Young Diplomats

Introduction

The U.S is among the early countries to have established diplomatic relationships with Pakistan. Relationship dates back to October 20, 1947, it can be extrapolated that the relations have been based strictly on military and economic support. Pakistan had the options of building allegiance with Soviet Union or United States; however, Pakistan opted for the latter. Moreover, Pakistan and the U.S remained allies against Soviet Union in cold war and Pakistan played a frontline role against War on terror. However, the U.S and Pakistan relations grow weaker on the issues of Afghanistan, safe haven of terrorists in Pakistan ,the US-Indo ties, CPEC, rise of China and Nuclear facilities in Pakistan.

Background

Commander-in-chief Ayub Khan, foreign minister Zafrullah Khan, foreign secretary Ikramullah, finance minister Ghulam Muhammad, defence secretary Sikander Mirza and special envoy Mir Laiqat Ali visited US, aiming to receive financial aids from the country.
Pakistan signed Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with the United States. The U.S also established a Military Assistance Advisory Group in Rawalpindi. Pakistan supported the US in cold war and lease Peshawar Air Station to the American Army for keeping an eye on Soviet Union and its ballistic missile programme. During the era of Ayub khan Pakistan received massive assistance from the U.S. Pakistan also assisted president Richard Nixon in making his first visit to Peoples’ Republic of China. However, President Jimmy Carter, an anti-socialist, won the presidential election of U.S and announced to seek a ban on nuclear weapons. Bhutto lost the favours he enjoyed whilst Nixon was U.S president as Carter did not appreciate his policies and tightened already placed embargoes on Pakistan. During Zia ul Haq’s regime, Pakistan and United States enjoyed a warm and congenial relationship, which was primarily based on military ties and advancements.

By the year 1981, Pakistan was discussing a $3.2-billion aid package with United States and in 1987 Pakistan became the second largest recipient of aid after Israel. However it is alleged that although Pakistan disclosed that it could enrich uranium and assemble a nuclear device in 1984 and 1987 respectively, the sanctions were not imposed till 1990.The US, under the Pressler amendment, imposed sanctions on Pakistan, as the country by then had lost its strategic importance in soviet war. In 1998, Prime minister Nawaz Sharif conducted nuclear test in Balochistan, in retaliation to similar tests conducted by India, which invited the wrath of Clinton’s administration on both the countries. President Clinton imposed sanctions under Glenn amendment on India as well as Pakistan.

9/11 attacks and US’s invasion in Afghanistan

After the 9/11 attacks and US’s invasion in Afghanistan, Pakistan became one of the most important strategic allies for United States. Initially Islamabad tried to strike a negotiation deal with Taliban and al Qaeda members to handover Osama bin Laden to American authorities.
However, when negotiations failed, Pakistan allowed American army to use its military bases for launching attacks on Afghan soil. In 2003, United States officially forgave $1 billion worth of loan it had granted to Pakistan in a goodwill gesture and appreciation for Pakistan’s cooperation. In 2004, President George Bush officially declared Pakistan as a non-Nato ally granting it the authority to purchase strategic and advanced military equipment. In 2007, a report was issued in which Islamabad was accused of using aid money provided by US to Pakistan for its cooperation on war on terror, for strengthening its defence against India.

Trust deficit

The trust, on both sides, has been missing since the war on terror started as US on several occasions has accused Pakistan Army to tip the Taliban and pro-Taliban factions off on US operations. In the June of 2008, an air strike by the US Army killed 11 paramilitary soldiers of Pakistan Army Frontier Corps, along with eight Taliban. The famous Kerry-Lugar Bill, was passed in the October of 2009. The bill entailed the approval of granting $7.5 billion of non-military aid, if the command of the country accepted certain condition. The bill clearly showed US’s distrust in Pakistan’s military command and considered Pakistani Taliban more threatening than Afghan Taliban, amongst many other essential points.

In the beginning of 2011, Raymond Davis, a CIA agent in Pakistan killed two Pakistani men in Lahore. Davis was taken into custody for killing civilians, however, American officials claimed that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity and must be released immediately. Raymond Davis was later acquitted of the murder charges and was sent to United States. In the May of 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in an operation conducted by US Navy Seals in Abbottabad, Pakistan. President Barrack Obama claimed that the information pertaining to the operation conducted in Abbottabad was not shared with Pakistan Army. However, ISI claimed that the operation was conducted jointly, a claim which was blatantly denied by President Asif Ali Zardari. Since the war on terror started in 2001, Pakistan has received an estimated amount of $20 billion from United States; however, in the wake of OBL’s raid US withheld $800 million of aid to Pakistan.
The US-Pakistan relations plummeted again when 24 Pakistani soldiers died in an air strike by the US Army at Pakistani check post at Salala. Afghan and US officials claimed that the firing was a result of the attack launched from the Pakistani side of the border, however, the Pakistani military and government denied the claims. As a result of the attack, Pakistani government ordered US army to evacuate Salala air base which was being used to launch offensive on Taliban and militants. Moreover, the government also halted Nato supplies for United Sates. Sen Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and the chairman of the subcommittee, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen Lindsey Graham, said money for Pakistan was cut 58 per cent as lawmakers questioned Islamabad’s commitment to the fight against terrorism. Moreover, the Senate Appropriations Committee, on May 24, voted to cut aid to Pakistan by a symbolic $33 million – $1 million for each year of jail time handed to Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani doctor who allegedly assisted the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in finding Osama bin Laden.
In 2017, Trump lambastes Islamabad over terrorist ‘safe havens’ and friction between Pakistan-US relations got further strained when President Trump in August unveiled his administration’s policy on Afghanistan and South Asia. Trump in his diatribe denounced Pakistan for allegedly allowing terrorists to maintain “safe havens” inside its territory. In 2018, Pentagon canceled $300m aid to Pakistan .Due to a lack of Pakistani decisive actions in support of the South Asia Strategy.

US-India Growing relations

The Indo-US alliance has grave security implications for Pakistan. The U.S.-India defense relationship reach USD 4 billion in 2011. In 2016, Washington designated India a “Major Defence Partner,” The U.S.-India economic relationship, for decades practically nonexistent, has grown quickly and U.S. exports to India have increased five-fold from USD 3.6 billion in 2000 to USD 17.7 billion 2010. US military sales to India went from zero to $15 billion in the last 10 years. The United States hopes to get a major share in the $30 billion India plans to spend in military modernization over the next seven years, says a senior American official. The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in 2008 had instigated grave concerns in Islamabad. A report commissioned by the United States (US) Congress has placed India as the second largest arms buyer among developing nations (2016).In 2016, India was in talks with the United States to purchase 40 Predator surveillance drones, a possible first step towards acquiring the armed version of the aircraft. In 2017, President Trump announced his Afghanistan and South Asia policy. Pakistan was given a strong warning to stop providing safe havens to militants, including the Afghan Taliban/ Haqqani network, who are fighting and killing Americans; consequences for Pakistan. Partnering with India in Afghanistan and South Asia were part of the policy. Recently, the so-called “2+2″talks in sep 2018, including strategic and security topics with India and sidelining Pakistan is the major sign of the US interest in the region. Pompeo said the US values its relationship with India, and “We fully support India’s rise.”
Pakistan sees Indo-US ties against its national interest (http://www.young-diplomats.com/cancellation-of-indian-and-pakistans-meeting-at-un/). All these events will further escalate tension between Pakistan and the U.S.

