Young Diplomats

Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America signed a trilateral security pact on the 15th of September 2021 after Australia ditched France. Australia had a A$90bn deal with France which required France to provide Aussies with 12 nuclear submarines but Australia canceled it and joined UK and US. France abruptly recalled its Ambassadors from Australia and US and called the deal “Stab in the Back” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson called the deal an irresponsible act and said that the agreement undermines regional stability and peace. The agreement allows Australia to become the second country after the UK to use US nuclear submarine technology, the three allies will cooperate in Artificial Intelligence, enhance cyber capabilities, Quantum Technologies, and underwater systems. Besides that, US and UK will help Australia to build at least 8 nuclear-powered submarines.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison emphasized at ASPI’s Sydney Dialogue that AUKUS will enable the three allies to advance their nuclear technologies and joint capabilities which will help them to prepare for upcoming challenges in the 21st century. XI-Jinping addressed the SCO head of states and emphasized that regional states must resist and not allow the foreign powers to interfere in internal affairs of the region and urged them to hold their future, progress, and development solely in their own hands. Scott Morrison must have calculated that the Grand Strategy applied by three allies will provide the strategic depth in the Indo Pacific region and the Chinese will sit quietly, look around, and will let them do whatever their ambitions dictate.

The basic principles of Chinese Foreign Policy are not to become part of any power block which means not making any alliance that is based on strategic competition and isolating the other states. One of the main pillars of Foreign Policy of China is not to participate in power politics and not to seek expansionism and to maintain friendly relations with neighboring states by promoting trade and encouraging economic activities, not to interfere in internal affairs of sovereign states and not let other states interfere and challenge China’s sovereignty. If any state is following expansionist policy, then its aggressive behavior may trigger other states to form a counterbalancing coalition. If an adversary is flexing its military muscles, more than its needs for its defense then the other state will retaliate in order to stop its expansionist designs. Well, the AUKUS agreement has already sprinkled oil on the field and China has retaliated by showing its supremacy in the South China Sea. On 16 November 2021 Chinese coastguard ships blocked two Philippines supply boats that were within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) in the South China Sea and also fired water cannons on the boats. These actions show that China is willing to show its supremacy especially in the Islands which China claims to be its part called the “nine-dash line.

If a state adds into its military power and increases its defense in order to protect itself from aggression of adversaries, then the opponent will do the same and it will create a security dilemma in the other state which is what happening with China. AUKUS has created a security dilemma in China and that’s why Beijing has started to retaliate. A Washington-based think tank published a report named “Pulling Back the Curtain on China’s Maritime Militia”.It said 100 militia boats were deployed by China near Philippine occupied Thitu Island in 2018 and 200 at unoccupied Whitsun Reef in Spring 2021.IT also said that on any given day approximately 300 Chinese maritime militias vessels in the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea because China has territorial claims In the South China Sea and wants them to become an integral part of China.

INTERIM NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGIC GUIDANCE by Washington in March 2021 clearly stated US intentions that it will protect its allies’ democracies against Chinese aggression. The US also pledged that it will make sure that the US not China will set the Global order and international agenda. To protect its interests and to counter threats of collective security will defend and cooperate with its allies in each sector.US has also pledged to support Chinese neighboring states which are facing existential threats from China especially Taiwan. Both Japan and China have territorial claims over Senkaku Islands and consider it to be their integral part but the United States of America stance is that China’s claims are baseless and do not fit on principles of International Law. America’s wounds are still fresh after facing defeat in the form of withdrawal of US and allies’ forces from Afghanistan but a superpower is called a superpower when it has a sphere of influence beyond its borders. It seems that the great power competition has shifted towards Indo-Pacific with the main objective of containment of China. The world-leading powers are once again in a race of overwhelming each other. This time US has realized that it has to come up with a new Grand Strategy because the Chinese presence in the Indo-Pacific especially the South China Sea possesses a threat to the vital interests of US. In order to increase its influence United States has chosen its European allies this time by dragging them in the rivalry of the great powers.

XI-Jinping addressed the annual summit of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and warned that recent actions in the Asia Pacific could fall us back into the cold war mentality. Xi-Jinping was towards the AUKUS deal between the UK, US, and Australia. But what actually in the AUKUS deal and especially in nuclear-powered submarines that proves to be a nightmare for China and China is showing so much aggression. The difference between conventional submarines and nuclear-powered submarines is that they are used to defend from attacks of enemies but nuclear-powered submarines are more advanced in technology and can remain undersea for a very long time without being detected.  Xi-Jinping was right in the sense with the agreement and alliances like AUKUS there will be a disability in the Indo-Pacific region. Because we can witness an arms race where states will be rushing for nuclear-powered submarines. Some states are in favor of the AUKUS deal and some are against it China, US, the UK, Russia, France, India have already nuclear-powered submarines. According to statistical data by Hindustan Times US-68, Russia-29, China-12, UK-11, France-8, India-1 and now Australia is in the race. The current scenario will lead us to disability in the region because if Australia is acquiring nuclear-powered submarines today the rest of the states especially China would be increasing nuclear submarines technology in its defense and hence more and more money will be spent by states to increase their defense capabilities resulting in uncertainty in the region.

