Young Diplomats

Here’s the second part of our article about the next revolution in Africa!

Secessionist sentiments as pre-existing conditions

Of course, Africa distinctly remembers the great events that sparked off the Arab Spring in 2010. Bolstered by the flames on social media, once the wind of political revolution spread from its origins in North Africa, and blew eastwards into the Arab World. I doubt the impact and outcome of that revolution would have been any different if the winds blew southwards into Sub-Saharan Africa instead.

As taken from the Anatomy of Revolution; a book by Crane Brinton, perhaps we have all the pre-existing conditions that could lead to revolutions in Africa:

• Many African people feel restless and held down by unacceptable restrictions in society, as they are hopeful about the future, but they are being forced to accept less than they had hoped
• They are beginning to think of themselves as belonging to a social class, and there is a growing bitterness between social classes.
• Some African governments do not respond to the needs of its society, and the leaders of these governments and the ruling class begin to doubt themselves. Hence, some join with the opposition groups.
• Most of these governments cannot organize its finances correctly and is either going bankrupt or trying to tax heavily and unjustly.

The Anatomy of Revolution, which was published in 1938, is still one of the leading ideas on what commonly causes revolution and what occurs after it.

Based on these pre-existing conditions; perhaps you have been wondering why one of the main stories of the last decades is an upsurge of secessionist sentiment in several African states such as Sudan, Central African Republic {CAR}, Cameroon, Nigeria and Kenya. Significantly, while the demand for the creation of a separate state has complex roots as we have seen in South Sudan, in each case it was triggered by perceptions of political exclusion. Although all these voices have very different dynamics and motivations, they have all led to protests and met with a hostile state response. Perhaps, somewhat paradoxically, they are also movements that don’t really want to secede, in each case; many opposition leaders across the continent are using the threat of separation as a way to highlight and contest their political exclusion. Nonetheless, unless some of their demands are met, secessionist sentiment is likely to harden in countries like Sudan, Mali, Cameroon, Mauritania, Chad, CAR, Ethiopia, Katanga region in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, undermining national identities and paving the way for future geopolitical crises in the continent as long as the current governments won’t be able to respond to their legitimate demands.

Achievements and failures of economic reforms

It perhaps could be quite a nail-biting time for you wondering what will fuel the secessionist sentiment most. Of course, tribal and political corruption in addition to the achievements and failures of Africa’s neoliberal economic policies in some sub-Saharan African governments will also have a disastrous effect as it will increase more economic hardship and push more African young people towards revolutions. Even though most of these revolutions will take a peaceful shape in the begging, however, it will end up in a bloody result in many sub-Saharan African states – in oil producing countries, particularly.

Africa’s experience with neoliberal economic policy presents a classic example of a state which progressively shifted from a relative welfare state to glutinous state. Neoliberal reforms will not be concerned with social issues but with market efficiency, which will work against the basic tenets of human rights and constitutional safeguards for the next generations. Hence, a considerable young African people will resort to dynamic activities in the nation and turn against their own local governments.

Sometimes the desperate act of a single suicidal inflammatory protester like vegetable salesman Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia, back in December 2010, catches the imagination of a country.

However, this is not what is going to happen in sub-Saharan Africa’s revolutions – obviously it will take different shape and color, and it will perhaps start somewhere in the East or West Africa first. Unfortunately, most of these revolutions will be collapsed in its first decade for some ethnic and global reasons. Simply, because what collapses a regime in Africa is when insiders turn against it. So long as army, police and senior officials think they have more to lose by revolution than by defending a regime, then even mass protests can be defied and crushed.

Role of the international community

In this dynamically changing Africa, the crisis of American-Russian leadership competition could become the crisis of an African and global stability as Europe is not going to keep silent. Yet in the foreseeable future no state or combination of states can replace the linchpin role China and Europe play in Africa. Neither the role America plays in the international system. Hence, the revolutions will absolutely take international proxy conflicts. Consequently, there will be no global recovery. The only alternative to a constructive American role is global chaos in the African continent – in this context – my analysis based on the current environmental, social and political impact of some multinational companies operating in Africa is well known, especially when it comes to the extraction of natural resources and bribing governments to secure lucrative contracts.

Meanwhile, highly authoritarian countries like Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Rwanda, Swaziland, Chad, Togo and the rest of the Francophone African states will probably unify to re-establish a shared sense of purpose between America and Europe in order to manage such revolutions. However, Russia will put some foot in the heart of Africa, perhaps in Bangui particularly, in order to get ready for her big African move. To that end, informal but frequent top-level consultations will badly be needed, even though we are all aware that there is no such thing yet. However, the only practical solution will be to cultivate a more deliberate dialogue among the U.S. and the three European countries that have a global orientation in Africa; Britain, France and Germany.

