Young Diplomats

On Tuesday 4th of December, Mike Pompeo the U.S Secretary of State, visited the headquarter of NATO in Brussels. There, he brilliantly formulated what a ” Trump doctrine ” could be. Only two day following the G20, frontly attacked multilateralism and several international institutions.

What is the context ?

NATO is the military arm of the West. A week before, an important incident occurred between Ukraine and Russia. The credibility of This organization is at stake. Indeed, Pompeo said that Nato is still functioning and has to supported in front of Russia. In Syria, as well as in Ukraine, Russia is flexing muscles and this trend is a real challenge for Mike Pompeo.

What were his critics ?

He blamed U.N peacekeeping missions and describes them as useless. For him, the European Union serves technocrats rather than European peoples. The IMF was targeted about several financial support adresses to Beijing. World Bank, WTO and IPC were also part of his speech.

Of course, Pompeo pointed out China, Iran and Russia as the main ennemies of the West and of multilateralism. The latter concept is blamed. Pompeo deemed multilateralism as dangerous of the U.S sovereignty.

What were his solutions ?

Mike Pompeo was critical but did not offer a lot of solutions. For him, multilateralism has to be a tool and not an end. He vaguely talked about a ” new liberal order “. Nevertheless, during his speech, no solutions or concrete applications were given to improve multilateralism. He mainly behaved as a critical analyst.

Is the world closing itself ? 

The trend against multilateralism is real. Mike Pompeo is one piece in that great game. He stands in the same side than Orban, Bolsonaro and so on. From a certain point of view, Vladimir Putin is part of this side. However, geo-strategy impacts on ideology.

India and Japan have a vibrant bilateral relationship the genesis of which can be traced back to the Cold War period when India and Japan had established limited economic interactions even though both the countries followed markedly different political ideologies and foreign policy directives at the time.[1] This proved to be a testament to the durability of the bilateral relations between the two countries. However there was one prickly thorn in the relationship which if left unattended would have probably festered and damaged it beyond repair. This was the issue centered on the usage of nuclear energy which finally appeared to have been addressed in 2016 when the two countries signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement.[2]

This is the first time Japan has signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with a nuclear-armed nation that is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As a critical supplier of nuclear components, Japan’s agreement later proved as a vital inspiration for other suppliers like the United States, Australia, and Germany to move ahead on nuclear contracts.

Japan has been a leader in nuclear non proliferation for decades; even before the USA initiate their idea of restriction of nukes. Japan decided to not trade with those nations who were not the party to the NPT. Till date, Japan signed nuclear cooperation agreements with 14 countries which allow Japan to export nuclear reactors, fuel, and technology for the peaceful uses of energy generation. Japan will also actively contribute to strengthening nuclear nonproliferation through reinforcement of the IAEA safeguards and stringent export control and international nuclear security.[3] As we all know, India is a nonparty to the NPT and has several nuclear facilities outside of IAEA safeguards which decisively omits the basic principles of Japanese nuclear doctrine. It makes Japan very ardent to add a safety clause; to voluntarily terminate agreement if India conduct nuclear test further. Japanese government was never in the favor to hold this agreement on stands for long but due to the think tanks and pro-nationalist pressure groups of Japan, it was shifted time to time to contain domestic uproar.

Japan proceeds cautiously owing to the concerns expressed by its anti-nuclear lobby supported by a large number of people including the Hibakushas[4], being vociferously supported the ban of nuclear trade by Japan.[5] As we know, Japanese were the only people who faced the wrath of nuclear bombings ever did in the history of humanity. They were very resistant to the idea of nuclear technology and their usage in any means. Although, Japan is now majorly powered by nuclear energy but still those had lost everything in 1945 bombings, never seen as supportive to this idea. Domestic environment is quite complex in the nuclear issue in Japan as majority of non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) opposed it while the bureaucracy finds it suitable for economic gains and strategic championship among contenders.