George W. Bush is widely considered to be the worst President in American History, with good reason. But what was his biggest failure? Iraq? Katrina? The Stock Market? The answer to this question is none of the above. And to explain why that is, we have to go back to three years before he became President, to 1998.

In 1998 the Afghan city of Mazar-I-Sharif fell to Taliban fighters. The city was home to the main community of Hazara, a community of Afghani Shia Muslims, thus were deemed as infidels by the Taliban, who proceeded to carry out a genocide against them. The country that led the biggest condemnation of this was Iran, which almost went to war with the Taliban in response. However, during the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan, Iran special commandos (including Qassim Soleimani) assisted the United States in driving the Taliban out of Herat by instigating an anti-Taliban insurrection.

This could have been used to George W. Bush’s advantage. Iran was not yet a regional power. The hardline Ahmadinejad had not yet been elected. The nuclear weapons program was not yet built. There were no Iranian militias operating in Syria, Iraq, or Yemen. Bush could have used this to his advantage and diffused the Iranian threat before it even began. Instead, Bush Jr. declared Iran part of the “Axis of Evil” and emboldened Iran and the hardliners by invading Iraq. As a result, today Iran has a nuclear weapons program and a foothold across the entirety of the Middle East.

According to a recent survey by Centre for Policy Studies U.K., just over half of adults (under 30) have cut off individuals because of their political opinion. Cancel culture has become contentious today especially given the increasing disparity and tension between the left and the right sides of the political spectrum. Cancel culture is the only subject that appears on the news that can “cancel” the news that publishes about it as ridiculous as it sounds. However, cancel culture is not in the slightest sense new (even though it has become more pronounced); it has been embedded in the structure of society long before the crusades.

Since the formation of the smallest fragment of civilization, there has been a desire to “cancel” people and ideas considered dangerous. Kingdoms and tribes have since established laws for dealing with unwanted behaviour and beliefs. Whenever an action resulted in a severely negative connotation on the community’s stability, it often resulted in exile (or death). While death is not a common punishment today, some similarities can be drawn between reasons for cancelling individuals (or ideas) before the advent of the internet and in the modern period. The most common similarity would be the need to self-preserve by the actors cancelling (whether that is their authority or morals). Jean Jacques Rousseau (philosopher) was exiled for sharing beliefs that were considered detrimental to the social order. The Romans and scribes crucified Jesus of Nazareth primarily because they were convinced his views could impact the state’s stability. These punishments were not just to silence the individual dispensing the “harmful” belief but to prevent the further development of the ideas within society. Similar to the cancel culture today, the aim is hardly ever to enlighten or educate but to silence and truncate the influence of the holder of such views. Exile (in worse cases, death) was essentially a form of cancel culture that happened through the established authority’s approval.

The exiled individual faced a very similar reality as the cancelled individual does today. The individual was dejected by the community where they had spent a significant portion of their life developing their identity (which is linked to their profession in the community). In some ancient communities, except being a prominent figure like Achilles or Hercules, your “resume” and craftmanship were not as helpful in integrating you into new places as they are today. The folktales detailing human interactions with creatures such as vampires, warlocks, and mermaids provided a reason for skepticism towards an unfamiliar individual’s identity. Surviving in solitude would also pose a difficult task to most individuals as they needed protection from bears, wolves, snakes, and other wild creatures—a community was essential.

Today (thankfully), individuals do not necessarily have to face off bears and lions. Neither would they be suspected of being a warlock or witch (at least in some parts of the world). However, they still face the difficulty of finding a few extra friends or a job. Bandwagon cancelling is now typical, whereas it may not have been a thing. People who have never heard (or know anything) about an individual or company unleash a series of social media posts stating why “the accuser” should be cancelled. The social justice warriors have taken it upon themselves to rid society of all “ills”, excluding those present within their social group. The internet has facilitated this by providing finger-tip access to information for more people than ever was before. This acts as a double-edged sword as the information may work to the advantage or disadvantage of the individual. This was the case with a woman named Juli Briskman, who displayed a middle finger to the former U.S. President, Donald Trump, during a motorcade and ended up fired from her job. She was technically “cancelled”, as the company did not want to be associated with an individual whom they assumed would attract negative coverage due to her remarks to the then-president. Surprisingly, she would later go on to run for a local government seat in Virginia and win! However, the story is not always a happy ending, and careers tend to be significantly impacted by cancel culture.

Cancel culture then transcended beyond the pre-industrialized level to a more organized nature, with the establishment of the global market and more complex economic relationships. As governments enlarged, increasing in their territory and becoming more specialized, so did their arsenals—of which cancel culture was a part. One prominent form of this happens through sanctions and trade embargo (yes, you heard that right!). Sanctions may essentially be cancelling happening at a governmental scale. I identify cancel culture’s aims to be:

Draw attention to a supposed “ill” belief or action.
Show that there is a popular agreement about the “dangers” of the cancelled action.
Punish the individual for attempting to arouse “harm” and to deter further instigators from engaging in the cancelled act.

