On behalf of the Youth of Ghana, Africa and the World, I present this Youth Pledge in Honor of Busumuru Kofi Annan. I call this A Global Platform to Remember a Global Citizen.
On 16th August, 2002, sixteen years ago, I remember seeing #KofiAnnan for the first time, when I accompanied my mother to the Manhyia Palace in Kumasi at a special occasion organized by the Asante Kingdom, to confer the highest title of “BUSUMURU’’ (or the son of the Golden Stool) on him. Since the Asante Kingdom was founded in 1680, this was a historic moment, a title reserved for and used by the Asantehene was given to another person and to a Fante.
In his acceptance speech, Busumuru Kofi Annan said “I share this honor with all good people of this world through whose contributions we are able to get somewhere’’.
After the ceremony, I visited Asem Boys M/A School in Fante-Newtown a suburb of Kumasi, where Busumuru completed his elementary school and I felt his charming soul to share such honor with everyone including young-people. Busumuru made me proud as an African and a Ghanaian youth.
In 2013 at Skoll World Forum, #Busumuru-Kofi Annan made an important youth pledge and I would like to quote and remind us of his commitment to the youth of this 21st Century:
‘’ I (Busumuru-Kofi Annan) began the ‘Kofi Annan Dialogues’, a series of online conversations with young people: they(youth) show just how much young people have to offer if they’re given the opportunity to step up and take on leadership roles’’ by Kofi Annan
This reminds us to connect with the youth using appropriate digital platforms both online and offline for greater good and providing space for the youth in communities to lead and contribute.
‘’ Just Imagine what solutions might be found if young-people are given the space and encouragement to participate and lead’’ by Kofi Annan
A young mind is full of creativity and when young people are provided with tailored training and mentorship that are required to participate fully in this digital economy,our communities and countries benefit from their solutions. For example, I’m happy to see a student-led initiative on plastic recycling being implemented in all halls of residence of the University of Ghana under the auspices of the Vice Chancellor’s Green Project. This has received full support of the Vice Chancellor: thank you. The youth need more of such support in our communities to contribute.
‘’ Any society that does not succeed in tapping into the energy and creativity of its youth will be left behind’’ by Kofi Annan
I would to ask: are we engaging the youth? And to what extent are we using their ideas/solutions in our communities for development and in our productive areas?
‘’ When it comes to formulating innovative ideas and galvanizing action it is clear the we(older generations) have much to learn from young people” by Kofi Annan
In this digital economy, we need to provide digital skills training to young-people. For example, on the average Ghanaian mostly young-people spent 3 hours 30 minutes online using his/her phone each day in Ghana. Therefore, provided with 21st century skills, the youth will be able to develop innovative products and services that are relevant to industries and to the social sector.
‘’Globally, young people are almost three times more likely to be unemployed than adult population’’ by Kofi Annan
The changing nature of work, presents us with opportunities to prepare young people with skills that are transferable across jobs and enterprises. Providing digital skills training to the youth will significantly reduce youth unemployment, improved productivity, value-addition and creates sustainable jobs and enterprises.
It’s worth noting that Busumuru Kofi Annan started working for the World Health Organization in Geneva in 1962 of the United Nations at the age of 23 years. Indeed, Busumuru Kofi Annan was a global citizen, he provided opportunities and empowered young-people who are achieving their goals and making our communities great.
‘’Young-people are not apathetic or disengaged; they(youth) are simply savvy enough to know that we(older generation) are not listening to them” by Kofi Annan
Busumuru Kofi Annan encourages us to pay attention to young-people and listen to them, if we want to strive and thrive in this technology, innovation and entrepreneurial-led society.
On this note, When I asked my fellow -young-people on Twitter and followed their tweets on Busumuru, it shows : ‘’Everywhere he went and Everyone who met or listen to @KofiAnnan, has a common thing to say: Busumuro #KofiAnnan had a human feeling & kindness to empower people. His legacy lives on, with such infectious #impact in the lives of #young and old.
Let’s Make a Youth Pledge to Support Young-people, as Busumuro Kofi Annan led by Example
#BusumuruKofiAnnan still inspires me and this empowers me(Akwasi Sarpong) not to expire. THANK YOU
From trying to stop plain packaging on cigarettes to pushing through HS2 and opening the countryside to fracking, big business employs lobbying companies to persuade government to meet their interests. But what are the tricks of their trade?
What does a tax-avoiding, polluting, privatising corporation have to do to get its way with the British government? “We all know how it works,” said David Cameron of lobbying. But do we? Lobbyists are the paid persuaders whose job it is to influence the decisions of government. Typically, they operate behind closed doors, through quiet negotiation with politicians. And the influence they enjoy is constructed very consciously, using a whole array of tactics.
Lobbyists operate in the shadows – deliberately. As one lobbyist notes: “The influence of lobbyists increases when it goes largely unnoticed by the public.” But if the reasons why companies lobby are often obscured, it is always a tactical investment. Whether facing down a threat to profits from a corporate tax hike, or pushing for market opportunities – such as government privatisations – lobbying has become another way of making money.
Here are the 10 key steps that lobbying businesses will follow to bend government to their will.
1. Control the ground
Lobbyists succeed by owning the terms of debate, steering conversations away from those they can’t win and on to those they can. If a public discussion on a company’s environmental impact is unwelcome, lobbyists will push instead to have a debate with politicians and the media on the hypothetical economic benefits of their ambitions. Once this narrowly framed conversation becomes dominant, dissenting voices will appear marginal and irrelevant.