This will underline a significant distinction with Russia. Like Beijing and Moscow wish to revise international patterns, but it will tend to be frustrated, impatient and sometimes even threatening. Nonetheless, it will never be in the interest of the U.S. and of Europe to engage China and Russia in such revolutions. In so doing, America will seek agreements that enhance stability, promote democracy and nuclear weapons reduction in order to deal with such regional problems.

In this new world order, perhaps America and Europe will have to find a way of reaffirming their commitment to the integrity of Africa while conveying to China and Russia that their interest in these states relates to the gradual construction of a larger democratic Africa and is not designed to threaten China itself or its interest in Africa.

Thus, there is great caution in dealing with the prospective revolution in its strategic African dimensions. With the historical ignorance that has taken place in Somalia and Libya, perhaps there are those who think that it is possible to deal with any future conflicts as was dealt with in previous cases. However, this is not the case this time. In any case, the payment of the bill to leave Somalia has started by the ongoing piracy operations. Sudan and Libya were not Somalia, where there are huge resources already, large population blocs, and ports on major African countries. The issue in the end is that the danger cannot be ignored and it is time to deal with it wisely and courageously; this is a message to everyone who cares about this planet!

Role of the African Diaspora

Going by the trend of the new political awakening that will lead up to Africa’s next revolutions, and as long as a return to the home country is part of the migration strategy, already most serious scholars believe that most of African migrants will return to their home countries. An important contextual factor which is growing in significance as the new African Diaspora grows in influence as a constituency whose influence is refracted back into the domestic political processes unfolding in different countries.

The process of the constitution of this new Diaspora is recent and still on-going as a wave of professionals, many of them still in their prime, migrate for a variety of reasons to Europe and North America at the same time as many who left temporarily to study abroad also choose to stay back. Even though their role seems to be invisible in the continent, however, their weight in lobbying around issues of political, economic, social reforms and human rights in their host countries is growing and their voice in the affairs of their home countries reverberates among some important constituencies. It is a mark of their growing influence that a formal recognition has been conferred on them by the African Union. Therefore, their contributions will eventually play a big economic and intellectual role in such prospective revolutions.

Concluding Remarks

So let me end my remarks by asserting simply, in looking for alternative interpretative frames for understanding the new patterns of economic, social and political developments in the continent, it is important, as a starting point, to keep in mind that revolution is a continuous process. It is also not always radical – in most cases, it is gradual, often incomplete, certainly far from being perfect or total, and is sometimes even unpredictable. However, it is going to happen soon; because we recently have seen elections that didn’t look like elections in the continent and coups that didn’t look like coups. In this sense, it was an era of total illusions and confusions that need more serious studies.

It is my fundamental belief that all of these dynamic transformations of Africa will ultimately lead to ethical, social and political revolutions that will place new political leadership in the hands of the continent’s furious youth, instead of risking everything with their lives in search for a better life in the West.

This article has been written by our brilliant YoungDiplomats leader in Africa : Idriss Zackaria !

YoungDiplomats decided to publish three speeches of an American diplomat, businessman and writer, Chas W. Freeman. They are high value speeches because a former American diplomat gives his feeling on what is diplomacy.
Remarks to the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island, 17 April 2018

This is the third and last of three connected lectures on diplomatic doctrine.  The series was preceded by an introductory presentation.  This lecture deals with diplomacy as risk management.  The first lecture described diplomacy as strategy; the second as tactics. 

At its most basic level, diplomacy is the management of foreign relations to reduce risk to the nation while promoting its interests abroad.  In this task, diplomacy’s success is measured more by what it precludes than by what it achieves.  One can never prove that what didn’t happen would have happened if one had not done this or that.  But, for the most part in foreign affairs, the fewer the surprises and the less the stress, the better.

The ideal outcome of diplomacy is the assurance of a life for the nation that is as tranquil and boring as residence in the suburbs.  And, like suburban life, in its day-to-day manifestation, diplomacy involves harvesting flowers when they bloom and fruits and berries when they ripen, while laboring to keep the house presentable, the weeds down, the vermin under control, and the predators and vagrants off the property.  If one neglects these tasks, one is criticized by those closest, regarded as fair prey by those at greater remove, and not taken seriously by much of anyone.