When countries impose trade embargoes on other countries hoping to negate what they interpret as harmful behaviours, their goals are identical to the outlined aims. These two may not be as different after all.

Therefore, “cancelling” may not necessarily be ill-intended, especially when used as an economic sanction intended to influence authoritarian government. If sanctioning a country could impel the leaders to be more cautious in their governance, it may be moderately beneficial. However, this is not always the case as it does not eradicate the negative impacts it has by devaluing the country’s currency, crippling the economy (thereby increasing poverty and crime) and eventually hurting the people it intended to be helped; if helping was ever the case in “cancelling”. It seems like a grey area, similar to a firearm; the most crucial factor is the wielder. Cancel culture can negatively impact the image and financial stability of a group or company. Hence, cancel culture also has an economic component to it.

An interesting similarity between cancel culture and the free market can be drawn. While economic factors may not trigger a reason to cancel, an individual’s behaviour when cancelling may be likened to the forces of demand and supply in the market—the invisible hand. Here is how: Individuals involved in the free market are expected to be motivated by self-interest, which would eventually allow the producers of the most demanded goods to be rewarded by the consumers who can pay for the goods they produced at a reasonable price. Milton Friedman talks about this referring to the interaction between the metal and bicycle market where the market is at full efficiency when people are allowed to purchase metals for their bicycle construction without limitations from the government. Even so, a cancelled individual (especially when it is a celebrity) is a producer of services, while the individuals involved in cancelling are acting in liberty as the consumers. These customers could constitute only a fragment of the consumer base or the majority.

Therefore, the consumers’ refusal to purchase goods from a producer results from an overlap between their political stance and their economic position as market consumers. Despite how outrageous these could become, the consumers should always have the choice to choose what to consume. An example of this was when Nike unveiled Colin Kaepernick in what became a very controversial Nike ad. A fragment of the Nike consumer base protested by burning their Nike apparel and using the hashtag #BoycottNike, to express their disapproval of the popular NFL quarterback (who was famous for taking a knee during the U.S. national anthem as a protest). Similar to Juli Briskman’s case, the tables soon turned, and Nike stocks rose rapidly.

Although these two previous examples seem to have ended up like a “happy ever after” for the initially cancelled group, this is not always the case. The protesters against Nike had every right to voice their disapproval with Nike’s deal as consumers. The leadership in the company Juli Briskman formerly worked for also saw it in their best interest to disassociate themselves from an individual whose actions (they thought) could hurt the company’s image. Even educational institutions are known to act in such a manner towards controversial individuals. The liberty to decide not to associate with an individual or consume from a particular company due to political preference reflects the interplay between cancel culture and the market.

States must first protect themselves before functioning as a state. Hence, treason or propagating ideas capable of inciting revolt against the ruling authority is a key concern for the state. Similarly, individuals and social justice warriors would attempt to cancel an individual (or company) when they sense that their actions contradict the moral principles advocated by the social group or held personally by the individual. While these are social issues, they become merged with economics at the political level through sanctions and with finances at the business level. Thus, cancel culture may transcend the commonly held view of mere tensions in moral differences.

No, Belarus will not cut out Europe’s access to gas this winter. In the midst of growing tensions between Belarus, Poland and the European Union (EU) regarding the migrant crisis at the Belarus-Poland border, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko threatened to cut Europe’s access to gas last week if the EU were to impose new sanctions against Belarus. This threat, while seemingly impressive given the key pipeline under threat, has not much chances of being realized, for several reasons.

Heated debates over the fence

Let us first return to the migration crisis that stirs Eastern Europe since a few weeks. On November 8, several migrants present at the Belarus-Poland border attempted to break through fences along the border and to penetrate the EU via Poland. This led Polish authorities to accuse Belarus of staging attacks against Poland, helped by Russian President Vladimir Putin to destabilize the EU as a whole. Following months of migrants attempting to cross the Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian borders from Belarus, the 8 November events added fuel to fire and prompted Poland and Lithuania to declare a state of emergency at their border with Belarus.

In an answer to the Polish accusations, Lukashenko denied playing a role in the crisis and in turn accused the EU of human rights violations caused by the Polish and Lithuanian refusals to let the migrants cross their borders.

This statement led European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen to call on 9 November for an extended sanctions regime against Belarus for planning a hybrid attack against the EU under the guise of a migratory crisis. In the meantime, Russian spokeswoman Maria Zakharova argued the migratory crisis was not without precedents and demonstrated a whole failure of the EU in answering and living up to its commitment to act following the 2015 migrant crisis. On November 16, Russian Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov added the EU applied a double standard in its management of migration crisis.