François Hollande, French president, declares in 2014 that Tunisia represents “the hope of the Arab world”. This country doesn’t cease to create the surprise – and sometimes the discontent – of its neighboring countries, but also of its society itself. After the French colonization, Tunisia will be jostled by dictatorships, corruption, but will also experience a commercial and touristic opening to the Western world. Long seen as a future “dragon” of the southern Mediterranean, economic difficulties will yet catch up this country. After many revolts and revolutions, Tunisia is today considered as an “Arab hope”. But why?

The Arab revolution

It was in 2008, less than three years before the popular revolt that led to the fall of the regime of Mr. Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, that the inhabitants of the Gafsa region, tired of nepotism, corruption and less-development, trigger one of the first important popular movement. Very strongly repressed, this one will not get dimmer however, demonstrating the power of the great popular cohesion of this country.

It is in December 2010 that the suicide by fire of a young street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, triggers important demonstrations in the center of the country, but also with the triggering of the “Arab Spring”. The government opts for repression, while the demonstration gradually wins the whole Tunisia. The Ben Ali clan, despite concessions (such as the promise of creating more than 300,000 jobs), will weaken to the point of being ejected from power.

In the Tunisian revolution, there is a distinctive characteristic that the neighboring countries did not have: there was no civil war, and this country was not taken by the hands of radical Islamists hostile to the ‘West. Her transition to a better democratic regime is also impressive. Although many actors, it can be considered that the main reasons for this difference with other countries crossed by the Arab revolutions are, in part, the nature of Tunisia and its political history since independence.

Indeed, it is a relatively unified country in terms of ethnicity, language and religion, compared for example to Libya or Egypt. There is in Tunisia a strong national feeling. There are no internal conflicts between militias, religions (Shiite / Sunni) compared to Syria in particular. It is a country unified in the will to overthrow the authoritarian and corrupt power. The Tunisian Revolution is also marked by a remarkable willingness on the part of its political actors to respect the rules of the democratic game and the spirit of compromise, as was demonstrated by the Ennahda party during the October 2011 elections.

The new Constitution: a great advance

The final text of the new constitution, put in place by the new constituting assembly, is adopted on January 26, 2014. This constitution is recognizes as a major text. The text establishes Islam as the official religion of the country but guarantees freedom of belief and promotes gender equality. As stated in its preamble, the Constitution is part of the “objectives of revolution, freedom and dignity, revolution from 17 December 2010-14 January 2011”. It gives a reduced place to Islam, but above all, for the first time in the Arab world, it introduces the goal of parity between men and women in the elected assemblies. This constitution is, in the Arab world, the one that guarantees and establishes the most rights for women. The main achievements of the political transition are therefore the civil character of the state, the principles of equality between citizens or freedom of conscience. All these are therefore democratic and republican values, influenced by Western countries.

In 2018, Tunisia continues to surprise in the West: President Beji Caid el Sebsi recently announced his willpower to bring a new bill establishing a gender equality in the inheritance, excluding at the same time a little more religion of the political field. There has also been discussion about the decriminalization of homosexuality. Tunisia has also passed a law about racism against black people in October, a first in the Arab world.

Be careful about the “Tunisian model”

If today Tunisia is seen as avant-garde, close to European ideals, the population is nevertheless very divided on all these issues. Many demonstrations took place for these laws, but also against. We must not forget that part of society remains very conservative and attached to the values of the Islamic religion. In addition, the issue of freedom of expression remains a problematic subject: while the situation has of course improved with regard to the Ben Ali regime, we cannot speak about a freedom of expression of which all fetters would have been removed. An example is of course the fate known by the Tunisian rapper Weld El 15.

We can consider, at present, that there exists a Tunisian model in the Arab revolutions. However, from a geopolitical point of view, the Tunisian model is difficult to apply outside of Tunisia.

Indo-Pacific Singularity and China

Indo-Pacific nowadays is the one of the most dynamically region in Global Geopolitics. In fact, many major powers have been set their sight to expand their influence in the region and facing off China. Starting with US “Pivot to Asia in Obama period to Free and Open Indo-Pacific in Trump’s era”, India’s “Act East Policy”, Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”, and China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”. These four major powers have been playing out their policy with their capability, especially China.

In Indo-Pacific, China’s policy is special. What makes it special is the policy and China’s will is very visible. From their aggressiveness in South China Sea, growing military influence in Indian Ocean and also the Belt and Road Initiative, We can see not only a glimpse of China’s ambitions but their vision as well. They translate policies into a significant step in economic cooperation with Littoral states such as Pakistan and South Africa and always involve in Southeast Asia meeting.

Furthermore, China’s Belt and Road Initiative started to have an impact. In various opportunities, China’s clearly stated that they are not aim to become next hegemony, but like human behavior, statement is not always synchronize with action.

The term Indo-Pacific for any major powers is consisting of region in Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. Maybe it’s over simplification, but the growing political turmoil in these two oceans at the center has been justified my simplification. From historical, geographical and economic view, there is no doubt that these two have certain value which will be source of conflict in the near future. Moreover, in continental value, these two oceans are between Asia and Africa continent.

How China Make Solid Influence in the Region

China and major powers like India, Japan, and US share similar view in regards of Pacific and Indian Ocean. But in my opinion, China’s is several steps ahead in attempting to conquer the oceans. The reason pictured in one sentence: Maximum utilizing their economic power. China harnesses the momentum of West decline and stagnant economy to make economy relations with developing countries. Economic crises in 2008 in my view, leaving deep wound in west economic which last until today. One to note that most states in two Oceans are developing and some are emerging countries. They need substantial amount of money to run their economic interaction (building infrastructure). With China’s economic growth, they become alternative solution in building economic relations in developing countries state of mind. Such conditions absolutely used by China to expand their influence. China’s provide more simple mechanism with their counterpart Japan and any other major powers and it makes China first priority. China- Pakistan economic relations with amount of 62 billion dollar and China-ASEAN in free trade agreement framework could be lead example of China’s economic power shaping countries relations and behavior.

China’s growing influence in terms of economic power has placed developing countries in the state of dependency. This becomes “another weapon” for China. Growing dependency within developing countries in Southeast Asia and Africa has made China’s position to do “just anything” wide open. The South China Sea conflict it’s the best example in explaining “state of dependency”. China’s aggressiveness in South China Sea with their nine-dash line has become a conflict of sovereignty. Military build-up in South China Sea in Spratly and Paracel islands has violate international law and becoming source of conflict between Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei Darussalam and Taiwan. They become “claimant state” because each other base their claim on UNCLOS. Philippines has report this violation to International court. The result is losing for China but they still continue their aggressiveness.