Viewed this way, the fundamental purpose of U.S. foreign policy is the maintenance of a peaceful international environment that leaves Americans free to enjoy the prosperity, justice, and civil liberties that enable our pursuit of happiness.  This agenda motivated the multilateral systems of governance the United States created and relied upon after World War II – the Pax Americana.  Secretary of Defense Mattis has called this “the greatest gift of the greatest generation.”  Institutions like the United Nations. its specialized agencies, like the International Monetary Fund and the World Health Organization, and related organizations like the World Trade Organization sought to regulate specific aspects of international behavior, manage the global commons, provide frameworks for the resolution of international disputes, and organize collective responses to problems.

In the aggregate, these offspring of U.S. diplomacy established and sustained widely accepted norms of behavior for many decades.  International law drew on consensus to express these norms as rules.  To the extent they were accepted internationally, these rules constrained state actions that could damage the common interests of the society of nations the rules had brought into being.  Despite its uneven performance, the Pax Americana assured a relatively high degree of predictability in world affairs that facilitated peaceful international interactions.   It did so on the same philosophical basis as the rule of law in domestic affairs – a belief that rules matter and that process legitimizes outcomes rather than the other way around.

Today, that philosophy and its ethical foundations are under attack both at home and abroad.  For the time being, at least, Washington has set aside the rule-bound international order and the market-driven economic interactions it enabled.  The United States is discarding the multilateral strategic framework that it built to restrain the behavior of lesser states in the last half of the 20^th century.  In its place, the Trump administration is experimenting with neo-mercantilist theories that seem to have been crowd-sourced to right-wing talk radio.  Washington seeks to maximize U.S. leverage over trading partners by dealing with them only on a bilateral basis.  Trade and investment are increasingly government-managed and hence politicized rather than freely contracted between private buyers and sellers.  So far, it must be said, bird-brained bilateralism is proving no substitute for the complex regulatory regimes it is replacing and the supply chains it is disrupting.

With the fading of previously agreed codes of conduct and the principle of PACTA SUNT SERVANDA [“agreements must be kept”], what could once be taken for granted in managing relations with other states must now be repetitiously renegotiated and affirmed bilaterally.  But Washington has demoted diplomacy as a tool of American statecraft in favor of primary reliance on military and economic coercion.  Escalating uncertainties are driving nations toward unrestrained unilateralism and disregard for international law.  As this century began, the United States popularized contemptible practices like the assassination and abduction for questioning under torture of foreign opponents.  A lengthening list of other countries –  China, north Korea, Russia, and Turkey, to name a few – have now brazenly followed this bad example.  More issues are being deferred as intractable, addressed ad hoc, or dealt with through the threat or use of force.

In this new world disorder, the need for diplomacy to tend fraying relationships is manifestly greater than ever.  The Congress and public, as well as the U.S. military, sense this.  They have resisted efforts by the Trump administration to slash budgets for peaceful international engagement by the U.S. Department of State and related agencies.  Still,  the American diplomatic imagination has not been so myopic and enervated since before World War II.  Nor have U.S.  investments in diplomacy, Americans’ expectations of their diplomats, or international trust of the United States been so low.

Diplomatic preparedness requires constant attention to other nations and their views.  Showing that one’s government is interested in and understands what others think encourages them to be more receptive to one’s own ideas.  Attentiveness to their needs, views, and doubts signals willingness to work together and cultivates willingness to cooperate in defending common interests.  The regular nurturing and reaffirmation of relationships is what makes it possible to call on a network of friends in times of need.  Responding politely and considerately – in the least offensive way one can – to others’ messages conveys respect as well as substance.  It invites their sympathetic study of the logic, intent, and interests behind one’s own messages.

Constant diplomatic intercourse promotes stability and predictability.  It inhibits inimical change, reducing the risk that amicable states will become adversaries or that adversaries will become enemies.  And it  provides situational awareness that reduces surprise and enables governments to respond intelligently and tactfully to trends and events.

All this may seem obvious.  But it takes a sustained commitment by national leaders, public servants, and well-trained diplomats as well as reliable funding to carry it off.  In the contemporary United States, none of these is now assured.  The safety net provided by routine diplomacy as I have just described is increasingly neglected.  The resulting disarray in American international relationships is shaking our alliances, eroding cooperation with our international partners, raising doubts about U.S. reliability, causing client states to seek new patrons, and diminishing deference to U.S. national interests by friends and foes alike.   Increases in military spending demonstrate eagerness to enhance warfighting capabilities.  But greater capacity to wreak havoc does nothing to rectify the doubts of foreign nations about American wisdom, reliability, and rapport in our conduct of relations with them.

U.S. military power is as yet without effective challenge except at the regional level.   But, on its own, it is proving consistently incapable of producing outcomes that favor our national security.  It is a truism that those who cannot live by their brawn or their wallets must live by their wits.  Neither war nor the threat of war can restore America’s lost political primacy.  Only an upgrade in American competence at formulating and implementing domestic and foreign policies, coupled with effective diplomacy in support of credible American leadership, can do that.