Everybody’s doing it, including lobbyists for fracking and nuclear power, public sector reform and bank regulation. It doesn’t matter if the new frame relies on fabrication. The referendum on an alternative voting system was not, as anticipated, so much a conversation about the merits of first past the post. No2AV was “very quick off the mark” to make it about cost to the public purse, explains Dylan Sharpe, of the No camp’s TaxPayers’ Alliance. They led with the claim that switching to AV would deny troops badly needed equipment and sick babies incubators. The Yes camp lost the vote two to one.
2. Spin the media
The trick is in knowing when to use the press and when to avoid it. The more noise there is, the less control lobbyists have. As a way of talking to government, though, the media is crucial. Messages are carefully crafted. Even if the corporate goal is pure, self-interested profit-making, it will be dressed up to appear synonymous with the wider, national interest. At the moment, that means economic growth and jobs.
Get the messaging wrong and you get fiascos such as High Speed 2 (HS2). In early 2011, lobbyist James Bethell of Westbourne Communications was parachuted in to rescue the £43bn project, which had initially been sold by ministers on the marginal benefits to a few commuters. Westbourne reframed the debate to make it about jobs and economic growth. The new messaging focused on a narrative that pitted wealthy people in the Chilterns worried about their hunting rights against the economic benefits to the north. The strategy was “posh people standing in the way of working-class people getting jobs,” said Bethell. “Their lawns or our jobs,” shouted the ad campaign.
Private healthcare also regrouped after the wrong messages went public. As Andrew Lansley embarked on his radical reforms of the NHS, private hospitals and outsourcing firms were talking to investors about the “clear opportunities” to profit from the changes. After comments by Mark Britnell, the head of health at accountancy giants KPMG giants and a former adviser of David Cameron, hit the headlines in May 2011 – Britnell told an investors’ conference that “the NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years” – the industry got a grip. Lobby group The NHS Partners Network moved quickly to get everyone back on-message and singing from “common hymn sheets”, as its chief lobbyist David Worskett explained. The reforms were about the survival of the NHS in straitened times. Just nobody mention the bumper profits.
3. Engineer a following
It doesn’t help if a corporation is the only one making the case to government. That looks like special pleading. What is needed is a critical mass of voices singing to its tune. This can be engineered.
The forte of lobbying firm Westbourne is in mobilising voices behind its clients. Thirty economists, for example, signed a letter to the FT in 2011 in support of HS2; 100 businesses endorsed another published in the Daily Telegraph.
Westbourne was also hired in 2011 to lobby against the top rate of tax, although who was behind its “50p tax campaign” remains a mystery. Ahead of the chancellor’s annual Budget announcement in early 2012, letters appeared in the press demanding he scrap it. The FT’s was signed by 20 economists. The Telegraph’s by the bosses of 573 SMEs, described as the “bedrock” of British industry. A quick glance, though, revealed it included five managers from the Switzerland-based banking giant Credit Suisse. The paper’s commentary noted the alarm this new call from “ordinary British business” would cause inside government.
4. Buy in credibility
Corporations are one of the least credible sources of information for the public. What they need, therefore, are authentic, seemingly independent people to carry their message for them.
One nuclear lobbyist admitted it spread messages “via third-party opinion because the public would be suspicious if we started ramming pro-nuclear messages down their throats”. That’s it in a nutshell.
The tobacco companies are pioneers of this technique. Their recent campaign against plain packaging has seen them fund newsagents to push the economic case against the policy and encourage trading standards officers to lobby their MPs. British American Tobacco also currently funds the Common Sense Alliance, which is fronted by two ex-policemen and campaigns against “irrational” regulation. Philip Morris is similarly paying an ex-Met police officer, Will O’Reilly, to front a media campaign linking plain packaging to tobacco smuggling. It is worth noting that a decade ago the tobacco giant coughed up $1.25bn to the European Commission to settle a long-running dispute over its own complicity in the illicit trade.
5. Sponsor a thinktank
“The thinktank route is a very good one,” said ex-minister Patricia Hewitt to undercover reporters seeking lobbying advice. Some thinktanks will provide companies with a lobbying package: a media-friendly report, a Westminster event, ear-time with politicians. “The exact same services that a lobbying agency would provide,” says one lobbyist. “They’re just more expensive.”
In the mid-noughties, a lobbyist for Standard Life Healthcare, now part of PruHealth, worried about how they could get more people to buy private cover without being seen to undermine the NHS. The solution: “Get some of the thinktanks to say it, so it’s not just us calling for reform, it’s outside commentators … it does need others to help us take the debate forward.” The insurers did turn to thinktanks, including free-market advocates Reform. This has lobbied for more “insurance-based private funding” in the health service. Prudential, the insurance giant behind PruHealth, was Reform’s most generous sponsor in 2012, investing £67,500 in the thinktank.
The BBC has also come under repeated recent criticism for inviting commentators from the leading neo-liberal thinktank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), to talk about its opposition to the plain packaging of cigarettes, without disclosing the Institute’s tobacco funding. Although the IEA does not disclose who funds it, BAT concedes it has recently paid the IEA £30,000, with more to come this year. Leaked documents from Philip Morrisalso reveal the thinktank is one of its “media messengers” in its anti- plain-packaging campaign.
The Birmingham and Fazeley viaduct, part of the proposed route for the HS2 high speed rail scheme. Photograph: HS2
6. Consult your critics
Companies faced with a development that has drawn the ire of a local community will often engage lobbyists to run a public consultation exercise. Again, not as benign as it sounds. “Businesses have to be able to predict risk and gain intelligence on potential problems,” says ex-Tesco lobbyist Bernard Hughes. “The army used to call it reconnaissance; we call it consultation.”