Japanese domestic reactions can be analyzed by two different thought processes floated around this sensitive issue as:

• First, which opposes Japan’s atomic technology trade with countries which has not signed NPT. However they were not India centric as such. But when it came to consider India, this section considers India as a first nation who tested nuclear bomb after institutionalization of NPT.[6] On the basis of this narrative, India must have to sign NPT first, and soon after it, Japanese administration will process nuclear deal as they want as per need.
• Second, thought arose after Fukushima spillover incident, which shattered the minds of Japanese thinkers as they are selling opium to others, eventually if any incident happen overseas, it will further deteriorate host countries as well.[7]

Hence, on the ethical and moral grounds, it is unscrupulous and non behavioral to further expand nuclear cover to those who are not capable enough to pacify the nuclear scorch. They believed that Japan is digging their graves knowingly that it is avant-garde to mitigate impact of nuke radiations. It was fitted in their mind that we are feeding slow poison to them via nuclear tech transfer. Not only outside Japan, they all are not in favor to reactivate existing such reactors inside Japan after Fukushima incident and protested to phase out atomic technology from Japan for the sake of safe future.[8]

Politically speaking, not only on the lines of environmental and human safety, these pressure groups had huge potential to destabilize government in Japan. They have huge support base from all over the Japan especially in Shikoku and Kyushu islands. It is imperative for government to recalibrate deal with India time to time and cautiously pave path for successful negotiations, inside and outside Japan. So that the political cushion derive their sustainability simultaneously with the gradual strengthening of foreign relations with India behind the curtains amid grudge of masses. It is obvious for Japanese government to pacify nuclear industrial complexes in parallel to keep pace with exporting new cutting edge tech policy as assured earlier.

Conclusion

It is pertinent to note that opposition for the nuclear cooperation agreement rose in India as well. After all the Indian people would not have wanted to rush in to the deal with its eyes closed despite the fact that the Indian Government like its Japanese counterpart shared a keen interest in successfully concluding the deal. The issue of trust deficit was one such example according to which a section of the Indian strategic thinkers to assume that despite India and Japan having elevated their strategic partnership to a special strategic partnership Japan had added the nullification clause to the agreement which implied that there was a trust deficit in the bilateral relationship between the two countries. This will lead to halt but later resumed with full boost and still high in run.

[1] Khan, Shamshad Ahmed, Changing dynamics of India-Japan relations: Buddhism to Special Strategic Partnership, Pentagon Press, New Delhi, 2017, p. 155

[2]Ibid, p. 155

[3] Squassoni, Sharon & Sekiguchi, Yukari, Japan-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, Centre for Strategic & International Studies, Washington D. C., 2006, https://www.csis.org/analysis/japan-india-nuclear-cooperation-agreement

[4] Here, Hibakusha (被爆者) refers to the Japanese word for the surviving victims of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The word literally translates as “explosion-affected people” and is used to refer to people who were exposed to radiation from the bombings.

[5] Khan, Shamshad Ahmed, Changing dynamics of India-Japan relations: Buddhism to Special Strategic Partnership, Pentagon Press, New Delhi, 2017, p.164

[6] Khan, Shamshad Ahmed, Changing dynamics of India-Japan relations: Buddhism to Special Strategic Partnership, Pentagon Press, New Delhi, 2017, p.164

[7] Ibid, p. 164

[8] Ibid, pp. 164-165

The Marrakech pact is a 34-page document setting out a “cooperative framework” for dealing with international migration. Limiting pressure on countries that have many migrants and promoting the self-reliance of newcomers are two of the points members will sign up for. This is a non-binding UN agreement. It is an answer to the European migration crisis occurred in 2015.

What are its aims ?