In recent years, Americans have become better known for our promiscuous use of force and our cynical disregard of international law than for our rectitude and aspirations for moral excellence.  U.S. foreign policy has featured unprovoked invasions and armed attacks on foreign countries, violations of their sovereignty through drone warfare and aid to insurgents, assassinations and kidnappings, interrogation through torture, the extrajudicial execution of citizens as well foreigners, universal electronic eavesdropping, Islamophobia, the suspension of aid to refugees, xenophobic immigration policies, and withdrawal from previously agreed frameworks for collective action on issues of global concern, like climate change.  This sociopathic record inspires only the enemies of the United States.  It is not a platform that wins friends, influences people in our favor, or encourages them to view us as reliable.

Foreign perceptions of American society have also deteriorated.   Many now see the United States as having evolved a transparently venal government of the people, by the plutocracy, for the plutocracy.  They are very aware of the inequality of opportunity, unequal income distribution, and other injustices that now negate the soaring promises of our declaration of independence.  They are dismayed by the gun massacres in our schools and public places and the police gun-downs of black Americans, as well as the denial and hypocrisy that our politicians and media habitually display in response to such events.

They know that America’s claims to be a free society are mocked by a prison population that is the highest per capita in the world – at least five times higher than that in notoriously undemocratic societies like China.  They are sickened by reports of the bloated costs, gross inefficiencies, labor immobility, lack of insurance for the poor, and the high rates of maternal and infant mortality that result from the uniquely dysfunctional U.S. health care system.  And they are not favorably impressed by the partisan political gridlock, fiscal follies, or private affluence and public squalor of contemporary America.  They are put off by a society that no longer distinguishes fame from notoriety and appalled by the smug provincialism of the celebrity-strewn American establishment.  Foreigners once admired  American exceptionalism for its aspirations to moral excellence.  Now it is a watchword for self-righteous complacency, thoughtless rejection of global norms of social justice, and unilateral announcements of policy that have not been preceded by consultation with presumed partners.

Leadership without followers is a non sequitur.  (No pun intended.)  Non-democratic models of governance are currently outperforming ours in a number of ways.  To challenge them, Americans need to recognize our deficiencies, address them, up our performance, and return to managing risks to our enjoyment of  freedom and prosperity by carrying out the elementary chores of  routine diplomacy.   Only this can restore the foreign respect for our system of government and its leadership that has been the foundation of our international influence.

Some diplomatic chores yield immediate gains.  Others are long-term investments in garnering goodwill and building rapport – laying down strata of fossil friendship that can be mined in the future, or keeping warm memories of past cooperation suggestively alive.  As current events demonstrate, when these chores are not done, the nation loses in both the short and the long term.

As an example of diplomatic work that generates near-term results, consider the help diplomats make available to businesses seeking to export their goods and services.   Trade promotion is sometimes derided as “corporate welfare” by ideologues.  But the support to commerce that diplomats offer can be essential to ease access to foreign markets for American companies and to enable them to deal effectively with foreign laws and regulations.  Export promotion is in the national interest as well as that of the companies and their employees who earn a living from exports.

Part of any embassy’s mission is to help American businesses do due diligence on potential customers and partners and to introduce them to foreign officials and local business elites who can facilitate trade and investment.   American ambassadors who have been properly trained to represent the United States see themselves as the chief U.S. trade promotion officers in the countries to which they are accredited.  They and the officers from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, State, and Treasury whom they lead do what they can to encourage their hosts to “buy American.”  The exports this work supports sustain 10.5 million American jobs.

Diplomats are also central to the facilitation of international travel.  Diplomats specializing in consular work issue passports and visas, help citizens who get in trouble abroad, and facilitate educational exchanges.  They thus enable travel in both directions for education and tourism as well as trade and investment.  There are now almost 1.1 million foreign students in the United States.  The tuition they pay funds more than 450,000 jobs in the U.S. educational establishment and contributes just short of $37 billion to the U.S. economy.  Meanwhile, foreign visitors spend about $170 billion annually on travel services in the United States, helping to support a domestic travel and tourism industry that directly employees over five million Americans and indirectly generates another eight million or more jobs.  And, while they’re visiting, foreigners buy another $80 billion or so in goods and services.

Less tangibly and less visibly to the public, diplomatic interactions are a major element in government awareness of foreign thinking, planning, and actions that affect both national and particular interests in the United States.   Reporting and analysis by U.S. diplomats overseas typically provide a substantial majority of the material that intelligence agency personnel charged with all-source analysis rely upon to brief policymakers in Washington.  There is no substitute for ground truth, artfully captured and examined in light of U.S. interests, in making sufficient sense of events in foreign countries and cultures to enable officials to respond intelligently to these.