Bringing energy back in the picture

Following the threat of renewed European sanctions, Lukashenko announced on November 11 Belarus had the capacity to cut deliveries of gas to Europe via the 4,107 kilometres-long Yamal-Europe pipeline. This pipeline, built in 1994 and operated by Russian company Gazprom, links Russia to Poland via Belarus and delivers gas to European member-states such as Poland and Germany. On the paper, effectively cutting of gas supplies would raise concerns, as European gas market prices are close to achieving a record for high prices and surge in demand for fossil energy. This would bear stark consequences, not only for private households but also for firms and factories highly dependent on fossil fuels such as gas.

Cooling down the tensions?

However, it is extremely unlikely Lukashenko will carry out his threats, and this has something to do with Russia. Undoubtedly, Russia is no stranger to vigorous–if not assertive–energy politics and manipulations. One easily remembers the 2009 gas crisis occasioned by Russia cutting off Ukraine’s gas supplies, ad it would consequently seem logical to consider Russia would not condemn Belarus’ threat.

However, Russia has, against all odds, remained silent on the subject. Neither the Russian authorities nor Gazprom have commented on Lukashenko’s declarations. While this silence has led some commentators to suggest Russia would try to cool down the tensions, it remains that a critical issue  has been left in the dark. As a matter of fact, this is not the first time Lukashenko has made such threats, without following them. This leads to wonder whether he would even have the power and legal authority to cut off supplies transiting through his country. One must indeed remember that the gas supplies are under Gazprom’s supervision, meaning under the supervisions of a public gas company mainly  owned by the Russian government. Thus, the Belarusian authorities disrupting the work of a Russian-sponsored pipeline seems highly unlikely, despite the recent deployment of Russian nuclear-capable bombers over Belarus, in a show of support. Indeed, the gas belongs to Russia, and the Lukashenko government is financially supported by the Kremlin.

Besides, shutting the transit off would prove catastrophic for Belarus, as its national economy largely depends on gas transit and delivery to European member-states.

Therefore, Belarus will (certainly) not cut our Europe’s access to gas this winter. It could still decide to leverage gas supplies to Europe  by following Russia’s directives. But it would be a question of international politics, and new sanctions would then fall on Belarus. And in the midst of this heated debate over gas and fuel, it seems to be forgotten that countless migrants are freezing to death at the border.

One of the many Social Contract theories employed to explain the concept of the civil society imbued with laws and acceptable behavioral codes is the ‘State of Nature’ which denotes the hypothetical existence of mankind before the invention of societies as we know it today. In this state of nature, everyone was free to do what they liked without consequences – everyone was equal and this meant no one had any superior powers to enforce law and order.

As expected, this uncontrolled system was bound to breed chaos and anarchy. It was survival of the fittest in its rawest form and the weak lived in a state of constant fear with no protective mechanism. Life according to Thomas Hobbes was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. This scenario led to the emergence of the Leviathan- a petrifying creature to whom all citizens surrendered their rights in return for protection and safety from the chaotic State of Nature. Our Leviathan today is the Government.

Now, since the citizens have forgone some of their rights and undertaken responsibilities to allow for a functional civil society, it is only expected that the Leviathan holds up its own end of the bargain. Inversely, in cases where the state fails to deliver its responsibilities, it is expected that the citizens gradually commence reversal to certain semblances of the State of Nature. This perhaps is the representation of Nigerian state as it is today.

With an estimated population of over 200.96 million, Nigeria today is saddled with a myriad of multidimensional crises. From the Boko Haram insurgency, to the herdsmen/farmer crises, the looming banditry and kidnapping industry, the yahoo-yahoo departments, the inter-religious/ethnic bigotry and many many more others. All of these realities point to one obvious truth- the citizens are back to assuming control, albeit a destructive kind. Why? Because the Leviathan is failing.

Contracts only make sense when all parties uphold its sanctions. The Nigerian state is gradually losing its grip on the state of affairs and with a persistently growing population and scarcity of resources, these issues are bound to occur. However, our case is still different.

While other countries who share similar challenges have confronted it with good and apt governance, justice and fairness, our system is still one that favors a few to the detriment of many. The resources of the many continue to be diverted by the few. Admissions to schools are still manipulated to favor the few, available jobs are handed over to the few and the many (who continue to grow in number by the way) are no longer chanting “Haka Allah ya so” (it is the will of God). Now, #theytoo are taking up arms and challenging the system.

The average Nigerian kidnapper, bandit or Boko Haram terrorist (since a good number of foreigners also support these industries) have never felt the impact of Government. They farm their food, source their own drinking water, treat their diseases and bury their dead- all alone. They have not seen tarred roads in their remote villages, or functional schools where civil values and life skills are taught – they are self-taught, largely by hardships. These brand of citizens are not even aware that they should owe the government any allegiance. They merely survive in a difficult world and expectedly will do anything to survive. After all, only the fittest survive.