For some in the business, community consultation – anything from running focus groups, exhibitions, planning exercises and public meetings – is a means of flushing out opposition and providing a managed channel through which would-be opponents can voice concerns. Opportunities to influence the outcome, whether it is preventing an out-of-town supermarket or protecting local health services, are almost always nil.
Residents in Barne Barton in Plymouth were asked in 2011 what they thought about a 95-metre, PFI-financed incinerator being sited in their neighbourhood, just 62 metres from the nearest house. Although more than 5,000 people objected, the waste company’s planning application was waved through. That’s community consultation.
7. Neutralise the opposition
Lobbyists see their battles with opposition activists as “guerilla warfare”. They want government to listen to their message, but ignore counter arguments coming from campaigners, such as environmentalists, who have long been the bane of commercial lobbyists. So, they need to deal with the “antis”.
Lobbyists have developed a sliding scale of tactics to neutralise such a threat. Monitoring of opposition groups is common: one lobbyist from agency Edelman talks of the need for “360-degree monitoring” of the internet, complete with online “listening posts … so they can pick up the first warning signals” of activist activity. “The person making a lot of noise is probably not the influential one, you’ve got to find the influential one,” he says. Rebuttal campaigns are frequently employed: “exhausting, but crucial,” says Westbourne.
Lobbyists have also long employed divide-and-rule tactics. One Shell strategy proposed to “differentiate interest groups into friends and foes”, building relationships with the former, while making it “more difficult for hardcore campaigners to sustain their campaigns”. Philip Morris’s covert 10-year strategy, codenamed Project Sunrise, intended to “drive a wedge between various anti groups” and “position antis as extremists”.
Then there are the more serious activities used primarily when big-money commercial interests are threatened, such as the infiltration of opposition groups, otherwise known as spying. Household names such as Shell, BAE Systems and Nestlé have all been exposed for spying on their critics. Wikileaks’ Global Intelligence Files revealed that groups such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International and animal rights organisation Peta were all monitored by global intelligence company Stratfor, once described as a “shadow CIA”.
8. Control the web
Today’s world is a digital democracy, say lobbyists. Gone are the old certainties of how decisions were made “by having lunch with an MP, or taking a journalist out,” laments one. It presents a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.
One key way to control information online is to flood the web with positive information, which is not as benign as it sounds. Lobbying agencies create phoney blogs for clients and press releases that no journalist will read – all positive content that fools search engines into pushing the dummy content above the negative, driving the output of critics down Google rankings. Relying on the fact that few of us regularly click beyond the first page of search results, lobbyists make negative content “disappear”.
Another means of restricting access to information is the doctoring of Wikipedia, “a ridiculous organisation,” in veteran lobbyist Tim Bell’s words. Accounts associated with his firm, Bell Pottinger, have been caught scrubbing Wikipedia profiles of arms manufacturers, financial firms, a Russian oligarch and the founder of libel specialists Carter-Ruck. “It’s important for Wikipedia to recognise we are a valuable source for accurate information,” says Bell, a master at killing stories. Other edits by lobbyists range from a computer in the offices of payday lender Wonga deleting references to “usury” from its entry, to a computer registered to the American multinational Dow Chemical repeatedly attempting to remove a large section from the company’s profile detailing “controversies”.
The lobbyists: Tim Bell and James Henderson of Bell Potinger. Photograph: Sarah Lee
9. Open the door
Without doubt, lobbyists need access to politicians. This doesn’t always equate to influence, but deals can only be cooked up once in the kitchen. And access to politicians can be bought. It is not a cash deal, rather an investment is made in the relationship. Lobbyists build trust, offer help and accept favour.
The best way to shortcut the process of relationship-building is to hire politicians’ friends, in the form of ex-employees or colleagues. Bill Morgan is a good example. In recent years, he’s been backwards and forwards twice between Andrew Lansley’s office and health-lobbying specialists MHP. Its clients had “obviously benefited” from Morgan’s inside knowledge of Conservative health policy, MHP wrote. They could “look forward to continuing to be at the heart of the major policy debates”.
Lobbyists are Westminster and Whitehall insiders, among them many former ministers. “You may remember me from my time as Minister of State for Transport,” wrote Stephen Ladyman as he lobbied a potential government client in his new role as a paid adviser to a transport company. “I do indeed and am delighted to hear from you,” replied the official. “We would be interested to hear your proposals.”He had just opened the door.
10. And finally …
There is the perception, at least, that decisions taken in government could be influenced by the reward of future employment. It’s a concern that has been expressed for the best part of a century. Today, however, the number of people moving through the revolving door is off the scale.
The top rung of the Department of Health has in recent years experienced huge traffic towards the private sector. The department that sees more movement than any other, though, is still the Ministry of Defence. Since 1996, officials and military officers have taken up more than 3,500 jobs in arms and defence related companies. Two hundred and thirty-one jobs were secured in 2011/12 alone.
Government is the arms industry’s biggest customer and the MoD’s closeness to its suppliers is widely known. It is also gaining a reputation for its disastrously expensive contracts that deliver poor value for taxpayers and often poor performance for the military. More than one commentator has asked whether the two are connected.
Much closer with us than Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, Halford MacKinder is the new thinker that YoungDiplomats focuses on. He is very important to understand how geopolitics was built.
Who was he ?