Sadly, even the best diplomatic and other reporting cannot compel Washington policymakers to accept inconvenient foreign realities that conflict with their political prejudices and delusions.  As the American statesman, Chester Crocker has remarked, “surprise is what usually follows the collision of intelligence with an entrenched policy consensus.”  From time to time, such surprises happen and Washington decision-makers seek to avoid blame for their errors of omission by finding scapegoats, as the fate of “old China hands,” among many others, illustrates.  The declining role of diplomats in U.S. foreign relations and our increasing reliance on the U.S. military foreshadow future surprises from foreigners we haven’t bothered to understand.  If one relies on overthrowing foreign governments rather than on dealing with them nonviolently, there is no need to bother understanding them or their motives for taking the positions they do.

A diplomatic presence adds value only to the extent that it enables face-to-face communication with the local authorities and their constituents.  The cultivation of contacts in the host country is the key to collecting information relevant to statecraft.  It is also the most effective means of accurately and persuasively conveying one’s government’s views to the host government.  But the global metastasis of anti-American terrorism has led the United States to fear local contact and to build embassies that are heavily fortified and inaccessible to all but their employees.

The growing isolation of our diplomats impairs – even if it does not entirely eliminate – interaction with local officials and populations.  It obstructs direct insights into the motivations driving popular opposition to America and makes the U.S. government dependent on information from other governments, some of which is bound to be self-interestedly manipulative.  Cowering behind blast walls sends a message of fearfulness that bolsters terrorists’ confidence in their ability to intimidate the United States and reduce its influence abroad.  It turns embassies into attractive nuisances.  It makes it easier for those seeking to isolate the United States to do so.  The principal beneficiaries of the cover-your-ass mentality that drives embassy fortification and isolation are government-contracted security specialists, architects, and construction companies, not the diplomats they have been tasked to protect.

According to both ancient tradition and international law, the protection of ambassadors and their entourages is the responsibility of host governments.  Embassies should not be configured to serve as centers of imperial administration.  The turn to resident diplomatic representatives that took place in the 16^th century was not motivated by a desire to establish armed enclaves or citadels of extraterritorial power in foreign capitals, but to aid routine communication between sovereign states.

Fortifying diplomatic missions and arming them against attacks by the local citizenry implicitly relieves  host governments from their responsibility to keep ambassadors and their entourages safe from harm.  It helps them to evade domestic political responsibility for defending the embassies of unpopular foreign states from mobs  It may, in fact, incentivize governments to look the other way as  protesters assault such embassies.

The United States needs to reconsider policies that generate terrorism against it.  But Americans should also be prepared to withdraw embassies from countries that cannot keep them safe.  In most cases, there is nothing to gain by condoning the failure of such countries to meet international standards for the maintenance of diplomatic relations and shielding them from the consequences of their irresponsibility.

The physical security of diplomats is important, but information security is truly vital to their work.  Honest discourse on sensitive matters requires reliable assurances of confidentiality, whether it is to lawyers’ clients, physicians’ patients, or diplomats’ interlocutors.  In democracies, the people have a right to know what policies their government is following and why.  They have no legitimate interest in the sources and methods by which their government gains information from foreigners or influences their decisions.  Analysis should be disclosed, but the details of diplomatic conversations and reporting on the views of foreign governments and individuals should be privileged.

Breaches of professional privilege degrade the candor and reduce the effectiveness of exchanges of information.  Diplomacy consists of professionally privileged exchanges.  The indiscriminate release by Wiki leaks of classified cables reporting confidential exchanges between diplomats and their foreign sources degraded U.S. diplomatic intelligence collection capabilities.

The inclusion in the Wiki leaks release of diplomatic evaluations of foreign leaders’ character and political performance titillated and impressed the public with the notably high quality of American diplomatic reporting and analysis.  But it did grave damage to U.S. relations with a number of countries, ruined productive relationships with key sources of information, resulted in the expulsion of some American diplomats, and embittered previously cooperative foreign leaders against the United States and the official Americans with whom they had been meeting.

Fear of future leaks has caused American diplomats to report less honestly and fully to Washington than before.  The same concerns about information security, compounded by self-centered amateurs playing at diplomacy with an eye on politics back home, have led to meetings with no note-takers or to the bowdlerizing of the records of American officials’ meetings with foreign officials.  Nobody has gained from the corruption of diplomatic record-keeping by American officials, except perhaps the foreign competitors of the United States.  Unlike us, they have not corrupted their institutional memories and are armed with accurate accounts of their  interactions with American leaders.  When future disputes arise over what was or wasn’t said in meetings, they will have the advantage.  (By the way, what did we tell Mr. Gorbachev about NATO expansion?)