The redactors of the pact have elaborated 23 objectives. The goal of these objective is to better manage migration at local, national, regional and global levels. This aim involves several aims :

• Mitigate factors that stop people from building and maintaining livelihoods in their countries of origin;
• Reduce the risks and vulnerabilities migrants face at different stages of migration;
• Address concerns of states and communities and recognise that societies are undergoing demographic, economic, social and environmental changes;
• Create conditions that enable all migrants to enrich societies through their human, economic and social capacities, and facilitate their contributions to development at the local, national, regional and global levels.

Who signed the agreement ?

On 10th of December, The agreement was formally adopted by representatives of more than 150 governments in Marrakech, Morocco. As a reminder, the UN is composed of 193 countries.

Nevertheless, in many European countries, this agreement was far from accepted by all. For instance Denmark and the Netherlands have struggled to deliver full support for the agreement. Then, the Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said on Tuesday he would ask parliament to vote on whether to sign the agreement, in order to avoid the government collapsing.

Of course, the U.S of Trump is the leader of the slingshot and refuses to sign the agreement.

How to interpret this news

The world, and especially the West, is going through a populist wave. This ideology is mainly colored with anti-immigration feelings. Viktor Orban and Donald Trump are the representatives of this trend. Both of them refused to sign the Marrakech pact. This pact is a non-binding which means that States can refuse to apply this pact. But, it carries a strong symbolic image. Indeed, the non-signature shows peoples that they are being heard by their leaders. Immigration is less and less well seen in the Western world. This story is only one part of this trend.

Innocence was victimized, and everything around was destroyed when the biggest terrorist attack in the world took place. Until September 10, 2001, who knew the next morning would bring remorse and suffering for the people of New York, United States.

Who knew the beloved symbol of America’s power and influence would be shattered into pieces along with thousands of innocent lives? And, for what? Just to spread the terror and to show what happens when you go against the will of terrorists?

With these few questions wrapped up, let’s know in detail what motives led to the biggest terrorist attacks in the world? How it affected the people of the city and what were the odds of its happening in the first place!

9/11: The Biggest Terrorist Attack in the World

It has been 17 years, since then, the world has experienced several terrorist attacks. But, in a sad way, none of the attacks amounts to the destruction caused by the 9/11 attacks.

A catastrophe hit New York, United States when the World Trade Center was attacked on 9/11. Amidst the quiet and peaceful morning, the terrorist attack shook the whole nation, leaving a deadly scar on its ensemble. The attack of September 11, 2001, is said to be one of the biggest terrorist attacks in the world that took lives of 2,996 people, including several civilians.

The Whole Scenario

On September 11, 19 activists of Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four U.S. commercial aeroplanes. Two of the fuel-loaded hijacked planes crashed into the top floors of the North and South towers of the World Trade Center. And, the third aeroplane crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Va.

Where the crashing of the aeroplanes was assumed as an accident, the captured images from television cameras revealed – the attacks were deliberate.

Understanding the critical situation, the passengers on the fourth aeroplane (Flight 93) fought their way in the cockpit. As a result, the hijackers failed to crash the U.S. Capitol, and the plane crashed into an empty field in Pennsylvania.

Problems Faced During 9/11 Rescue Operation

After the devastating attacks on the twin towers of World Trade Center and Pentagon, the aid workers immediately began the rescue operations.

Since the towers of the World Trade Center were designed with narrow window openings and high arch-work, the rescue operation became a challenge for the rescuers. And, as only three narrow staircases were leading to the ground level, the havoc of people completely blocked the exits of the complex.

Later, the people were asked to wait for instructions from the Port Authority for quick and speedy evacuation.  Another major problem in the rescue operation was the jammed front doors of the complex. As the aeroplanes hit the towers, the impact was so high that the buildings shifted enough to jam doors in their frames.

As a result, dozens of people were trapped in the building, mostly in the area closer to the impact zone. However, the brave and courageous firefighters evacuated the people through a door on the mezzanine level. The door was connected to a bridge which led to another building. A lot of people were safely rescued using the neighbouring building without getting hurt.

What Led to the Biggest Terrorist Attack in the World?