The implication of these chain of realities as stated earlier is the not-so gradual reversal of any civil society to the chaotic State of Nature. The Nigerian government cannot continue to be docile. It is no longer enough to stabilize the economy when resource sharing is not equitable. The entire system of governance that accepts mediocrity and allows a repeat of the same failing techniques and incompetent people must be turned inside out and replaced with better mechanisms and capable people. Then, only then can we avert the rapid sprint towards a state of life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

By Habiba Sani Suleiman, Abuja – Nigeria

Habiba is passionate about politics, sustainable development and gender mainstreaming across African societies. She holds a bachelor’s in International Studies, a masters in Conflict Peace & Strategic Studies and and MSc in Policy and Development Studies. 

Idriss Zackaria is the Director of Young Diplomats Africa, the part of Young Diplomats project. Young Diplomats is the first non- governmental diplomatic association with a mission of shaping, sharpening and inspiring a new generation of enlightened international leaders. Idriss Zackaria is one of them. As Young Diplomats’ Africa Regional Director, he sees himself as a bridge and trust builder. We talked with him about his start at Young Diplomats, leadership, challenges, international relations and other topics… 

 

Idriss Zackaria

 

YD: How was your start at Young Diplomats? How did you contribute to the evolution and the success of the association?

 

We simply start our project by writing and publishing articles on our website… then my colleague David Allouche thought that I was the right person to represent YD in Africa and take care of our activities in the continent. Since then; we started to define and set up our team globally. —We really needed to think about what skills we need to deliver our project successfully. Building the team has taken from us 3 years to set things on the ground; because we always tried to avoid over-complicating things. We knew that when we get started on the project initiation phase, things can feel a bit vague and team members can get confused about what the project actually is. Hence, we always try to make sure our team in Africa knows what they are delivering and are invested in it. We always involve the team in the setting of the brief, definition of deliverables and approach to any phases.

 

Young Diplomats has clear different phases from its inception, for example a discovery phase separate from the development, and we treat each phase like a mini-project rather than doing a bigger upfront piece. This strategy has provided key starting points for each phase, rather than trying to make a lot of assumptions at the beginning.

 

 

About Committee…

 

We lately have appointed a committee to examine and shape our operations around the world. The Committee is a part of the organization that makes operational decisions and guidelines. Members of the Committee are in charge of elaborating and following up the guidelines of our organization. They accompany the different directors of Young Diplomats and manage the website as well as the global and cross-border projects. The appointment and removing of regional and country directors is done by this committee.  Team members of the committee are David Allouche, Noam Hakoune and me.

 

 

YD: How do you see YD Africa under your leadership?

 

Currently, our project in Africa has involved a number of young leaders in dozens of African countries, and we are seeking to connect our disparate projects across the continent and reach more young leaders.

Africa’s youth are taking the stage to make their voices heard about the continent. Therefore, I have a global mandate to advocate for the implementation of the African Youth Charter, the Demographic Dividend Roadmap and Agenda 2063. As Young Diplomats’ Africa Regional Director; I see my role as a bridge builder, building trust by closing the information gap between the international youth and the African youth, which can be achieved with a strong and bold communication strategy via our diversified activities. I’m here to support all the young Initiative on Foreign Affairs and International Relations (IFAIR). We can achieve these through partnership, support, participation and coordination with young people themselves. This is a “working together flash”.

 

YD: How would you describe yourself as a leader?

I actually don’t see myself as a leader – perhaps I am a Pioneer. Even though I tend to be the groundbreaker in most situations, though I can think of plenty of times when it was better for my organization for me to follow along; in order for me to drive execution and get results not only from the team but from the numbers as well. I am definitely a motivator and encourage my team to grow.

 

YD: What was the greatest challenge you faced at YD Africa?

 

Firstly, one of the most common challenges that any project manager has to face usually regard corporate, internal issues. However, it’s not the same story for us in Young Diplomats. Some local authorities in some developing countries were either unable or unwilling to allow our friends to carry our operations there – and that was my biggest challenge, because I had no idea why they were doing so. However, things have changed lately; as we we’ve been able to build greater trust with a few of these local authorities. Hence, I believe local and regional authorities can play a role in enabling young people to have their voice heard in decision-making processes by contributing to the elimination of sources of disillusionment and offering young people possibilities for real participation.

 

Secondly, the larger our network becomes, the more challenging it is to pull in the right information. With multiple offices spending money in more than sixty countries in various ways, you may find that the numbers in your local budget don’t reflect how money will actually be spent. There are plenty of platforms and programs that we have designed for Africa, but finding the right one in a sea of choices can be tough with such financial crisis. For this reason, we have developed our budgeting strategy for 2020 and our recommended budget methodologies and best practice solutions for the next 5 years to come.

 

YD: Where would you like to continue your career?

 

I have always set my priorities in life. Today I can say that those priorities have helped me achieve various things. Those decisions have rewarded me with the opportunity to sit here in a reputed youth organization. It is almost certain that I have set up priorities for the upcoming years. I look forward to working with a promising attitude. I want to attain new heights in my career whilst taking forward the goal of this organization. To sum it up, I’d love a position where I can use my skills to make an impact that I can see with my own eyes in Africa and around the globe. Of course, the position is only part of the equation. I’m definitely looking for a position where I can grow—professional development is something that’s really important to me since I hope to take on managerial responsibilities in global organizations that have been contributing to global peace such as the African Union and UN. I’m always very motivated by being able to see the impact of my work on other people.