ASEAN institutions have fragmented in this conflict. Some has demand tougher stance for China and some are not (neutral and on China’ side). Indochina countries are in the latter position because they depend so much on China. Other countries are more refer to solve this problem with multilateral dialogue. As far as I know, ASEAN has framework in form of ARF and code of conduct. Even the dialogue also involving China in process, the result is not too satisfying, especially the Code of conduct. From 2003 until now, there has no significant progress even the draft has been produced, it’s not effective until it become legal binding.

ASEAN indeed put forward dialogue values, but with their dependency on China economic cooperation, the dialogue has become pointless. The South China Sea dispute ultimately demonstrates how more powerful actors can manipulate ASEAN’s weak multilateral dialogue process to advance grand strategic interests.

With the only established institution cannot hold China’s assertiveness, China’s becoming wilder in South China Sea. The latest update is China is building seven military base in SCS. If I refer to International law, China absolutely violate some of the regulation in UNCLOS, but the cases is not like that. In China’s view, they build military buildup base for defends interest. Even in the glimpse, China aggressiveness in SCS has proven that maybe China’s didn’t want to become world hegemony but for regional hegemony, China has embedded solid foundation on it.

What Would Others Do to Contain China?

For other world and regional major powers, China’s influence foundation has become wary. They fear that China’s policies in Indo-Pacific will slowly decreasing West influence. As we may know, US influence in Asia since Obama administration taking “Pivot to Asia” policy into practice has been great. In Trump administration, “Pivot to Asia” has transformed into Free and open Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Unfortunately, with Trump’s controversial policies in recent time has decrease some influence in Asia. US pulling back from Trans-Pacific Partnership have left such impression that US slowly leaving its Alliance. But the fact that we must know, US is the only country with capability to balancing China, even Japan cannot do much in East or South China Sea.  Moreover, although China and US economic capabilities are vis-à-vis, there’s no denying that US military capability are far ahead compare to China.

Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIPS) in my point of view is a policy which not only to counter-balance China’s influence, but also regaining some influence caused by Trump controversial policies. During Trump presidency, he always urged his allies to pay for their own defense. This leaves his allies with mix feeling. The reason is because US are the important actor to counter China’s assertiveness in South China Sea. On the other side, Trump behavior is like leaving the impression and signaled that he’s decreasing US help to his allies. But, FOIPS has brought the fresh leaves.

In response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Indo-Pacific, Washington has provided aid with $60 billion dollar amount of money through the US International Development Finance Corporation. China’s willing to spend much amount of money to expand their influence, so in order to balance it, whether to do the same or with some alternative. But Trump is unique. In April, he launches trade war against China with elevating its tax in steel and aluminum by 25%. Trade war is still happening with US shown aggressiveness toward its economic policies. Trade war it’s not to decrease China’s influence in Indo-Pacific, but to decrease their economic capabilities so their signature weapon in international worlds slowly decreases.

On the other side, different measurement has been shown by Japan and India. For Japan, their current capabilities are not enough to fight China so they need alternatives to play. India’s has showing his interest in Pacific. In Indian Ocean region, India is the major power. But with China’s growing influence in Indian Ocean, they need to step up their game. At least, if China can expand their influence to Indian Ocean, there is no reason for India to not doing the same. Furthermore, India is not the only country that wants to counter China.

Narendra Modi visiting Shinzo Abe in the end of October has shown something. India with China in some prediction will be East dominant power in the future, but I think in India’s mind right now is how they contain China and gaining some influence in Pacific. Japan wants to contain China too and they have so much concern with them. China’s military buildup around the region has been alarmed Japan for some time. In short words, India and Japan share the same interest. Moreover, defense will be one of the top agenda when Modi visiting Abe. Ambassador Japan to India, Kenji Hiramatsu said that maritime cooperation was very important in the region and both countries are looking at ASEAN countries, including Indonesia and Vietnam for a trilateral cooperation.

Would Containment be Successful?

          It’s been hard to say that major power effort to contain China has been successful. As I say in the top before, China’s several step ahead from major power. Military buildup in SCS and Indian Ocean, deep economic cooperation with developing and emerging countries like ASEAN countries, Pakistan and South Africa has shown that China really utilize the opportunity that lies in front of them. Even with Obama’s Pivot to Asia, they cannot stop China’s aggressiveness in South China Sea. India Act East Policy is one year late from Belt and Road Initiative and India have a lot to catch up.

Meanwhile, Japan and US has articulate Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy (FOIPS) in recent years. But there is difference in implementation. Japan said that their strategy is not exclusive and include China as well IF they share same idea and vision with Japan. Historically, China and Japan has some history which China called “century of humiliation” when Japan and the West invade their country. For China, history is matter for them and contains many things to learn. Even if Japan-China relations becomes better, the relation maybe fragile and vulnerable because not only they have “dark” history but also in principle and values, they are different. As for US FOIPS, US itself find China as an enemy that needs to be taken down. They need to beat China so that US have a smooth way to expand their influence in the region. China’s assertiveness for them is big wall waits to be destroyed by them.

I think major powers effort to contain China will be tricky and challenging. China will absolutely have a way to counter the containment itself. Don’t forget in Indo-Pacific, we still have problem and uncertainties in Korean Peninsula. China is quite close to North Korea and they can give some influence with significant reward for them. US don’t want to spend more energy for them. But, US may be breathing freely, because France is coming to Indo-Pacific. France starts to focus some of their energy to Indo-Pacific.

But China has also some valuable ally, which is Russia. Although Russia doesn’t seem to participate in Indo-Pacific, but their historical dispute in Kuril Island with Japan can distract Japan focus to contain China. After all, Kuril island are supposed belongs to Japan, so they will focus the energy to negotiate with Russia. Also, Russia has been set in sight to change geopolitical landscape in Europe and of course it will affect European Union too with France inside of it. It will give China valuable time to make another critical maneuver. In my opinion, the geopolitical landscape in Indo-Pacific will be China face off with India and US to see whoever influences geopolitical landscape in Indo-Pacific. We cannot forget Australia involvement too in Pacific and Indian Ocean. They can be valuable support for both India and US and even they will have potential to rise to stand by stand with India and US to counter China. To summarize it all, I think the key player in Indo-Pacific will be India in Indian Ocean, China in Western Pacific, and US with his allies try to counter-balance China in both Pacific and Indian Oceans. Their policies surely will affect each other.

In the late 1980s and early 90s  big shifts took place in the sphere of international relations. The Soviet authorities showed the willingness to reduce the military potential on the basis of the “reasonable sufficiency”  and refused “the Brezhnev doctrine” which justified direct interventions (including military ones) in the internal affairs of the countries under the Soviet influence.  Parallelly in the Reagan administration which came to power on the early 1980s having elaborated the  “strategy of direct confrontation” in global and regional dimensions against the USSR  aimed at achieving a complete advantage over the latter occurred a positive change in the approach to the Kremlin. At the same time the deepening economic crisis in the Eastern and Central Europe, the ethnic discontent and stagnation, the decline of “the  Brezhnev doctrine” and the holding of the multiparty elections  served as a ground to the West  for carrying out the “peaceful evolution” of  political regimes and the democratic revolution of these countries. The West welcomed the processes taking place in the Central and Eastern European countries, and in 1989 George Bush S. stated in Brussels that the US withdrew from “containment” policy which was the basis of its policy during the Cold War. Especially after the Socialist block weakening and expected collapse, NATO ’s summit in Brussels (on May 28-30, 1989) got a huge importance.

