fixture in Syria’s political and governing structures. U.S. influence, meanwhile, will be diminished or non-existent.

Where this leaves us

In short, the U.S. withdrawal from Syria means that: ISIS may re-group and re-emerge, Iran will gain an even stronger foothold in the country, and Kurdish allies will likely be forced to strike a deal with the Assad regime. That leaves the Assad regime and its predominant on-the-ground partner, Iran, as the likely winners to emerge from this debacle.

This article can be found on the website Brookings here is the link https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/12/21/what-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-syria-means-for-isis-iran-and-kurdish-allies/