Halford Mackinder was a 20th-century geopolitical scholar who is attributed for writing the Heartland Theory. Halford Mackinder was born on February 15th, 1861 in Gainsborough, England and received his education at the Epsom College and later at Christ Church in Oxford, where he received his biology degree in 1883. Mackinder had a liking for Geography and was a proponent of having physical geography and human geography taught as one subject. Mackinder was a founding member of the Geographical Association and served as the association’s chairperson between 1913 and 1946. In 1904, Halford Mackinder presented a paper to the Royal Geographical Society which was titled “The Geographical Pivot of History” and in it he introduced the Heartland Theory and explained it in depth. Mackinder died on March 6th, 1947, aged 86 years. The scholar left a lasting legacy as he introduced geopolitics to the world and is commonly labeled as the “father of geopolitics.”
The world region
In the “Geographical Pivot of History,” Halford Mackinder stated that world’s terrestrial surface was segmented into three basic geographical regions which are the outlying islands, the offshore islands, and the World-island. Halford relied on the interlinking of continents to come up with the dichotomy whereby interlinked continents were classified in a common region. According to Mackinder, the World-Island was made up of Europe, Asia, and Africa. World-Island was the largest of the three regions, accounting for two-thirds of the earth’s terrestrial surface and home to about 87.5% of the world’s population. World-Island was also the richest of the three world regions in resources. The islands of Japan and the British Isles were categorized under the offshore islands. The outlying islands were made up of the Americas as well as Australia. Halford stated that the Heartland was made up of the territory originally occupied by the Russian Empire and by the Soviet Union soon after that (except for the Kamchatka Peninsula).
Significance of Eastern Europe
Eastern Europe is of critical importance in the Heartland Theory. In the “Geographical Pivot of History,” Mackinder stated that
” Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island
Who rules the World Island commands the world ”
While the Heartland has as much as 50% of the resources in the world, the region is largely under-developed, and its residents live in relatively poor conditions. Countries of Eastern Europe enjoy proximity to the Heartland and therefore are in literally the best position to take advantage of its resources. However, the Heartland has been under Russian authority for hundreds of years and so to capture the Heartland, countries needed to prevent the expansion of Russian influence in the Heartland at the very least. Mackinder believed that countries from other world regions (the offshore islands and the outlying islands) were hindered from making a successful invasion in the Heartland by the geographical barriers surrounding the Heartland (the Carpathian Mountains to the west, the Hindukush Ranges to the South, and the Altai to the east and the Baltic Sea to the north). Only countries in Eastern Europe were seen as potential candidates of launching a successful invasion in the Heartland.
In the age of modern warfare, Mackinder’s theory is widely considered outdated. At the time he proposed his theory, he took into consideration world history only in the context of conflict between land and sea powers. Nations with large navies were at an advantage over those that could not successfully navigate the oceans, Mackinder suggested. Of course, in the modern era, the use of aircraft has greatly changed the ability to control territory and provide defensive capabilities. For every thinkers and actors, it is paramount to be aware of theories.
Ukraine’s parliament has backed a presidential plan to impose martial law in part of the country after Russia captured three of its naval vessels and 23 crew members on Sunday.
President Petro Poroshenko said the 30-day order would affect border regions vulnerable to potential Russian attack.
Authorities can ban protests and strikes, and citizens could be called up for military duty.
Russia’s President Putin expressed “serious concern” at the decision.
Russian coastguard ships opened fire on Sunday as three Ukrainian boats sailed off the coast of Crimea, annexed by Russian in 2014. Several Ukrainian sailors were wounded in what Ukraine described as an “act of aggression” by Russia.
Moscow said the ships had illegally entered its waters. Russian TV broadcast statements from some of the captured Ukrainian navy men on Tuesday. One commander was quoted as saying he realised his actions “were provocative” and Russian TV claimed the Ukrainian operation had been carried out by the SBU security service.
The naval clash is the first time Russia and Ukraine have come into open conflict in recent years, although Russian-backed separatists and Russian “volunteers” have been fighting Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine since 2014.
A number of Western countries condemned Russia’s actions and President Poroshenko warned the threat of a Russian land invasion was “extremely serious”.
In New York, the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the crisis – but failed to agree a Russian-proposed agenda amid sharp disagreements between Moscow and the West.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement that the seizure of Ukrainian ships was a “dangerous escalation and a violation of international law”. President Donald Trump said: “We do not like what’s happening, either way we don’t like what’s happening and hopefully they’ll get straight.”
Taking a call from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Vladimir Putin argued that the Ukrainians had “deliberately ignored the rules of peaceful passage in the territorial sea of the Russian Federation”, the Kremlin said.
What happened on Sunday?
This is the chronology of the dramatic events that led to the naval clash:
In the morning, Ukraine said it had sent two gunboats and a tug from the Black Sea port of Odessa to Mariupol in the Sea of Azov
Ukraine’s navy then said Russian boats had tried to intercept its vessels, ramming the tug
Russia accused Ukraine of illegally entering its territorial waters
Russia scrambled fighter jets and helicopters as the Ukrainian vessels approached a bridge over the Kerch Strait – the only access to the Sea of Azov
The bridge itself was blocked by a tanker
In the evening, Ukraine said its vessels had been fired on and seized by the Russians. Six Ukrainian crew members were injured
Russia confirmed it had used weapons to force the Ukrainian vessels to stop, saying three Ukrainians were injured
Russia said the Ukrainian ships were in its waters illegally because Moscow had temporarily closed an area of water for shipping.
Kiev called Russia’s actions a flagrant violation of international law, because the Black Sea is free for shipping, and Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
Ukraine also cited a 2003 Russia-Ukraine treaty on unimpeded access to the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov.
It said it had informed the Russians in advance of its plan to move its ships to Mariupol – a claim denied by Russia.
In recent weeks, two Ukrainian vessels passed through the Kerch Straight without incident.