What was the reason behind 9/11 ferocious act? Why were those 19 militants so determined to take the lives of thousands of people along with theirs? What situations led to them to put this plan into action?

In confession, Osama Bin Laden, the group leader of al-Qaeda stated the attacks were a holy war planned against the United States of America. He held the US government liable for occupying the holiest lands of Islam, preying on its riches, ordering to its rulers and humiliating its people.

From some confidential recordings and videotapes, it was also concluded that the attacks were planned revolting against the expansion of Israel and the introduction of the western culture there.

Though several motives were identified behind this biggest terrorist attack in the world, the development of Israel was explicitly considered the major one.

In Bin Laden’s Letter to America, he strongly described, the expansion of Israel is one of the greatest crimes. And, you are the leaders of this crime. Thus, each and every person who has taken part in contributing to this crime must pay its price heavily.

After Effects of 9/11 Attacks

Two 110 storey skyscrapers that could withstand winds of 200 miles per hour and a large fire collapsed within 15 minutes. Imagine the impact and force of the aeroplanes that hit these graciously built structures.

The misery did not just end with the collapse of the twin towers. It led to the deaths of thousands of people and over 6,000 people injured. Besides, the falling debris of smoking metal brought distraught to around $10 billion worth of infrastructure and property.

The scene screamed of utter devastation with smoke and dust in the air. People half-buried in the mortar of twisted steel and rubble, innumerable cars and emergency vehicles choking on fire; the sight was haunting.

And, again it did not stop here, more people died of respiratory diseases and cancer in the months and years following the attacks. The clear blue sky turned into pale grey grieving on the tragedy it suffered on September 11, 2001.

Though the nation is now blooming with prosperity and power, the attacks of 9/11 still bring back terrifying memories to the people who survived that day of terror.

Contributor Bio – The blog is presented by Sharda University. Sharda University is one of the largest universities in Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) offering 216 varied programmes.

Wars and global warming are not often the subject of common reflection. However, today the issue of environmental problems of armed conflicts is at the center of more and more scientific and academic studies. Aid to the people remains a priority in case of armed conflict, however, environmental issues are invest in the major spheres of our world : the United Nations, through its United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), has create a « Post-conflict and disaster management branch “. Ban Ki-Moon, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, has long been engaged on these issues, lamenting the situations of struggle to take possession of natural resources, or the over-exploitation of these because of the war. Today, environmental issues are at the heart of the news. It therefore seems interesting and legitimate to question the consequences of wars on the environment.

The use of toxic products

One of these very toxic products is obviously the use of nuclear power, which has irreparable consequences on the environment. It would devastate entire territories and cause definitive damages, not by warming the earth’s temperature but by a coolant (passing -20 degrees). Obviously the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the greater proof : even after decades, the health and ecological impact is omnipresent. However, it is not the only one.

We can also take into account unexploded shells in war zones. If they are not picked up, they end up by degrade the ground and contaminate it. The shells contain arsenic, mercury and perchlorate salts, among other toxic substances. To remove them, demining programs must be organized. However, this is not the priority in wartime. This partly explains the significant degradation of the environment in war zones, but also the fact that it never returns to a normal situation.

We can also talk about pesticides, like those used during the Vietnam war by the United States. Called “Agent Orange”, this pesticide has destroyed 14% of Vietnam’s forests. But also caused malformation, cancer and skin diseases to about 4 million people. The Vietnam War has been recognized as “the greatest experimental chemical warfare of all time” according to US admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, commander of the naval forces in Vietnam. In the recent history of our world, the chemical weapon is still used. This is the case in Syria for instance. The use of chemical weapons has, however, been banned since the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). It should be noted the real difficulty of clearing places contaminated by these chemical weapons. Nowadays there are difficulties managing the heritage left by the Second World War in France and Belgium. The soils concerned are still extremely contaminated today, even sometimes infertile.