In addition to the declaration marking the 40th anniversary of the Alliance was adopted the  Comprehensive Concept Of Arms Control And Disarmament. J. Bush Sr.’s initiative was approved related to the acceleration of negotiations within the CSCE in Vienna, which envisaged the reduction of soldiers and armed forces beyond the borders of the United States and the Soviet Union.  As a result, the Soviet Union essentially reduced its military presence beyond its borders and withdrew its armed forces from the GDR* (the German Democratic Republic). Under these circumstances, the need to keep large military forces and equipment outside the borders decreased. As regarded the Central and Eastern European countries, one of the key ideas of the 1989 revolution, besides getting rid of the Soviet influence was the unification and integration with Western Europe. Initially, for solving these issues they “turned their eyes” towards the CSCE and the European Communities. The above-mentioned countries were already members of the CSCE  and the perception of the latter among these countries had moral significance as well because the Helsinki Final act played a certain role in the protection of human rights and the inspiration of communism opponents. But in any case, one thing was obvious: it was impossible to expect the overcoming of the security problems and the Cold War watershed barrier in the East of Europe only from organizations having moral influence but small military potential. If the CSCE was weak in this respect, the European communities were rather sluggish and soon the hope among the Central European and Eastern European countries to join them faded away. The point is that 1990s were the period of transformation of the European integration unions too. In the frameworks of the European communities, negotiations had been taking places parallelly aimed at deepening the integration process concerning new European agreements which would give the former socialist countries limited access to their markets and political consultation mechanisms, bypassing their immediate membership in the future. There was a serious disagreement within the European Communities too: whether to focus on the integration deepening within Western Europe or to expand to the East and include new European countries. The first position was supported by France: in accordance with president F. Mitterrand* the future integration of the above-mentioned countries into the prospective EU structures could last for decades. Obviously, Western Europe with its countries and the integration unions would not be able to ensure the security of the former socialist countries. As to NATO, the Central and Eastern European countries seek to join NATO following these reasons:

1. The cooperation was a guarantee to prevent the reestablishment of the USSR and after 1991 the Russian Federation influence over them;
2. It was a kind of “checks and balances” for the European countries in the case of united Germany (rising out of the historical experience of the past);
3. It was important to the regional countries to have a security power in the context of a complex geopolitical situation and this in its turn was in line with the US interests aimed at providing on-site pro-western forces.

On 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was declared disbanded and the USSR remained without allies. This was a cause for concern, especially when the West didn’t hurry to dissolve NATO. On the contrary, the United States and its allies persistently insisted on keeping NATO as the sole guarantor for world security and stability. At the same time, the question concerning the existence of  NATO and the American military forces was continuously becoming controversial. Despite this dispute the NATO leaders strongly supported the view of maintaining the alliance, stating their approach as follows:

• It provided protection from risks: although there was no threat of the Soviet attack any more, but also there wasn’t established a long-term political order in Europe;
• The activity of the organization legalized the US engagement in the European security on the basis of collective defence obligations;
• The CSCE (since 1994 OSCE) mediation and the resolution of conflicts felt the need for the NATO military structures assistance for peaceful resolution of the

After the end of the Cold War, it became clear that the  “good intentions” originally declared by NATO were just a kind of outer cover. Even after the collapse of the USSR, NATO kept on assuming the RF which was in a deep crisis in all dimensions as an adversary presenting the danger coming from the latter in the light of complex political and economic situations existing in Russia.

It was unprofitable to the West the dissolution of NATO after the elimination of the Warsaw Pact organization. The proponents of the block maintaining presented all the possible arguments for reconsideration of its existence in the unipolar world order context and under the terms of globalization. The maintenance of NATO and the dissolution of the Warsaw pact organization were considered to be a threat to the USSR security and stability as it made the Soviet Union much more vulnerable. Within the period of the collapse of both the Socialist camp and the USSR, the adaptation and the transformation of NATO to the current situation became imperative. During the years of 1990-1991, the process of the NATO policy and strategy adaptation to restructuring began and its main directions were defined in the London Declaration.  The main challenges and the problems the Summit faced  were as follows:

1. The change of (geo-)political and strategic situation in Europe and in the entire world;
2. The trends aimed at strengthening defence cooperation that began in the Western European Union from the early 1990s led to the stratification within the Alliance,
3. The emergence of the traditional and relatively new security threats and challenges (since the early 1990s) which questioned NATO’s future as a military structure.

The reform of the Alliance and its activities were considered necessary in accordance with the London Declaration, but it did not mention the ways and means of achieving it. Western analysts believed that the world envisaged by this document was possible only in the case of the permanently weak Soviet Union. But there was no unanimous opinion in NATO on via what methods the pressures on the USSR should be done. The declaration included a provision on the establishment of political, military and security cooperation with the countries of the former Warsaw Pact Organization (one of the key steps to organize the cooperation was to establish diplomatic missions in those countries).

NATO Secretary General M. Wörner stated during the London summit that they were considering the USSR and the Eastern European countries as their future partners and possible friends. The same was confirmed at the NATO  member states foreign ministers’  Copenhagen meeting  (July 6-7, 1991). The consultation of the CSCE member countries’ heads of the states and governments was held in Paris on  November 19-21, 1990. On the eve of the consultation the meeting of NATO and Warsaw Pact member 22 states took place and during that meeting, The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was accepted. The Charter enshrines the end of an era of division and confrontation in Europe. These states announced a joint declaration on the readiness to open a new page in the relations and cooperation in Europe. The Charter of Paris reflected the new, democratic and united vision of Europe and steps were meant to be taken to legalize the CSCE as a forum for dialogue between the two parts of Europe. The Charter was based on the 10 principles of the Helsinki Final Act. One of the realities was that the elimination of global conflict gave the opportunity to Europe to establish its development policy on the benefits of economic and values and views system.

The document stated that the Central and Eastern European countries considered the viability of NATO as an important element of the European security system. It was noted that NATO is interested in European unity, but to achieve this, and solve the problems faced by Europe the only necessary thing was close cooperation with North America. It was noted that the primary task was to develop a new strategic concept for the alliance: it was obvious that in the case of the emerging new world order, when there was no external threat of attack in the east, Europe needed more troops to counteract security threats and to resolve the current crises (including terrorism and the mass destruction weapons’ proliferation).

There were two processes taking place in the second half of 1991 that became important in defining the key directions of  NATO’s post-Cold War activities and strategy as well as requiring NATO full membership for Central and Eastern European countries:

1. A war broke out in Bosnia in the summer of 1991: Yugoslavia was considered to be a kind of miniature of the Central and Eastern Europe, where the problems existing in the region and especially nationalism were expressed in the most condensed way. In the above-mentioned region there were similar ethnic conflict phenomena typical to Cold War and to be able to avoid further escalation of the situation the close cooperation with the Alliance and the democratic institutional organizations were highlighted as a security measure.
2. The hard-line retrograde powers’ failed attempt of the coup in the USSR in the summer of 1991, which had its further impact on the countries of the Central  and Eastern Europe: First, it became obvious that they were not insured from such coup attempts, and second, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 caused an earthquake in the geopolitical dimension and as a result of the external (the Warsaw pact organization) and internal (the USSR) socialist  empires ceased to exist. As an outcome, between NATO and the core of the Soviet Union- Russia emerged a number of independent states. The Warsaw Pact Organization liquidation impact (March 31, 1991) on the ongoing political processes in Europe, particularly on the talks in Vienna and on the future of the CFE Treaty (Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe), signed between NATO and The Warsaw Pact Organization 6 members in Paris on November 19, 1990.