Russia said the Ukrainian ships were in its waters illegally because Moscow had temporarily closed an area of water for shipping.
Kiev called Russia’s actions a flagrant violation of international law, because the Black Sea is free for shipping, and Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
Ukraine also cited a 2003 Russia-Ukraine treaty on unimpeded access to the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov.
It said it had informed the Russians in advance of its plan to move its ships to Mariupol – a claim denied by Russia.
In recent weeks, two Ukrainian vessels passed through the Kerch Straight without incident.
What will martial law mean?
After heated debate in Ukraine’s parliament, 276 lawmakers backed a decision to impose martial law on 10 of Ukraine’s 27 regions:
Five regions border Russian territory
Two regions border Moldova’s breakaway Trans-Dniester region, where Russian troops are stationed
Three regions on the Black Sea/Sea of Azov coast
Thirty lawmakers voted against the move.
Martial law will enter into force at 09:00 local time (07:00 GMT) on Wednesday and will end on 27 December.
Image copyrightEPAImage captionPresident Poroshenko said the authorities needed firm power in case of a full-scale Russian invasion
Monday’s vote in parliament came after an emotional address by President Poroshenko, who promised not to restrict basic freedoms. Some MPs expressed fears Mr Poroshenko could suspend a presidential poll on 31 March 2019 – a claim he firmly denied.
But he stressed he needed firm power in case of a full-scale Russian invasion.
Ukraine’s national security and defence council had initially recommended a 60-day martial law.
But Mr Poroshenko said he amended the proposal because he did not want martial law to affect the presidential elections.
Still, critics expressed fears that Mr Poroshenko – whose ratings have plummeted in recent months – could suspend the elections to stay in power.
Why is this happening now?
There have been growing tensions between the two sides over navigation in the area.
Russia has recently begun inspecting all vessels sailing to or from Ukrainian ports in the Sea of Azov.
This began after Ukraine detained a fishing vessel from Crimea in March. Moscow also says the checks are necessary for security reasons.
Ukraine has accused Russia of trying to occupy the Sea of Azov and damage Ukraine’s economy by hindering access to its ports.
Why are relations so bad between Russia and Ukraine?
Ukraine gained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
However, Russia considers a Western-leaning Ukraine a threat to its interests.
In 2014, Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader was overthrown, after large-scale protests against the government’s decision to abandon plans to sign an association agreement with the EU.
Russia then annexed Crimea, while Russia-backed separatists moved against the Ukrainian state in the east.
More than 10,000 people have been killed in the conflict in the east.
A couple days ago, Great Britain and the European Union succeeded in making decisions related to politics and politics. The decision broke the comfort that Prime Minister Theresa May was prepared not to get anything or “no agreement”. This agreement solves one big problem from the United Kingdom. The future will allow for third parties for each. In the end, the aim of Brexit is no longer the European Union’s rules.
However, Theresa May must face political turmoil in her country. Many people in the UK consider the results to be very bad. Boris Johnson, who is a strong supporter of Brexit, said that Great Britain was “on the verge of a historical error” because it was too surrendering its power to Brussels. In addition, a conservative party which might reject the meeting and wants to invite all the blocks to reject it.
” the only best agreement “
The European Union might have predicted that the response of the British people would be like that. The EU Union issued a statement that this term became “the only best agreement”. This provision is an ultimatum for Great Britain to immediately signify this regulation. But there is an implied message that the European Union only wants to end it without any problems. The European Union actually still regrets that the United Kingdom is out of the European Union before they are one of the great powers that are included in addition to France and Germany. Angela Merkel also expressed her sadness. But, this is the choice of the people of the United Kingdom and the European Union for the process that has taken place and as much as possible to help end it well.
Theresa May is in a hard situation…
However, what Theresa might fear is that no agreement can be made into reality. Thus, the parties competing against the decision will make them have to be extra hard to convince the public, especially members of parliament. This has become a domestic political problem in the United Kingdom. It will be very tiring for the party itself who wants to reject it. Inevitably, May must make changes to many parties so that this can become a law. There are still four more months for Great Britain, but seeing political thoughts, four months will be difficult and even less. Valid if you agree later in December, that’s the month, for the month that will be very lacking. Convincing that the community needs a long time and there will be many political processes and negotiations, or maybe the word ‘public’ can be replaced with political actors. Because for them, agreeing that it does not answer their anxieties and goals to leave the European Union
Towards tough afermaths ?
Various analyze stating that the absence of an agreement will bring economic uncertainty to the United Kingdom. The IMF said that the United Kingdom would discuss economic recession. However, the core of this meeting is the transition process. If this is successful, the process will be completed by the end of 2020. All parties, even Theresa May, know very well that a process is needed in order to escape the European Union. Maybe the United Kingdom must pay the fine set, but the agreed transition process is worth fighting for. Moreover, the United Kingdom is still not officially leaving the European Union.
However, Trias Politica does not want people who commercially regulate arbitrarily. If for Theresa May the decision is wise and can produce the best decision, but the agreement must be issued by members of parliament. This is where rationality vs. idealism about Brexit will hit each other raw. It is natural for parliaments to play an important role because they are people’s representation (Vox Populi Vox Dei).That’s the principle of democracy. Hopefully, more lobbying efforts or results will be wasted. Maybe the phrase “It Do or Die” can be used for this condition. The British Parliament is in the yellow light to reject this provision and May must have a strategic step. It may have to finalize the “no-deal” scenario because it is probable that the United Kingdom will face the economy as said by the IMF. The European Union also said that if the agreement failed. Anyway, it is currently being used by the United Kingdom or successfully.
The Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang, North western province of China are currently undergoing the worst dehumanizing experience under the communist police state enforced in the region. The Uighur are one of the 55 officially recognized ethnic minorities in China who are now being stigmatized with the “separatists” label in order to turn the attention of the world away from them and reign over their essence, conscience and whole existence in a region they have inhabited for more than one thousand years.
Historical background
9/11 has really changed the way muslims are seen by the world.
Since the mid-1990s, Uighur have been targets of the “three evils” campaign against ‘separatism, terrorism and religious extremism’ which became intensified in the post 9/11. In the most parochial definition of extremism under the misconceived system called Fanghuiju (which is supposed to be for researching people’s conditions, improving people’s lives, winning people’s heart) , the Uighur are sent to re-education camps to change their thinking and religious life for quitting smoking, sporting long beards, not drinking alcohol or being in possession of the Qur’an. This is most uncharitable of a nation which claims the stripes of red, yellow, blue, white and black on the five-colors national flag symbolize the ‘harmonious’ cohabitation of five ethnic tribes (Han, Manchus, Mongol, Tibetan and Muslims) in one single nation.
In reality, the Chinese nation is a caricature of active Han majority and passive ethnic minorities who have to be led to achieve good standard of living. One graphical illustration of such is the attachment of officials from Han majority to about 1.8 million Uighur families as indoctrinators to spy on them and force communist thinking on them, a form of repression that never took place even in apartheid South Africa. The Uighur are a Turkic ethnic group who live in East and Central Asia. Today, Uighurs live in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous region of the People Republic of China.
Geo-strategy
Uyghurs live in the East of China. Their territory is strategic for the Chinese state.
The region is of strategic importance serving as the largest production of domestic oil and gas, and much of the fuel imported from Central Asia and Russia passes through it on its way to the industries of the east coast. It is also a vital link in the Belt and Road Initiative which aims to bind the Middle East and Europe to China with ties of infrastructure, investment and trade. The Hans who moved to the region at a later time have been claiming they brought modernization to the place. This politics of putting the ethnic minorities on the receiving end of development practices has made the possibilities of a perspective of equalities or an appreciation of diversity as a constituent quality of the diverse national project inhibited. Rather than the Chinese government addressing this structural violence fueling the separatist move, it keeps on ratcheting tension by clamping down on the Islamic faith and practices of the Uighurs alleging some suspicious links with global Jihad network while it carries on with grievous violation of human rights on a massive scale.
Surveillance and detention
According to a 2018 report by the Economist, Uighur in Xinjiang suffers under a “fully-fledged police state” with extensive controls and restrictions upon their religions, cultural and social life. At least 120,000 (about possibly over 1 million) Uighurs are detained in mass detention camps, aimed at changing the political thinking of detainees, their identities, and their religious beliefs. Some of these facilities keep prisoners detained around the clock, while others release their inmates to return home. The New York Times also reported that inmates are required to “sing hymns” praising the Chinese Communist Party and write “self-criticism” essays, and that prisoners are also subjected to physical and verbal abuse by prison guards. Chinese officials are sometimes assigned to monitor the families of current inmates, and women have been detained due to actions by their sons and husbands. In January, 82-year old Muhammad Salih Hajim, a respected religious scholar, died in detention in Urumqi.
In a frolicsome desecration of Muslims place of worship, the Xinjiang authorities now appoint an official to teach communism in mosques. One of the recent cases of the draconian rule and judgment of the police state in Xinjiang is that of the businessman, Abdulghapar Abdurusul, who has just been sentenced to death for going on (Hajj) pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia on his own instead of joining a state-sanctioned tour group. Countries of the world must put pressure on China not to execute this philanthropist on such trivial ground as China has lost all moral right in the case of the Uighurs to evoke the doctrine of non-interference in its internal affairs.
The world cannot remain unperturbed by the humanitarian crises the Uighur Muslims are subjected to. The system of repression in Xinjiang goes far beyond anything that would be justified by the straw man argument of preventing violence associated with Uighur separatism. The primary duty of a state is to protect its citizens. When a state fails in this regard, then the responsibility to protect falls on the international community.
Every wise watcher never forgets to take a look at France. This country is one of the oldest and its political culture is very specific. Indeed, for many thinkers, the political culture of France is, revolutionary. Revolutions and uprisings have marked French history. From all around the world, one can hear that France is frequently subject to demonstrations, and violent protests. What is the point of the current protests ?
Events summary
More than 2000 meetings occurred on 17th of November.
At the beginning of November, the French government decided to increase taxes on gasoline. According to the government and several ministers, this rise will contribute to ecological transition. Nevertheless, on 17th of November, less than 300.000 French citizens protested and blocked highways across the country. This movement isn’t headed by unions or any other political organizations. This lack of leaders makes the movement almost impossible to canalize or handle. Protesters wanted to converge from the entire country to Paris, on 24th of November. They walked on the Champs-Élysées avenue and sometimes violently confronted to policemen. Nevertheless they weren’t as numerous as a week before. Indeed, less than 110.000 participated in demonstrations in the whole country.
Who are they ?
Most of the time, they are French people living far from cities and highly dependent on their car. They use their vehicle everyday and the evolution of gasoline price has a huge impact on their purchasing power. They are called ” gilets jaunes ” (yellow jackets) because every car driver has to possess such jacket in their car. Demonstrators are using this simple apparel because they see themselves as stolen car drivers. Besides this simple act makes the protest easier because the possessing of this clothe is compulsory. Moreover, these citizens feel frustrated by years of tax rises on gasoline and labour, among others. For these citizens, the power is considering them as cash cows. Abreast of gasoline issues, many French towns know de-industrialization, school closures and economic deprivation. Consequently, the current protests would only be the result of years of unfair policies targeting them.