 

YD: What do you think are the greatest challenges young diplomats face today?

 

Young diplomats are currently experiencing fundamental changes at an unprecedented rate, which affect the very character of diplomacy as we know it. These changes also affect aspects of domestic and international politics that were once of no great concern to diplomacy. I think we will strive to provide a varied range of perspectives and opinions that face some of the major challenges facing the international community. The public is more sen­sitive to foreign policy issues and seeks to influence diplomacy through social media and other platforms. With the rise of nationalist sentiment in politics around the developed world; Ministries of Foreign Affairs, diplomats and governments in general should therefore be proactive in dialogue and global forums.

 

YD: How would you describe the present situation in international relations?

 

With the new implications for national priorities, regional arrangements, and the emerging global order – in the context of such transitions; the world is going to become more chaotic if young leaders don’t act now.

 

 

 

Ivana Tucak

Some Gazans fear that Turkey’s generosity may come at high price

Since Israel imposed its blockade on the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ victory in the 2006 legislative elections, besieged Gazans have received remarkable regional and international support, including health and infrastructure projects, the rebuilding of destroyed houses and the construction of schools.

Turkey’s presence in this regard owes perhaps to good ties with Hamas, although Turkey has also funded projects in the Fatah-controlled West Bank, most notably the Jenin industrial estate in the north that created 15,000 jobs.

Some observers are impressed with Turkey’s generosity, but is it too good to be true? Some suspect more than altruistic motivations that may have to do with Turkey’s interest in establishing itself as a key political player in the West Bank’s future.

In one of the most recent projects, Palestinian officials announced March 23 they signed a contract with Turkey to build 320 housing units for the victims of the Israeli war on Gaza in the summer of 2014. Palestinian Minister of Public Works and Housing Mofeed al-Hasayneh has estimated that the war resulted in the destruction of 12,000 housing units and damage to 160,000, of which 6,600 were left uninhabitable.

Mohammed Murtaza, coordinator of the Gaza office of the Turkish International Cooperation and Coordination Agency, told Al-Monitor the new housing project will cost $13.5 million. The 5.4-acre project consists of 20 four-story residential buildings divided into a total of 320 housing units of roughly 1,000 square feet each. The site is in the Wadi Gaza region, about a mile from the eastern border with Israel.

He added, “Given the security threat in this area, we informed Israel of our project coordinates so as to avoid any destruction in any potential military confrontations. This project and other Turkish projects are a sign of Turkey’s popular and official sympathy with the Palestinians in Gaza and represent an attempt to lift the siege that was imposed on them 10 years ago.”

Since 2006, Turkey has seen dozens of economic, developmental and humanitarian projects in Gaza through, including the provision of temporary shelters for those whose homes were destroyed in Israel’s wars in 2008, 2012 and 2014. In addition to the extensive residential destruction from those wars, dozens of mosques, cemeteries, schools, universities, media offices and other buildings were also damaged. Turkey paid to repair electrical networks, and water and sanitation facilities, and rebuilt houses of worship, cultural centers, heritage sites, roads and bridges. It also helped compensate farmers for their losses.

Turkey has delivered tons of medical aid and treated wounded Palestinians in Gaza. It has granted Gaza’s university students scholarship opportunities and organized mass weddings for thousands of low-income young people. Turkey’s projects in Gaza are implemented through Turkish relief organizations including the Turkish Yardim Eli(Helping Hand) Foundation, the Turkish Red Crescent Society and the IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation.

“Turkish projects in Gaza are of great value to the Palestinian economy in light of the siege and closure suffocating the Palestinians,” Mouin Rajab, an economics professor at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, told Al-Monitor. “These projects have served large Palestinian sectors, especially the contracting sector. They have provided numerous job opportunities that increased the GDP and reduced the unemployment rate, which peaked in May at 43%.”

He noted, however, “In addition to the economic profits it reaps from its projects in Gaza, Turkey seems to be seeking a weighty political role and influence in the Palestinian political course.”

Al-Monitor spoke to a Palestinian official following the Turkish projects who declined to be named. He said, “It is difficult to determine the precise number of jobs provided by the Turkish projects, but these projects have been operating in Gaza for almost 10 years, and I believe that they have provided no less than 15,000 jobs.”

Al-Monitor toured a few the Turkish projects in Gaza, including the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital in central Gaza Strip. Islamic University of Gaza managed the construction of the $35 million hospital, which began in 2011 on an eight-acre site. The hospital provides health services in all medical fields and is equipped with modern operating rooms and radiography equipment.

Khalil Shaheen, research director at the Palestinian Center for Policy Research and Strategic Studies, told Al-Monitor, “Turkey is aware that Gaza, despite its small geographical area estimated at 360 square kilometers [139 square miles], has an important role in the politics of the region. Turkey seeks through its projects in Gaza to increase its political influence in the Palestinian arena. Although it does not offer Hamas any cash, Turkey seeks through its economic projects to reason with Hamas and tame its political positions.”