The focus of diplomacy is the ruling authorities – those with the power to make decisions for their polities.  But all political systems defer to public opinion to one extent or another.  Democratic governments are subject to popular supervision through elections.   The democratization of politics in Europe a century or more ago, led to widening recognition of the importance of public diplomacy.  It also widened the interaction of legislators with foreigners.  Technology then allowed them to travel abroad, allegedly on public business but often for personal enjoyment.  Not to worry.  Exposure to realities outside the Beltway bubble improves minds.

Foreign deference to American power and support from American embassies have long assured  VIP treatment and high-level access for our representatives by foreign officials.  But congressional travel abroad creates ill will when – as is all too often the case – members of the House and Senate offer no welcome  in Washington to the very foreign officials who had pampered them on their own trips abroad.  As foreign deference to the United States continues to ebb, Congress  needs to consider how to reciprocate foreign hospitality to its members and staff.  The United States would be strengthened were congresscritters to make a serious effort to improve their own poor reputation abroad.  As U.S. officials, they too have a responsibility to contribute to U.S. public diplomacy.

Public diplomacy is the patriotic art of making one’s country appear to have the better cause. It is designed to explain policies and institutions in terms that are persuasive to audiences in foreign cultures.  During the Cold War, this was the task of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA).  Created in 1953, it was euthanized in 1999, when the Clinton administration determined that history had ended, CNN was on the job, and new private sector outlets like Fox News were about to ensure “fair and balanced” American coverage of notable events.

Unfortunately, the extension of these media to foreign audiences has lowered the reputation of the United States abroad by directly exposing foreigners to the global yokelism of American celebrities and the ethnocentric prejudices of American popular culture.  USIA’s functions were severely downsized, then transferred to the Department of State, which has little or no credibility at home, still less abroad.  There is now no significant  corrective for  the spillover to foreign audiences of our partisan media’s politically motivated distortions of American policies and realities.  Presidential tweets have just exacerbated this problem.  With relative U.S. influence on foreign elites in decline, a future, more orderly administration will almost certainly want to restore the capacity of the United States to disseminate reliable information on U.S. policy and introduce the higher elements of American culture to audiences overseas.  The secretary of state is probably the right cabinet officer to oversee this function, but the department of State may not be the best place to house it.

A future administration will also want to reconsider the utility of foreign aid – the transfer to other countries of official capital, goods, or services – as a tool of U.S. foreign policy.  Originally conceived to promote economic development, build markets, and modernize economic governance in Europe’s colonies overseas, foreign assistance programs entered a new stage with the Marshall Plan.  From 1948 through 1951, the United States transferred some $13 billion (about $150 billion in today’s dollars), mostly in the form of grants, to seventeen Western and Southern European countries.  The program succeeded in helping them to restore industrial and agricultural production, establish financial stability, and expand trade.

In the Cold War, the United States used foreign aid as a diplomatic tool to foster political alliances and secure strategic advantages, withholding or withdrawing aid from those who seemed too close to the Soviet Union.  Washington leveraged multilateral programs like those of the World Bank and regional development banks, building on the donations of other wealthy capitalist nations to spread Western economic norms to developing economies.  But development specialists were increasingly marginalized as aid was bent to the service of military interventions and other political projects.  U.S. foreign assistance peaked during the Vietnam War.

Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. foreign aid has been used to fund pacification and anti-narcotics programs as well as to support long-term development, subsidize client states, counter pandemics, provide disaster relief, and underwrite foreign military modernization programs.  Over time the proportions spent on these functions have shifted.  Only seven percent now goes to bilateral programs aimed at long-term economic development.  Global health programs get about 24 percent, a good investment, given the threat of pandemics.  Israel and those Arab neighbors who have made peace with it get 20 percent.  Somewhat over 17 percent goes to foreign militaries and 13 percent to stabilizing countries where the U.S. armed forces are engaged in combat.  As the civilian aid budget has shrunk, the armed forces have drawn on the defense budget to fund their own foreign assistance activities.

Military disbursements aside, annual U.S. expenditures on foreign aid now come to about $150 per American or less than two-tenths of one percent (0.17%) of GDP.  Per capita, the United States ranks 20^th among donors in the 28-member OECD.[1]  The ranks of U.S. experts on development policy, program implementation, and the facilitation of socioeconomic change are rapidly thinning out.  In practice, despite the size of the U.S. economy, Washington  no longer plays the leading international role in economic development activities.