The New Strategic Concept of NATO was adopted in Rome on November 7-8, 1991 (The Concept-91) which was the ensemble of the basic principles for getting adapted to new political realities where the ethnic and territorial conflicts came to the forefront. Now the Alliance’s main tasks were crises management, expanding the dialogue with non-NATO member states and carrying out steps and actions directed to the resolution of security problems on the basis of the reciprocal cooperation.

The document analysis made it clear that its basis was the strategy of  “flexible response”. According to the concept, the Eastern European and the Baltic countries were included in the scopes of vital interests and mutual relations with NATO should be formed within the frameworks of bilateral relations and “The Partnership for Peace” program. The principle of cooperation also implied the interaction between the CSCE, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union.

Thus, the Concept-91 included following principal changes within NATO policy:

1. The concept was based on a broader perception of security, highlighting the need for collective protection;
2. emphasized political, economic, cultural and social elements of the NATO activities including not only military but also “total safety and security” component;
3. it corresponded to the reality of transformation from confrontation to cooperation as a guaranteed component of peace.

Emphasizing adherence to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Concept-91 maintained the key political goals of the alliance preventing their division between other security institutions in  Europe (EU, OSCE, WEU).

The provisions of  the obvious priority were as follows:

1. The establishment of the necessary foundations for stability and security in Europe, the establishment of democratic institutions and the peaceful settlement of disputes, the fight against the threat or use of force,
2. NATO’s transformation to the transatlantic forum to discuss issues of vital importance.
3. The protection of member states against aggression and repression,
4. The protection of the strategic balance in Europe.

Indeed, as noted by the Deputy Secretary of State C. Oksman, the London (1990) and Rome (1991) summits nominated to the main character of NATO’s future activities.

1. NATO adopted a new military strategy of rebuilding its forces and military structures, taking into account the security threats emerged after the Cold War. It declined to use heavy weapons and reducing nuclear weapons in Europe, refused to utilize the initial deployment forces. Instead, non-nuclear forces expanded their flexibility and mobility, which would enable them to respond to crises and conflicts rapidly;
2. NATO established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, for the consultation with the former Warsaw Pact member states in the area of security, coordination and mutual trust;
3. NATO announced that new security threats came from countries that are beyond the Alliance’s Washington contractual responsibility area which was the legal foundation and core of NATO. In this way, the future geographical issues of the organization could be considered solved. Besides, NATO offered to cooperate with the  CSCE and act jointly for the preservation of peace. For crises management, it was supposed to realize a strong cooperation with the WEU, EC, UN and the structures of transforming European communities’ (later EU). NATO’s role here was highlighted by the fact that it had armed forces, skills in political and military cooperation dimensions for flexible response to security threats;
4. The United States, despite its growing budgetary problems, would continue to maintain its membership.

The strategic concepts adopted in the 1990s unlike those adopted previously didn’t only refer to military and political aspects but also to declaring new conceptual approaches to the new post-Cold War Europe and to the rest of the world. If the Western bloc could not even imagine such a Cold War outcome, then theoretically the NATO leaders since the creation of the Alliance sought to achieve this, initially complementing and enhancing their strategic doctrines, and then using the period between The Warsaw Pact Organization collapse (March 1991) and the Belavezhsk accords (December 1991) to confirm the concept of the new strategy (November 1991). The Concept-91 was directed to the strengthening of institutions and ideology among the members of the former Warsaw pact organization. These countries should not have time to create their own ideology and institutions. The NATO leadership being well aware of this took under the preparation of the above-mentioned countries to change the vector and factually to legalize the process development without losing time.

In 1991, a number of Central and Eastern European countries appealed to NATO for granting them the status of an associated member. In reply to this,  NATO with 9 Eastern European countries established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council – a multilateral consultative body in which frameworks the cooperation between the parties should be worked out. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, former Soviet states, as well as Albania, became its members.

NACC paid the main attention to the multilateral dialogue between the former socialist countries and NATO. That dialogue was not a full membership but in reality, it was a huge step to closer cooperation and collaboration.

The end of the Cold War led to a number of qualitative changes including the elimination of the Yalta-Potsdam system, the collapse of the USSR and the transition from the bipolar world order to the unipolar one, the emergence of newly independent states in the continent and the deep fragmentation in the centre of Eurasia. Thanks to M. Gorbachev’s policy and a number of objective and subjective reasons for the collapse of the USSR, the West unexpectedly turned out to be the winner of the Cold War. After the collapse of the USSR and the Socialist bloc and the consumption of the reputation of the Non-Aligned Movement only one power centre remained- the USA,  which in its turn for the preservation of its own national interests began to rely on global alliances and coalitions one of which was and now is  NATO.

In November 1991, within the frameworks of the Rome summit, NATO  revealed the new post-Cold War type of its policy establishing the New strategic concept and forming NACC to connect former socialist bloc countries with NATO. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a need for further changes. The Concept-91 was adopted for a world where the Soviet Union still existed and one of the aims of NATO operations and activities was the containment of possible risks now expressed with much more moderate formulations. This strategic concept fixed the shift from the strategy of military confrontation to the ensuring of extensive security. This was a strategy of no enemy for there was no longer the existence of the Warsaw pact organization led by the USSR. TheConcept-91 was released to show NATO ’s operations’ transparency, reliability and its readiness for cooperation. Despite the extension of the Alliance was not a priority but such developments could not be excluded in the future.

http://shirakcenter.sci.am/work/menu%203/gitakan%20ashkhatutiunner/18/10%20%D4%B1%D5%BD%D5%BF%D5%B2%D5%AB%D5%AF.pdf

(the link to the electronic article in Armenian)

Chad has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1995, more popularly known as the Women’s Convention is the international women’s rights treaty that spells out women’s rights and obliges governments to ensure respect for these rights. However, it’s still not sure whether there are some Chadian women know that if Chad ratified the optional protocol to CEDAW or the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, better known as the Maputo Protocol.

The changing landscapes of women’s rights in Chad still very critical, major problems have hindered the development of women. In 2012, the World Economic Forum ranked the country among the worst regions in their Global Gender Gap Report. Despite the Chadian government’s efforts, overall development levels remained low; Chadian president Idriss Déby has recently instituted a law adopted this year, which is for a mandatory quota of 30% for women in all nominative and elective functions, with the ultimate objective of gradually achieving parity. This quota is already effective in its application, however, winning rights for Chadian women is about more than giving opportunities to any individual woman or girl; it is also about changing how the country and communities work. Indeed; it involves changing laws and policies, winning hearts, minds, and investing in strong women’s organizations and movements.