There are also many other consequences of conflicts : for example, desert traffic accelerates soil erosion and causes more recurring sandstorms, and also military bases are often contaminated by residues of explosives or fuels. Military maneuvers have significant impacts on eco-systems (as example the use of sonar waves which disorient animals).

War also induces the problem of population displacement. To survive in times of conflict, these populations take refuge near areas where natural resources are most abundant, but too little to satisfy everyone. Thus, 850 000 people fled the massacres of Rwanda to take refuge near the Virunga National Park (Democratic Republic of Congo), very rich in biodiversity. This would have led to the destruction of 300 km² of forest in just a few years.

The environment: a new geopolitical issue

Sometimes the environmental issue is at the heart of the war. WWF recalls that the consequences of global warming can trigger conflicts and accelerate geopolitical crisis. It denounces the obvious : in regions where there are already tensions concerning access to natural resources (in the Sahel for arable land, around Lake Chad for food, in China for water etc), a change rainfall, for example, can contribute to destabilizing a region, and even a country. The war in Syria is a typical example of a conflict which created a nonstandard drought. For example, in conflicts in the Middle East, access to natural resources such as water is becoming a real issue. Terrorist organizations, for example, focus on areas with strong natural resources. Conflicts are often motivated by the appropriation of resources.

Ironically, these same resources are often used to finance conflict at the same time : thus, precious stone have largely supplied conflicts in Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola… In addition, we can also stated that all areas where Western military forces are engage include very large energy resources (such as oil). Wars are often motivated by a desire to obtain these resources, these unmentionable intentions being hidden behind a “civilizing” or “emancipatory” speech. This type of strategy helped to give birth to Al Qaeda group, because for Osama Bin Laden, the military bases on the sacred lands of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East were a sacrilege (among others).

The environment is therefore a key issue in global conflicts. Today, our world seems to be dependent on these resources that are almost no longer renewable. War and the environment seem to be growing in vicious circles: it is necessary to have resources to survive, but to have this resources, it is necessary to control the territory where they are present. And to obtain them, men use materials which destroy environment.

In the face of the global warming we are experiencing today, the “water wars” are just beginning.

On June 12, 2018, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un met for the first time in history at the summit between the two countries held on the island of Sentosa in Singapore. On this occasion, the two leaders signed a joint declaration in which, among other things, the two countries committed themselves to establishing new diplomatic relations for peace and prosperity. But, on 6th of December,  satellite images obtained by CNN reveal North Korea has significantly expanded a key long-range missile base. At the end of November, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was willing to allow inspectors into the reclusive country’s main nuclear complex in Yongbyon. The image released by CNN deals with the military base located in Yeongjeo-dong.

Is this information valuable ? 

As a reminder, during the severe arm-struggle ocurred in 2017 between the U.S and North Korea, Kim Jong Un decided to pause the nuclear program. For the moment, this information comes from CNN. In other words, we have to wait a few days to get further information. Nevertheless, over the past months, several sources have raised questions about North Korean missiles building. Since the end of the Korea war (1950-1953) it has to be said that North Korea has been almost 100% closed to the world. Consequently, great powers are today unable to get intelligence from this country.

What are the consequences ?

First and foremost, the effectiveness of Trump’s foreign policy is impacted. Indeed, Trump and his allies often proudly claims the crisis with North Korea as a victory for the US.  The image of Trump is worldwide eroded and an other ” battle ” with Kim could be even more affected. Then, If such affairs tend to be too numerous, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un may get their country into an other diplomatic crisis.

Besides, if North Korea obtain nuclear deterrence, power struggle in Eastern Asia might change. Indeed, nuclear capabilities affects the position of a country. On the long run, the country concerned will own a nuclear umbrella. In view of the improvement of relations between North and South Korea, the latter could line up behind North Korea. In the decades to come, the latter is likely.