He added, “The growing economic projects in Gaza could force Hamas to weigh its gains and losses when considering any future military confrontation with Israel, since it will fear the destruction of the Turkish projects. Hamas now has something to lose.”

On Feb. 3, a large Turkish economic delegation that included a number of senior Turkish business leaders visited Gaza and met with Ismail Haniyeh, the deputy head of Hamas’ political bureau. The delegation confirmed Turkey’s willingness to establish an industrial zone in Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, which is projected to create 10,000 jobs for Palestinians.

Hassan Asfour, the former Palestinian minister of nongovernmental organizations affairs, called on the Palestinian presidency Feb. 29 to rise against the political role played by Turkey in Gaza. He said Turkey’s actions will destroy Palestinian legitimacy, create a state of national geographical separation between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and press for the establishment of Gaza as a state.

Asfour’s call coincides with reconciliation talks between Israel and Turkey. Ties between them were cut six years ago, when the Israeli military attacked the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara off the Gaza coast. In December 2015, the news leaked that Turkey is seeking a foothold in Gaza as one of its conditions for reconciliation with Israel.

Ghazi Hamad, Gaza’s deputy foreign minister and a Hamas leader, told Al-Monitor, “Turkey has been implementing projects in Gaza for nearly 10 years in the various health, infrastructure, education and housing fields. The Turks are generous with the Palestinians in Gaza and they opened permanent offices for their charity organizations in the Gaza Strip.”

He added, “The political positions of Turkey, in parallel with its economic support, exceed by far some Arab positions. However, despite their economic projects in Gaza, the Turks did not ask Hamas to take any particular political positions. Their assistance was purely humanitarian.”

Some say that many donors, including Turkey, are not charities. Political interests may motivate Turkey’s financial and humanitarian aid, no matter how hard both sides try to deny it. Increasing Turkish projects in Gaza would allow Turkey to become a key player in the Palestinian issue, as is evident in its stances and moves regarding Israel’s blockade.

However, Egypt, Gaza’s closest neighbor, refuses to grant Turkey a foothold in the Gaza Strip. Egypt considers Gaza an internal national issue and the country’s relations with Turkey are already strained, as Turkey is harboring Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Cairo fears that additional Turkish influence in Gaza would represent a threat to Egypt’s eastern border with the Strip.

The Information Age is the era in human history that began with the development of  technology, especially media. Before this era, the main means of communication was the newspaper and all the communication was one-sided. The writers wrote, the publishers published and the salesmen sold the “communication” messages printed on paper. A similar case was with radio and TV.

In addition to being informational, they also had social meaning. People gathered in small groups, usually friends and families, and listened to/ watched informational/ educational/ entertainment TV/ radio transmissions. They could discuss these transmissions with their friends or at work, but not at the same moment. Also, they needed to be physically present in the group to discuss the latest news or TV show. There was no anonymity. The other speakers knew exactly who was talking and about what. The first traces of anonymous communication we can see in direct radio and TV transmissions that also allowed talking with audiences directly on the air.

But, the things seriously changed with the development of internet communication. The first forums and chats allowed nicknames that gave people liberty to talk more freely than in person. From the political and security perspectives, this kind of communication also allowed diverse forms of hate speech, especially on national and religious, but also on other basis. During the early days of social networks, this was a common situation, too. For example, every user could create one or more fake profiles and spread fake information and diverse forms of hate.
Today, things are very complex. There is no one-sided communication. Everything became interactive. The situation is that people more and more spread information. They don’t buy it like fifty or hundred years ago when newspapers ruled the market. Information is spreading much faster than before and the differences between true and fake are, unfortunately, blurred.

One of the factors that needs to be taken into consideration is also the contemporary world. Very often, people are in hurry. Especially young people. Many of them don’t click on the social media links. They just read the headlines and if they like them, they share them. The emphasis here is on LIKE. Therefore, if an article evokes sentiment, it reaches the target reader who will share it.

One of the interesting trends in the last few years, when it comes to interactive communication, is also privacy. The Messenger App allows users to create private groups and send communication to selected users. All this creates a need for better regulation. There is so much information, and such little quality information. Some countries, and also supranational institutions like the EU have certain programs to change the direction of the evolution of the Information Age in a better direction. Fake news and disinformation awareness  programs are one of these examples.