Lessening investment in foreign assistance is not without adverse consequences for American influence.  As one example, China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” is encouraging infrastructure construction and the harmonization of trade and investment regimes throughout the Eurasian supercontinent.  Unless Americans find a way to make ourselves relevant to complementary or competing projects in that space, we will be without influence in a huge geoeconomic zone that is central to the global economy of the future.  At present, our government no longer has either the institutional capacity or the funds to respond to this or similar challenges.

Abraham Lincoln asked, “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”  Diplomacy is about the cultivation and exploitation of friendship with foreign states and peoples.  There is a pertinent  Arab saying that: “a friend who does not help you is no better than an enemy who does you no harm.”  Friendship rests on empathy and its demonstration in supportive behavior.

As our military commanders have discovered, quite aside from cooperation in building physical and institutional infrastructure, a little “walking-around money” helps to win friends and influence people.  In diplomacy, including the parliamentary diplomacy of international organizations like the United Nations, the spontaneous return of a favor, a ration of flattery, a gesture of respect, an apparently sincere effort to consult, a reassuring glance, a respectful retort, a comforting silence, and reliable follow-up to implied as well as explicit undertakings can be worth a lot.   Vote-trading and mutual back-scratching cement habits of cooperation at the UN.  The same is true in alliance management, a key diplomatic skill at which Americans once excelled.

Diplomacy is relationship management as contact sport.  Its conduct depends on the talents and training of the men and women who engage in it.  Diplomats learn to see transactions as part of a process that defines relationships.  Every negotiation of a specific issue contributes to judgments of character and elements of trust that affect future interactions.  Sharp practices earn long-term distaste.

The wisest diplomats cultivate a reputation for integrity, fairness, and determination to follow through on commitments.   Demonstrating that their government will back them in delivering on the commitments they make is as important as reaching agreement on the business at hand.  Doing so raises the probability of productive future interactions with foreign counterparts.  It helps prevent ongoing disputes from solidifying into impasse and irremediable hostility. So does the maintenance of good personal relations with adversaries at the negotiating table.  Keeping issues in a state of negotiability rather than accepting deadlock is a key precept of sound diplomacy.  Optimism is to diplomats what courage is to soldiers.

Language is the principal weaponry of diplomacy.  Interpreters are its foot soldiers.  But language is more than words and syntax.  The body often speaks before the mouth and even when the mouth is silent.  Body language, too, differs across cultures.  The widespread use of English as a lingua franca has not obviated the need for diplomats to learn foreign languages and how to communicate effectively with their native speakers.  Nor will the perfection of machine translation do so.

Mastery of a language in all its dimensions is a path to the avoidance of the kinds of misunderstandings and miscalculations that give rise to conflict.  It is essential to understand how the native speakers of the language think.  That is the sine qua non of transnational communication and cooperation.  Ability to think in the language of one’s foreign counterparts is also the antidote to the classic sin of home-based analysts and their political masters – the tendency to view one’s foreign partners and competitors as mirror images of oneself.  It is a grave mistake to project one’s own values and thought processes onto foreigners rather than considering their perspectives and proclivities in their own terms.

Many instructions for diplomatic démarches written in the political hothouse of the capital are composed as much or more for the domestic policy community as for the ambassadors who must execute them in the field.  But the delivery of démarches is ultimately a personal and oral, not an institutional or written, art.  Early on, ambassadors learn to focus on the results these instructions aim to produce rather than on the suggestions on how to present their arguments that accompany them.  Diplomatic instructions are more often than not written by diplomatically inexperienced courtiers and securocrats, who are seldom aware of locally prevalent prejudices and sensitivities or inclined to be dismissive of them.  But, it’s the outcome, not the original packaging of the message, that counts, however appealing it may be to folks back home.

One of the reasons for staffing the State department and other foreign affairs agencies in Washington in part with diplomats – foreign service rather than civil service officers – is to ensure that foreign policy objectives and instructions to the field on what must be done to advance them are realistic and feasible.  Sometimes, however, political pandering and bureaucratic brown-nosing of powerful policymakers overwhelm experience and expertise.

In the course of my thirty-year career as a diplomat, I was asked to arrange many things overseas that the local context made obviously counterproductive.  Fortunately, I had been born with a sense of the absurd and the gift of laughter.  I almost always had fun trying to arrange the ridiculous things I was asked to arrange even if – as was usually the case – I failed.  I very seldom questioned an instruction, no matter how bizarre.  Occasionally, I actually succeeded in bringing off some maneuver conceived within the Beltway, notwithstanding how preposterous it was.   But, there is one instance that illustrates the gap between Washington and foreign realities so well that I can’t resist sharing it..