Being a woman in Chad

If it is true that globalization globalizes problems of humanity, on the other hand, it makes it possible to better understand them while comparing them, by identifying the peculiarities and specificities of each region of the globe. Today we are witnessing unusual struggle of women in Chad for more rights and equality – although I am aware that it is critical for the next decade for the engagement of women in Chad and gender equality to be integrated into all aspects of development; peacekeeping, diplomacy, and protection throughout local and national systems.

Simply, because all studies conducted on Chad show a country in which women are mostly illiterate, have the least health coverage, most of them are at risk of early marriage, some are still exposed to excision, women are more confronted with all forms of discrimination, beatings, torture, and rape were committed sometimes by terrorists or security forces and other abuses with “almost total” impunity.

Reports on human rights practices say that Sudanese and internally displaced women refugees in eastern Chad are often targets of sexual violence. For example, a survey conducted by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2009 revealed a prevalence of sexual violence in the order of 15 to 20 per cent in camps mainly committed by the Chadian army – in short, our sisters, wives and mothers are still lagging behind in access to the most basic rights, compared to men – in such conditions, how can women contribute to the development of the country when we know that they represent more than half of the population?

Indeed, the current situation of the Chadian women is disastrous, illiterate, subjected to forced and early marriages, their life is for the most part a life of suffering and discrimination, their well being is mortgaged by the weight of poverty, socio-cultural barriers, and HIV infection with a high prevalence rate in the country. Moreover, psychologically and systematically abused and victims of all kinds of violence, they are more and more victims of rape – women are regarded as less intelligent, weak, stupid or inferior sex to man in the Chadian society, woman; according to African and Chadian conception more precisely is the one who takes care of cooking, clean the house, the one who takes care of the home, and gives birth. This is certainly true, but today women in Chad are trying to go beyond this primary role and aspire to inspire more, they have realized that development will not happen without them.

Fortunately today, Chadians in general, and women in particular, are trying to thinking, sharing, consulting, sensitizing and learning about the ambitions they want for their country and the role they want to play. Chadian woman represents about 53% of the Chadian society – despite this weight; her voice cannot weigh heavy against her father, her brother, her husband and her sons who rely on two considerations inherited from the ancestral traditions which grant advantages and privileges to men. The latter does not intend to show any willingness to free her voice and finally treat her with more respect and consideration, all they do is considering her “MARA SAKIT” – meaning that she is just a woman!

It stands to reason that the basic unit of a society is the family. Hence, if the basic unit is well organized; an efficient education is provided to the children as well as a health protection; such society will have made halfway the way in its march towards its blossoming. Consequently, I am confident that Chadian women are doing their best to freeing themselves today, rearranging their prejudices and becoming reliable partners, and Chad will eventually print a normal pace of change on its march towards harmonious development with the unreserved participation of women in all struggles; whether in economic or social development.

Such socio-economic development implies involvement of the entire social stratum of the Chadian population. This means that men and women should both be involved in decisions that affect them. In today’s Chad, we cannot ignore the role played by women in maintaining the family structure and political environment. However, for the Chadian woman, to fully assume her role in this society; she will need the necessary education, because education is a key factor for women empowerment prosperity, development and welfare.

Recently, efforts have been made to enroll girls at the primary and secondary levels, but the level of schooling is falling at tertiary levels for a number of reasons: Teenage pregnancy, early marriage, HIV infections and domestic violence. But the Chadian parliament has adopted a reform of its penal code which raises the legal marriage age from 16 to 18. Meanwhile, Chadian President Idriss Déby promulgated a law in 2015, that punishes any person party to the marriage of a minor by 5 to 10 years prison sentence and a fine of 500,000 to 5 million FCFA (750 to 7,500 Euros). Despite this decree, its application and effective implementation remains timid, girls are still being forced to get

married under 18 – approximately, more than 50 % of married girls in Chad are married before the age of 18, according to some analysts.

I have no idea where such disgusting practice dates back to, perhaps to pre-colonial times, however, the majority of African regimes do not seem serious to prevent child marriage. Not only, but many African societies stand in the way of expressing criticism, objection and rejection of the education and practice of women to work that is exclusively exclusive to men, which leads to maltreatment and lack of understanding of the status of women and inability to help them and failed to secure a decent life especially in cases of war, And in the weak economies of these poor countries – this, in turn, results in confused policies that lack the in-depth strategies to promote them and guarantee their right to a decent life.

Are women today given enough freedom?

Perhaps talking about Chadian woman freedom is the most difficult and complicated bit in this article; as long as freedom itself has a different meaning to each individual. For many Chadian women – freedom is the state of a person or a people who does not suffer from constraints, or restrictions by another person, by a tyrannical power or by a foreign power. It is also the state of a person who is neither imprisoned nor dependent on anyone.

Actually, it is a term that has multiple meanings and confusion for many Chadian women- when I asked them “What does freedom mean to you?” most of them answered, “freedom means being free to go to school or work – it means I do not have an obligation that would prevent me; when an enlarged prisoner exclaims: “I am finally free” means that they no longer physically constrained.

The real question is not just the definition and proof of freedom or justifying the “sharp and internal feeling” – however, and at the higher level, freedom is also identified with the spontaneity of tendencies. Hence, and in order to be able to look at the bigger picture; I think it was wise and fair to ask Chadian men what freedom means to them? – For most of them, they feel free when they can fulfill their desires. But some of these men seem to believe that some trends are harmful and men must naturally fight against them. Spontaneity cannot be reduced to obeying one’s passions or impulses.

On the other hand, many Chadian women seem to believe that freedom is not really in what they do, but in the way they do things. For them – freedom is an attitude, that of the man who recognizes himself in his life. This is why freedom often consists in “changing one’s desires rather than the order of the world”.

Meanwhile, a few numbers of Chadian men seem to believe that absolute freedom is dangerous for women; it makes them lose their footing and makes them crazy. For some, perhaps freedom of women may mean to them losing their masculinity and becoming supplicating to women. This is why we must be more reasonable, and see freedom as free will, which is good enough given the number of people who are deprived of it.

Personally, even though I think that freedom is a very difficult word to define, but I find the notion of freedom is relatively relative and depends on each and every situation – just imagine living alone in the middle of a jungle, yes, we would certainly be free from the rules of a society but certainly not free from the vagaries of nature with which it would be necessary to compose, but human being has opted for a life in a group and because of the rules which govern a good balance of a society, some could be there free in total osmosis with these rules while others would find their freedom restricted. Hence, we can be free in our thought, our feelings, and our desires and in our choices without losing our masculinity or dignity.

Personal fulfillment or happiness

Let’s not let data deny the obvious, the male perspective of happiness is not the same as a female’s and vice versa – and that’s fine. Perhaps we each need to define what our personal happiness really looks like and not depend on what others tell us it should be. And it’s no wonder that there’s a positive angle in seeing things subjectively in the world of women. For many Chadian women – happiness is a durable state of personal fulfillment and satisfaction. It is a pleasant and balanced state of mind and body, hence suffering, stress, worry and trouble are absent. It is the amount of pleasures, joys, emotions and pleasant feelings as well as the little daily pleasures that they live and emphasize internally that fills the reservoir of their deepest desires.