What are the political consequences ?
In spite of his strongly European side, Macron might loose the European elections of 2019.
The political aftermaths of these protests can be disastrous for the government of Emmanuel Macron. Actually it can widen the gap between the government and the people. Moreover, these events unveil an other fracture. To sum up, one could easily pretend that there is a fracture between city dwellers (namely Parisians or inhabitants of big metropolis), and the others living more or less far from their workplace. Since the beginning of its mandate, Macron has kept the etiquette of ” President of the Rich “. It is highly likely that ” President of the Cities ” add to the first nickname. The gap is widening between the people and Macron. The latter emerges profoundly weakened. On 26th of May 2019, the European elections will be affected by these events. The political party of the French government will hardly win this political battle and the ” gilets jaunes ” are one of the reasons.
In the 21st century, the Middle East will witness a new and unalike kind of war. Despite economic pressures, ethnic and sectarian dissections, terrorism activities, religious radicalism, organized crime and environmental crisis, the likelihood of water war has escalated in recent years in the region due to the scarcity of this natural resource and due to the drought waves for decades.
Water scarceness is of boundless geopolitical significance. Nihilists and visionaries likewise are susceptible to assume that this resource has or would have profound geopolitical insinuations. Water resources are a fundamental factor for local clashes in the region, fuelled by deteriorating economic development plans in the Middle East, which would exacerbate war dynamics on that issue.
Prospects of war in the Mideast
The Arab world is 14 million square kilometers, of which 87 percent is desert. About 50 percent of renewable Arab water resources are located outside the Arab region. This is evident in the trajectory of international rivers, such as the Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Studies show that the share of Arab citizens in renewable water will shrink from 1200 cubic meters annually to 400 cubic meters per capita per year by 2025. Furthermore, 15 Arab nations have fallen below water poverty line, meaning that they will not be able to meet their basic water requirements by 2025.
Water will likely be a reason of conflicts in the years to come.
Since water and food security are interrelated, and since economic, military and security aspects are of due importance for any country, a lack or absence of any of these elements would lead to either internal war or a regional war; thus, affecting the face and future of the region. In a panoramic view, the picture is becoming increasingly murkier as the Arab population continues to grow, while water resources are destroyed by armed conflicts or become scarce due to droughts which have depleted groundwater resources.
Renewable and non-renewable water resources have shrunk. This has been the case in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt; however, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been spending huge amounts of money on desalination process which would be adequate as long as oil and gas prices are high.
The Levant and Iraq have been amongst the worst affected by scarcity of rainfall and water shortages in the past two decades. Turkey insists that any agreement on sharing of the Tigris and the Euphrates water Syria and Iraq depend heavily on political harmony between the three countries. Of course, the Kurdish issue is the essence of any water deal between the three states as well as oil and gas cooperation.
Countries in charge should all sit and discuss water security for the generations to come to avert them any wars that would lead to enormous toll of deaths if conflicts break out
Shehab Al-Makahleh
The Israelis also recognize that the dearth of water resources is weakening their position strategically. Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had been stressing on the interdependence of security and water. Shimon Peres, former head of the State of Israel, believes that water is more important than land, and that control of water sources makes Israel a geographically closed and independent country as no other neighboring country would dare threaten Israel’s sovereignty.
Former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon said that in fact (the Six-Day War) began the day Israel decided to turn the Jordan River water inside Israel by diverting the branches of the river to exercise more pressure on Jordan later on and to twist the government’s arm to accept Israeli conditions and terms.
The Israelis are also cognizant of the complexity of their water crisis. The water level of the Sea of Galilee has dropped to the lowest level in a century, and the salt water infiltrates heavily into the underground crevices. Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are among the countries most forced to settle water issues and reach an understanding on sharing their water resources. Jordan is one of the countries most affected by the water crisis, and the water agreement between Amman and Tel Aviv was essential in the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement. The question here is: Will Israel respect this deal in the future?
Regional water wars
At present, many factors can lead to insecurity and be the main causes of instability and war. Religious or ethnic differences, poverty, hunger and lack of resources are the most important. The geographical distribution of water is one of the major geopolitical dimensions of natural resources. This distribution is an important factor in the ability of governments to control these assets. Political reasons of war on natural resources including water is a sufficient drive to ignite new conflicts among Middle East countries as such a valuable resource is key to prosperity and development at all levels.
Will there be a war on water in the Middle East?
In Sudan and Egypt water is a trouble and causes serious issues.
The 21st century is undergoing demographic increase in the Middle East, posing pressure on water. Economists believe that scarcity of water in the region is more threatening than anywhere else in the world. For millennia, this scarcity has played an essential role in determining political relations in the region. Ideological, religious and geopolitical differences have also been associated with water-related tensions.
Though competition over water resources in the Middle East region is very old, rivalry has intensified in recent years. To cite as an example, the Sudanese-Egyptian-Ethiopian competition over the Nile Water and the Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi rivalry over the Tigris and the Euphrates water can trigger a regional war for many years.
Future of Water Security
Climate change, low rainfall and poor water resources management, and the absence of a sound economic plan for water and soil use are among the factors that will lead to increased competition for wars over this resources. Israel is also trying to control Palestinian and Lebanese water sources in order to increase water productivity. Thus, water crisis and the inability of the countries of the region to manage such a calamity would be conducive to internal conflicts, which may affect food security and other vital interests of the region, leading to further battles on water.