Looking at the whole situation, it is obvious there is a need for better education regarding the danger of interactive communication. People should be aware of what they are liking, commenting and sharing. They need to be aware of the responsibility they have as social media/communication app users. The sharing of widespread information, for example, about Covid19, can cause panic and instability. If it is widespread, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

So, does this new era of the Information Age bring threats? Not really. More like challenges. And only with everyone’s efforts can they be overcome.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is seen as the most important measurement of a country’s overall success. However, my argument today is that it is time for that to change. What we choose to measure as a country matters. It really matters; because it drives political focus and it drives public activity. The limitations of GDP as a measure of a country’s success are all too obvious. GDP measures the output of a country’s work, but it says nothing about the nature of that work – about whether that work is worthwhile or fulfilling. It values activity in the short term that boosts the economy even if that activity is detrimental to the sustainability of our planet in the longer term. When we look ahead to the challenges of climate change, then I think the case for a much broader definition of what it means to be successful as a country is needed. That is why country’s need to establish a new pathway for political policy. Redirecting attention from how wealthy a population is – to how happy and healthy a population is – the wellbeing of the country.

Yes, economic growth matters. It is important. But it is not all that is important. The objective of political policy should be a collective wellbeing… What really matter to us in our lives? What do we value in the communities we live in? What kind of country and society do we really want to be?

And when we engage the population in those questions, I believe that countries across the globe will have a much better chance of addressing the inequalities that exist in their country today. Indicators such as: income inequality, the happiness of people, access to green spaces, access to housing… None of these are captured in GDP statistics, but are all fundamental in a happy and healthy society.

This broader approach that I’m proposing is at the heart of an economic strategy where we give equal importance to tackling inequality as we do to economic competitiveness. I’m not saying that we should abolish GDP measurements completely. I’m saying that we should accompany GDP with other measures, such as the Human Development Index: which also accounts for literacy rates and life expectancy; to better capture the entire picture of Australia. This approach will drive society’s commitment to fair work, as it ensures that work is fulfilling and worthwhile.

In order for countries to accurately address the inequalities present within society, we need to know exactly what issues to identify – and right now, GDP does not provide an accurate measure. Our focus needs to be measure in terms of wellbeing.

By Lucy Lönnqvist

Banks must partner with fintech to accelerate the digital banking transformation

In a webinar discussion hosted by TagPay and moderated by Omar Ben Yedder from African Banker; Yves Eonnet (TagPay), Djiba Diallo (Ecobank Group), Obinna Ukwuani (Bank of Kigali) and Carl Manlan (VISA), discussed how the digitalisation of banks is a huge opportunity across Africa and partnerships with fintech would address the challenges of financial inclusion and the rapid scaling up that is needed across the continent.

Banks have to be equipped with the tools that enable them to pre-empt the market and respond quickly to customer demands in asecure and cost-effective way. For the banks to stay relevant Djiba Diallo, Senior Fintech Advisor, Ecobank Group said that it is important to understand fintechs and leverage the opportunities. Banks are still there and still needed but need to adapt to what is happening on the continent and partnering with fintech companies is key to doing that.

Many banks are partnering with Fintech companies to help them digitalise, enabling them to expand their services and reach more customers at the same time.

Obinna Ukwuani, Chief Digital Officer, Bank of Kigali said, “We see digital transformation as a necessity, so the bank has invested in transitioning the bank into this new era”. “All companies are becoming technologies companies, whether a bank or not”.

Cash currently leads the way in the majority of Africa, but to increase financial inclusion, which is increasing already through financial technology, digital banking will need to have continued growth. Financial inclusion also enables banks to feed new businesses and entrepreneurs, and hence builds the economy at the same time. Using the technology of mobile telephones, digital banking will have a significant role to play now and in the future.

Carl Manlan, Vice President, Head of Social Impact, CEMEA, VISA said, “Because we are cash dependent the opportunity to introduce digital payments to help promote financial inclusion is critical and to that we need to ensure that there is adequate financial literacy and skills building along the way to make it work for more people.”

Partnership between banks and fintech’s will not only help reach more customers but also build financial literacy amongst consumers. In addition, the industry will need to develop the talent and skills, and this can be done across Africa ensuring the industry continues to grow.

Banks no longer see Fintech’s as disruptors but partners. More often, as a key part of their business with a shared responsibility for delivering to customers

Banks are going into a new world and need new platforms, new technology and a new architecture, the old core banking system is being surpassed and a new core banking system is needed. FinTech’s will help banks provide a better service to customers, working together and within the same regulatory framework. Digital banking helps with financial inclusion and formalising the economy and banks, globally, need to react to the digital revolution and customer demand.

Yves Eonnet, Chairman of TagPay, summed up the event by saying, “The time we are entering is very exciting for us [FinTech’s] and for you [banks].” “The expertise that we have opens up banks to new ventures and new capabilities, especially due to the low cost and speed of deployment.”

“Systems are designed to target new customers, financial inclusion, or new sectors that are poorly served. This is exciting in Africa because this for me, is the beginning of a new era for banks,and all banks in the world are looking at what is happening in Africa. Because in Africa you have this situation, which is unique,with the financial inclusion issue where banks need to attract new customers, therefore you have customers to serve, have the technology to do it, have the dynamism of the culture that makes it possible and that is where we are to build the bank of the future. I often say the Silicon Valley of banking is not in California but in Africa, it is where it is happening.”

Ends//

To listen to the webinar in full: https://bit.ly/3xb0Pu6