It’s hard to take a snapshot of female happiness in the Chadian society, as many external factors have an impact on their happiness, but despite their real impact, it is not the external factors that favor or hinder happiness the most – it is their ability to emphasize what is right, to taste it fully and also the ability to negotiate with the suffering induced by external factors, without running away, deny, trivialize, exaggerate, dramatize, leaving room for emotions suffering they are causing them – it’s all about self-awareness, balance, honesty, dignity and humility.

I have recently conducted interviews with tens of Chadian ladies in N’Djamena, for many of those women – happiness is a state of complete satisfaction characterized by its stability and durability. Most of them believe that it is not enough to feel a little contentment to be happy. An intense joy is not happiness, either an ephemeral pleasure. – For them, happiness is a global state, it presents a balance and only an external element could modify it.

It is very important to recognize that women in Chad seem to be unhappy citizens with full voting rights, because most of them remain unaware of their right to protection from gender-based violence, many are unaware that rape is a crime and see it as just an act of indecency. As I said earlier; most acts of rapes and gender-based violence are committed by security officers against women. Consequently, sexual assault survivors never report for many reasons. And it is almost impossible for anyone to believe them in the society when they report; perhaps even their family and parents won’t believe such reports.

Meanwhile, Underage Chadian girls travel to the capital city in search of work or education, where some are subsequently subjected to prostitution. Some girls are compelled to marry against their will, only to be forced by their husbands into involuntary domestic servitude or agricultural labor.

Based on own observation, it’s possible to point out that women in Chad still have a much harder time than men fitting work and family together without saying that they are “secretly miserable” or that they shouldn’t value career and financial independence. But how are you supposed to have the energy to be happier if you’re exhausted, not free and miserable from work and education?

In the absence of specific family legislation, women are excluded from legal protection. Even thought the government announced the intention to promote early adoption of a Gender Equality Family Code, the persistence of discriminatory legislation; discrimination in the field of family; domestic violence against women and harmful traditional practices; violations of women’s inheritance rights; women’s limited access to education, the labor market, decision-making positions, health and justice. However, all these texts are still in draft form only, simply; because the government doesn’t seem to take the texts seriously from the begging. Therefore, it is obvious that gains in women’s rights haven’t made Chadian women happier.

As a neutral observer, I am just trying to examine a situation from a detached space of not being invested emotionally in the outcome. It seems to be obvious to me that Chadian women face immense difficulties in accessing justice and asserting their rights. On the one hand, the costs of proceedings are particularly high; on the other hand, Chadian women are not aware of their rights and the laws that protect them. In addition, the lack of professional training of police and judicial personnel, as well as their lack of knowledge of applicable rules to protect women’s rights, hinder the outcome of complaints and deter victims from seeking justice. Not only, but, traditional and religious leaders have significant authority interpret the law to harm and damage Chadian women. Hence, girl’s education is the best way to eliminate such discriminatory cultural practices and stereotypes that negatively impact women’s rights in Chad.

It’s been less than 48 hours since Jair Bolsonaro was confirmed as Brazil’s president-elect – and there’s still two months before he takes office on January 1, 2019. We still don’t know who will be his pick for Minister of Foreign Affairs, but the challenges on foreign policy are well-known. According to experts on the matter, the new government will have five main issues ahead:

• Venezuela: the full-scale crisis in the neighboring country has provoked a massive migratory flux towards many Latin American countries – including Brazil. Every day, hundreds of Venezuelan-born families cross the northern border of Roraima to seek a better life. The current administration has opted for keeping an “open borders” policy, asking in multilateral forums for a joint political solution for the crisis.
• Trade war: Another hot foreign policy issue on the president-elect’s plate is the looming trade war between the world’s largest economies (and Brazil’s main trading partners), the U.S. and China. Brazil, as a major commodity exporter, is stuck in the middle of the crossfire and, in theory, needs to adopt a more balanced approach so as not to enrage either side.

READ MORE

In this section, YoungDiplomats intends to explain how thinkers are paramount to understand world politics. The last writer we’ve studied was Sun-Tzu. Today we’re gonna get closer of us with Carl Von Clausewitz. In his main book, Of War, published in 1832, he defines what is war and how it can be won. 

His life 

Clausewitz was a soldier of the Prussian army in 1792, and in 1793–95 he took part (and was commissioned) in the campaigns of the First Coalition against Revolutionary France. In 1801 he gained admission into the Institute for Young Officers in Berlin. This event was a turning point in his life. He took part in the Battle of Jena (1806). In the wake of Prussia’s catastrophic defeat, Clausewitz had to fight for the French army. Following the fall of the French empire, he wrote his famous book. 

What you should know about his thought 

Several things must be known by every political thinkers and leaders of tomorrow. As all of you know, geopolitics is deeply related with war and how States face the one with the others. As we did when studying the war according to Sun-Tzu (http://www.young-diplomats.com/theory-lessons-from-sun-tzu-s-art-of-war/), we have to do the same to understand Clausewitz’s thought. Those thinkers are paramount because they give their vision of war.

For Clausewitz, War is first and foremost darkness. This human phenomena can’t be seen as an art or a science. For him, the genial warrior must be able to see through this darkness. This kind of man has the ability to solve dramatic issues thanks to an accurate glance. He clearly explains that this darkness results from the fact that war is the kingdom of chance.

Besides, he develops an important concept in war studies : the friction. To sum up, this concept can be defined as the unavoidable gap between the theory and the ground. Clausewitz writes an important quote : ” In War, experience counts more than any philosophical truth “.

War is also about having a plan. Clausewitz puts a stress on improvisation and reaction. Nevertheless, he doesn’t deny that a well-thought strategy is the key to success. He draws a difference between tactic and strategy. The latest includes tactics. The genial warrior uses the anger of its soldiers as well as trickery and tactic to win victories. 

Should you read On War ? 

Clausewitz is doubtlessly one of the most important thinkers in terms of military strategy and reflection. On many points, his book got old. However, his mind has influenced Prussian leaders and paramount French as well as German generals read this book. YoungDiplomats suggests you to read On War. You should try to find a commented version allowing to understand which parts of this theory is out of date.

‘Last night was the most horrifying night of my life. Sound asleep, in the middle of the night some noises around your house awaken you up. You turn on the lights and peep from the gap in curtains, see men in boots and uniform marching across the street. Women of your neighbourhood have been lined up against the wall while loading men into armoured jeeps with black masks on their face. Dogs barking and searching the house. You wonder whether my house will be raided too. Uncertainty prevails upon your thoughts. Being a Kashmiri is a curse. Welcome to the cursed heaven’

This happens on every night in Indian Occupied Kashmir. This land has been a lynchpin of the violent struggle between India and 12.5 million Kashmiris fighting for independence since 1947. An armed insurgency that started in May 1989 has led to the enacting of several repressive laws by the Indian government. It is the most heavily militarized zone on the face of the earth. Indian Border Security Force (BSF) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has converted the life of Kashmiri residents into a living hell. Since 1989, over 95,015 people have been killed, 11 thousand women been subjected to heinous crimes of rape and custodial torture. Incidents like Gawkadal Massacre where CRPF opened fire on protestors killing at least 55, the Zukoora and Tengpora Massacre, Kunan Poshpora killings, Bijbehara Massacre, Sopore Massacre are the examples of brutal sexual abuses, ransacking homes, extrajudicial killings, torture and mass massacres of civilians.