To conclude, the countries in charge should all sit and discuss water security for the generations to come to avert them any wars that would lead to enormous toll of deaths if conflicts break out.
On September 1, 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed a nationwide group of Russian students on their first day of school. “Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind,”. “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.”
It is an assessment that would be unwise to ignore, even if the goal is simply economic prosperity as opposed to world domination. Over the coming decade, AI will become linked with geopolitics to a level that is difficult to fully comprehend today. Why? Because geopolitics is determined in large part by many of the same domains that AI is poised to revolutionize.
AI will make manufacturing, transportation, and trade more efficient, improve crop yields, open a wealth of new opportunities for technology advances, reshuffle labor markets, and force a fundamental rethinking of approaches to national security and the architecture of modern militaries. In the coming decades, countries that are able to successfully cultivate and harness a culture of AI innovation will be well positioned for both economic growth and improved national security. By contrast, countries that maintain an over-reliance on legacy infrastructure and economic models will face increasing challenges in sustaining global competitiveness.
U.S. LEADERSHIP IN AI
It is also important to emphasize that, geopolitically speaking, AI is not a zero-sum game. Much ink has been spilled recently over China’s extraordinary level of investment in AI, often accompanied by the implication that Chinese AI progress will inevitably come at the expense of the United States. But that logic implies a non-existent causality. China is betting on AI because its political and business leaders have correctly identified it as a critical element of continued Chinese economic growth. That in no way inhibits the United States from making its own investments in AI.
And, that is exactly what is occurring. The United States is a global AI leader, with an ecosystem that includes not only extensive AI research at major companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and IBM, but also hundreds of AI-focused startups in areas ranging from drug discovery to education to manufacturing. The collective American commercial sector investment going into AI is immense. The U.S. government is investing as well. In September 2018, DARPA announced a “$2 Billion Campaign to Develop Next Wave of AI Technologies” with the aim of “transforming computers from specialized tools to partners in problem-solving.”
Furthermore, it’s not only about dollars. The United States leads the world in AI human capital—an advantage that stands to grow even further given the extensive efforts in U.S. universities to ramp up research and teaching in AI and related topics.
China is the leader of Artificial Intelligence !
In fact, some of the biggest potential AI challenges in the United States are actually at the level of policy and not technology or human capital. Maintaining AI preeminence is a multi-decade endeavor—a far greater time scale than the term lengths of elected officials. This lowers the incentives to implement AI-focused policy strategies that might take several years or more to bear fruit. Overregulation is another threat to American AI innovation, as it could hamper both the incentives to develop new AI technologies as well as the speed of delivering them to the marketplace.
A GLOBAL AI ECOSYSTEM
While the United States and China are the largest AI players, the ecosystem is global. Israel and the United Kingdom have thriving AI sectors. Earlier this year, the French government announced a major public investment in AI. Facilitating AI innovation is also a key focus of governments in Japan, South Korea, and Russia.
Many of the benefits of country-specific AI investments will be both national and global. AI will make it easier to predict violent storms. It can help with drug development to help reduce the impact of disease. It can improve agricultural yields, and help manage the complexities of the supply chain for food, medicine, and other goods. All of these things have profoundly important geopolitical implications. In a September 2018 Washington Post piece, Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels wrote that “artificial intelligence has become the most powerful resource that will determine the fate of nations in the times ahead.” It’s an astute observation that will likely prove true.
AI is not magic, and there is plenty it cannot do. But AI is perhaps the only technology in recent memory that, despite all the hype, will actually turn out to have been underhyped once its impacts are fully appreciated. And while the full future impact of AI is impossible to predict, one thing is clear: As we move towards the middle of the 21st century, a nation’s geopolitical standing and its strength in AI will be increasingly intertwined. It’s a correlation that leaders across the globe will surely have in mind as they work to achieve their geopolitical aspirations.
The Eurozone is built on the idea that some requirements within national economies must converge. For instance, on national budget, member state can’t have their budget superior to 3% of their GDP. But, such criterias are sometimes blamed by political parties. One day, one of this parties obtains power. On 21st November of 2018, the European Commission has rejected Italy’s budget over debt fears.
Which political party leads Italy ?
Since the legislative elections of March 2018, the Five Star Movement (M5S) is the main leader of the coalition leading the country. Other parties accompany this movement, namely the League, proudly populist and eurosceptic. When it comes to public spendings, Giuseppe Conti and Matteo Salvini (leaders of the country) don’t want Brussels to constrain their projects.
The arm struggle with the European Commission is unlikely to end soon
What happened with the budget ?
At the end of October, Italy gave his budgetary plans to the European Commission. In accordance with the European Treaties, the Commission reviews and validates the budget of each member State. The Commission, known as the guardian of the treaties, didn’t validate the Italian budget. The Italian government received the demands of the Commission but didn’t follow them. The latter is about to launch a sanctions procedure against Italy.
What can be the consequences of this crisis ?
This conflict is much more than a simple budgetary debate. Indeed, the government of Italy has started a fight with the European Commission. The legitimacy of the government as well as the one’s Commission are at stake. If the M5S and the League step back, the government loses face in front of his people. On the other hand, if the Commission does not urge Italy, its legitimacy will erode. Consequently, other States would be tempted to disrespect treaties, at least on budgetary aspects. Then, this crisis also impacts on the fate of European populist parties. Once again, a victory of Italy can constitute an irrefutable proof that the European Union rules are sometimes avoidable. In France, Marine Le Pen (leader of the Front National) claims his proximity with Matteo Salvini (minister of interior). YoungDiplomats suggests to keep an eye on this case. Time will tell.