On December 7th this year, the 76th commemoration on the attack on Pearl Harbor will be hailed in Hawaii.This event is considered by specialists to be the most important failure in 20th century American intelligence.  This incident revolutionized intelligence methodology, since American decision makers decided to avoid similar episodes from happening in the future at any cost. Even if there is a great discussion between scholars and analysts on how this disaster occurred, people from academia have not been able to give a thorough explanation on whether Pearl Harbor was the effect of missed warnings, or if there were no imminent clues present to prevent the attack. There has been no single overall explanation that has been completely accepted, since the roots of the failure can reside in the organizational, tactical or psychological realm or the combination of all factors previously mentioned.

In fact, scholar opinions are divided between two schools: traditionalists (lack of fear of the threat and inability to decode Japanese messages) and revisionists (intentional disinformation of the officers in charge in Hawaii). Conventional wisdom suggests that intelligence failures are the result of available warnings which were present before the developments of a disaster, but were missed. Hence, the logical solution would be to improve the ability of analysis to detect key signals despite background noise. It is utterly important to be able to spot such indicators to avoid cry wolf effects.

Indeed, this was one of the central issues concerning the failure at Pearl Harbor. Since there were so many previous false alarms concerning an attack in the region, the commanding officers and troops had their guard down. Besides, Americans made the mistake of underestimating the enemy’s intentions by thinking that for the Japanese it would be hara-kiri to attack American soil, since their capacities were intrinsically stronger, and they would be overthrown in a blink of an eye. Despite many warnings of a probable hostile threat, Washington failed to properly understand this danger and prevent the attack.

Even if opinions differ on whether the attack was preventable or not, Pearl Harbor has not only become a painful episode in American history. Indeed, this turned into a crucial moment for the Western world since it triggered the declaration of war against the Third Reich. This also entailed a change in the course of World War II and the writing of the current geopolitical scheme.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Wall Street ended up down by more than 3% on Tuesday, as the trend towards a reversal of the yield curve weighed heavily on financial stocks. Technology and industry fell into doubt about Washington and Beijing’s ability to reach a sustainable trade agreement.

Investors’ enthusiasm on Monday as a first reaction to Saturday’s announcement of a three-month truce in the Sino-American trade dispute did not last long.

The Dow Jones index dropped 799.36 points, or 3.10%, to 25,027.07. The wider S&P-500 fell 90.31 points, or 3.24%, to 2,700.06. The Nasdaq Composite fell by 283.09 points (-3.80%) to 7.158.43 points.

The volatility index ended at its highest level in more days, up more than 25% to 20.64 points.

On the trade front, Donald Trump did not rule out an extension of the truce with Beijing, which should allow customs duties to be frozen while a broader agreement is negotiated. But the American president added in a tweet that if it turned out that a “TRUE agreement” was not possible, he would revert to his policy of raising tariffs.

In the bond market, signs of an inversion of the yield curve, linked to fears that the long expansion cycle in the United States would end, caused banks to stumble.

Analysts expect a reversal of the curve between two- and ten-year bond yields in the near future – seen as a signal of an impending recession. The spread fell to less than 10 basis points for the first time in ten years.

Statements by New York Federal Reserve Chairman John Williams on interest rate developments, as well as a severe snub by British MPs to Theresa May over Brexit, have added to the confusion.

The New York Fed President said he expected the gradual gradual rise in interest rates to continue, in a context of “very good health” in the US economy. This follows Fed President Jerome Powell’s comments last week, which were interpreted by the market as a sign that the central bank was approaching the end of its rate hikes.

“The sharp decline we saw (at the end of the session) is largely a reaction to Brexit,” says Delores Rubin, a trader at Deutsche Bank Wealth Management,

“As for the sales flow since the beginning of the day, it is explained by the realization that nothing is settled (between Beijing and Washington),” said Delores Rubin, adding that John Williams’ statements suggest that the market may have misinterpreted Powell’s comments.

“You have the Brexit, the Fed talking and the customs duty concerns that have resurfaced.”

Is a major crisis plausible ?