The draconian public safety Act 1978, provides forces to wreak havoc upon civilians anywhere in the valley without prior warning. India has re-instated the Cordon and Search Operations act (CASO) in order to suppress any dissident voice. Every Indian government from Nehru’s Congress to Manmohan’s cabinet has tried to suppress the rights of Kashmiris who want freedom.

While the previous governments have considered Kashmir as a territorial dispute, Modi government gave it a communal colour fostering violence in powder keg valley. Modi has pulled out of a coalition government tipping the valley into chaos. This tough stance comes on the back of scathing report released by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights which has demanded an international probe into Human Rights violations committed at the hands of state machinery in Jammu and Kashmir. The United Nations has accused the Indian state of widespread violations in Kashmir. BJP government has refuted the statement of the report as it was expected. The Indian government has always denied International approach towards achieving peace in the region.

UN Security Council’s Resolution 47 laid a framework for holding a plebiscite in order to resolve the dispute. It demanded that India must withdraw its troops from Kashmir. The Indian government refused to appoint UN arbiter as Plebiscite administrator and withdrawal of its troops.

If one takes into account the atrocities India has committed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir it is no less than naked acts of state-sponsored aggression and terrorism.

Now it is time that other parties and states of this dispute i.e. United Kingdom who left an unfinished partition agenda and Pakistan who supports the Kashmir cause on humanitarian reasons raise this issue in Security Council not for highlighting But pushing for sanctions against India. Because it endangers international peace and security in this region let alone for humanitarian causes. It is the need of the hour to curb draconian security measures in Kashmir.

The Security Council can take action to maintain or restore international peace and security under Chapter 7 of the UN charter. Sanctions measure under Article 41, encompass a broad range of enforcement options to pursue targeted peace achievement. Ranging from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to arms embargoes. India has recently purchased S-400 anti-missile defence system from Russia which upsets the security balance apparatus between two nuclear states. The Kashmir conflict conflagration can lead to full-blown war.

Thus, it is the necessity of time that measures be taken on International forum to contain Indian aggression in any possible way of providing Kashmiris with some breathing space.

The Superior Electoral Court had three presiding justices this year – and each stressed the need to counter the power of fake news on voters’ minds. The court created a committee to monitor online campaigning (which didn’t hold a single meeting during the first-round campaign). If the 2018 election will be remembered for one thing, it will be for the rise of fake news.

This week, members of the Superior Electoral Court will meet with the two remaining presidential campaigns to discuss the spreading of fake information, and will have a conference call with WhatsApp representatives. But it might be too little, too late.

On Sunday, October 7, Brazilians headed to the polls for the first round of the 2018 elections. That weekend alone, fact-checking agency Aos Fatos debunked 12 rumors that combined for 1.17 million shares on Facebook. Among these falsehoods, the pieces which had the most traction were those related to fraudulent electronic voting machines. Rumors around that subject amassed at least 844,300 shares.

No other topic generated as much engagement. An example of other pieces of fake news with much, much fewer shares was a doctored picture of actor Rodrigo Santoro (Love Actually, Lost) wearing a t-shirt in support of far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro. While the photo montage attracted 57,000 shares, it paled in comparison with conspiracy theories surrounding voting machines.

The tensions between Russia and Ukraine are far from dulling. After Crimea’s annexation by hRussia in 2014 the situation is not improving as a recent event illustrates it. On October 11 2018, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, Orthodoxy’s spiritual leader, took the decision to reestablish the independence of the Church of Ukraine from Russia. For centuries the Ukrainian Church was subjected to the will of Moscow. Russian domination dated back to an agreement in 1686 that granted the Patriarchate of Moscow ‘Autocephaly’ in Ukraine, meaning the ability to rule over the Ukrainian Church. But this situation now belongs to the past. The Patriarchate of Ukraine will now be able to appoint its own representatives.

It represents a tremendous change for Orthodoxy as it puts an end to a centuries-old situation. It is also a big failure for Patriarch Kirill of Moscow after he tried hard to convince Constantinople not to give independence to the Ukrainian Church. The Patriarch is the most influent religious leader in Russia and a loyal friend of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Putin’s strategy has always been to erase the communist ideology while emphasising the traditional religious values. It significantly increased the clout of the Patriarchate and gave it an enormous influence on the regime’s popularity. The decision of Constantinople is therefore a serious snub for Moscow and will probably have an influence on Russian influence in Ukraine.

The Russian Patriarchate did not take long to react. On October 16 Patriarch Kirill did a public announcement to declare his Church was cutting ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is no less than an earthquake for religious diplomacy in the area. It is however more of an immediate reaction that shows their frustration and discontent, than an actual strategic measure. Such a retaliation will only have a negative impact on Russian Orthodoxy itself. According to the expert in religious issues Sergeï Chapnin this division will mostly affect the Russians, preventing them from joining greek services, from studying in seminaries affiliated to Constantinople, or even more meaningful from going on a pilgrimage to Mount Athos. What is more, other Orthodox churches are not ready to follow the Russian example and bail on Constantinople. Even though the Russian Church is the most powerful it did not cut loose for theological or ideological motives. As a result the Russians find themselves isolated from the rest of the cult.

It appears that this religious division is part of an ongoing process of rupture that started with the Crimea crisis and continued with the war in Donbass. Diplomatic relations between Russia and Ukraine shattered and kept deteriorating everyday. Even though this time the split is religious it still has an impact on every other aspects. Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko is clear about the importance of the return of their religious independence: ‘This is a matter of our independence. A matter of our national security. A matter of our statehood. A matter of the entire global geopolitics.’ He even compares it as ‘a victory of the Ukrainian people over Moscow’s demons, a victory of Good over Evil.’ The words are wisely chosen but the main idea remains the same: for Ukraine it is a step forward to its emancipation from its nemesis. For Poroshenko it is an opportunity to go back up in the polls.

So what is likely to happen now? Some mention the risk of a schism like it happened before in history. One cannot reject the occurrence of conflicts in Ukraine, as the Orthodoxy is split in four different churches bound to different authorities and different stances. The tensions are even more likely to rise in Crimea where Ukrainian and Russian identities collide. The rupture adds a touch of religious diversity to a yet highly complex situation. However some see it as a chance for Ukraine to reach some form of religious unity. The Patriarch of Ukraine predicted that many of churches now under the authority of the Russian Church would probably switch allegiance to Constantinople. As such it is can be seen as a ‘political tragedy for the Russian church’ said Roman Lunkin, a senior researcher at the University of Moscow. US President Donald Trump already showed his support to Ukraine while Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan carefully ensured not to interfere in this crisis. It is a serious blow to Putin’s sphere of influence and the aftermath will be mostly against him.