It depends. It has to be said that financial markets have known a significant growth since the end of the 2008 krach. The economy, and especially finance, follows cycles. Financial markets’ functioning is frequently explained by the boom and burst cycle. Many analysts pretends that the global economy will have, in the years to come, to face off a terrible crisis. Besides, the U.S economy tends to follow eight or ten years-long cycles. It might be a matter of months.

What would be the geopolitical consequences ? 

Studying the consequences of a non-happened event is not easy. The only easily remarked consequence would be a questioning process of what is capitalism. Globalization and multilateralism, as we currently know them could be much more weakened than today.

Yemen’s situation is one of the worse situations the world has known for the past decades. Recently highlighted by the international community, this war started in 2014.. The UN is now talking about resolutions in order to find solutions. This conflict has caused killed thousands and thousands of civilians and soldier. This war is also called the « Silent War ».

How and why did all begun ? 

In 2011, during the geopolitical era called the ” Arab Spring ” many Arabic countries were looking for some more justice and democracy in their States institutions, and Yemen was part of them. It was about  the opposition between the President Salleh, head of the government for 34 years and the Huthi rebels. The specificity of Yemen’s situation is also due to rivalries between the two regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. The political situation has provoked a collapse of the State institution which has more or less disappeared. After 34 years leading the country, Saleh had to quit. However the transition after his departure  did not stay in place more than two years. After this period things begun to go worse and worse.

The city of Sanaa has been taken by the rebels provoking the banishment of President Hadi in March 2015. Saudi Arabia has chosen to use military intervention in  the Yemen lead by Ben Salman.  The country is in a coalition which has reinforced the military engagement.

The USA  has also given some logistic help to Riyad, and all of this has taken the form of aerial bombardments. The movement lead by the Huthi let us think about the situations in Yemen during the 1990’s when the country has been split in two with on the one hand the North and on the other hand the South. Today this rebels are accused of the being the actor of massive crimes (war crimes) in Yemen and also for having destroyed strategic places such as ports, fabrics and residences. In 2016 some investigations have shown that there are more than 50 000 deaths in the country due to the conflict. Today in 2018 the State institution is nonexistent, and people working for those institutions are not paid since 2016.

Moreover, the country imports more than 90% of their products and only depends of those importations. The risk of a lack of water for the huge part of the population living in the country is also very important and has been highlighted by he UN : estimations show that would be around 8 millions of people concerned. The Country is also under the threat of the AQPA organisation which is taken seriously by the USA. The American power lead by Donald Trump has clearly shown its sustain toward Saudi Arabia by giving 130 million dollars of weapons.

What is the situation now ? Saudi Arabia is feeling trapped by its war and did not realize that it would be for years and years of conflict when it decided to intervene. Iran doesn’t have any interest in the country, but their reasons were about showing their power toward their rivals, which is Saudi Arabia and now one of the meanings of this big crisis is between Saudi Arabia and Iran giving his political sustain to Yemen and both try to show their influence in this territory.

There were three cycles of negotiations for peace. But the USA is side to side with the Saudi Arabia and Russia has also its words to say in the UN talking which put some obstacles about finding peace. And this brought complications during the UN councils in order to find some solutions. Now we are wondering which are the main roles of the other power of the world  about this war happening? France has been targeted for having sold weapons. Moreover the European Country has ratified the treaty about trade in weapons and this is also why it has been designed as being an actor in this war.

What are the solutions possible? Saudi Arabia and Arabic Emirates have promised the 20th of November (2018) to give each 250 millions of dollars to help Yemen to the UN and other non governmental organisations. They first gave 500 million in 2015 to support the president. The help announced by those countries is more important today because more than a high risk of a lack of water, Yemen is now stroke by starvation with is able to kill 85.000 children within 5 years from now.

The UN is also talking about a consensus between powers in order to find any stability and establish the peace in this region.In Sweden it has been told that Washing has been talking about peace talks  and some other negotiations and solutions expected for December 2018.