During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, I was ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an austere Islamist state whose ferocious anti-communism had precluded diplomatic relations with the USSR.  As the war progressed, a constantly expanding circle of American bureaucrats discovered that the Saudis had a lot of money.  (Actually, the war had stripped them of their wealth but no one in Washington was prepared to believe this.)  As rumors that the Saudis might be a soft touch spread, requests for their largesse multiplied, becoming more and more outlandish as they did.

In January-February1991, the Soviet Union was in dire straits, with serious food shortages. The Cold War had ended and the United States quite sensibly judged it important to help.  Next door, in Poland, there was a surplus of ham.  Some bright fellow somewhere in Washington noticed this and brought it to the attention of the deputy secretary of state, an august official for whom I had great personal regard.  The next thing I knew, I received a personal request from the deputy secretary to go ask the Saudi king (who – as a Muslim – abhorred pork in any form) to buy up the Polish ham surplus and give it to the starving Soviet communists (for whom he had even less use than ham).

I pondered this imaginative proposal overnight.  The next morning I told my boss in Washington  that asking the king to buy ham for Russian communists would be like asking the Pope to buy condoms for Bangladeshi Muslims.  I said I would not do it.  The man never forgave me for that.  But diplomats cannot be doormats.  They are meant to exercise judgment in the interest of the nation.

Until recently, diplomacy has operated within an autonomic ecology.  But these are not normal times.  The web of diplomatic interactions that stabilize the global and regional state systems has been disrupted.  The institutional memory that permanent diplomatic establishments provide is evaporating in the United States as politically connected amateurs replace professionals in pivotal positions and diplomats are excluded from meetings with foreign leaders and the secretary of state and other senior envoys.  Contractors are replacing government employees in key functions.  No one seems to know what the policy is, still less what it will be tomorrow. The lack of purposive diplomacy on the part of the United States leaves openings for its many rivals for regional dominion.  U.S. influence is being displaced.

Travel to the United States by students, tourists, and business people is in rapid decline.  Americans have embarked on a trade war that is likely to hurt our economy as much or more than those we have decided to combat.  The United States is ceding ground to its rivals, who are prepared to invest the time, effort, and money to fill the international  power vacuums that our erratic behavior and withdrawal from diplomatic engagement are helping to create.

All this awaits correction at a future date.  In the meantime, the United States can expect continuing slippage in its prestige and influence overseas.  We Americans can and should use this period of diplomatic fecklessness to prepare to recruit, train, and deploy a new generation of diplomats.  The next generation will face greater challenges than those who are now leaving the government for greener pastures ever did.  They must be more competent and professional than their predecessors if we are to regain the ground we are now losing.

In the three lectures I now conclude, I have sought to explore the basis for a body of diplomatic doctrine that has yet to be compiled.  As a nation, we have become over-dependent on our armed forces to defend our interests abroad.  I believe that events will eventually compel our elected leaders in Congress and the White House to search for alternative instruments of statecraft with which to advance our national interests beyond our borders.  Our diplomatic preparedness, readiness, and capabilities have atrophied to our accumulating detriment.  For our country to prosper in freedom, we must fix this.

There is a need for a new breed of American diplomats to meet the challenges of a new and more demanding world order.  In my view, interdisciplinary institutions like the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs have not just an opportunity, but a duty, to help develop the knowledge and methodology the United States will need to  train and develop  men and women to manage and implement our nation’s foreign relations.   Our history makes me optimistic that where there is a need, Americans can find a way to meet it.   But, as the effort I have put into these lectures has reminded me, using the past to prepare for the future is hard work.  It is in the national interest that that work be done, if not here, then somewhere else  And soon.

What do we know About the Next Revolutions in Africa?

In this journey, I’ll take you through some key phases of Africa’s revolutions that are about to shake up and reshape the continent very soon. Few predicted the defeat of the Gambia’s Yahya Jammeh; the decision of the Supreme Court in Kenya and the victory of the opposition in Nigeria. Therefore, the next great African moment could be just around the corner, as is the cases in any continent with a complicated political landscapes and power sharing systems, crises do occur. But, such crises have so far evolved through social and constitutional means, which is unprecedented in Africa’s recent history. For better and worse, the emerging African geopolitical landscape is drawing to a close an era of revolutions. The central challenge of our time is posed not by civil war or terrorism as it used to be, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of national consciousness and global political awakening. Such awakening is politically radicalizing and socially massive – a process of socio-political renewal is underway across the continent, as long as some regimes that tightly control the political landscape will hold elections that they have no intention of losing.

What will Africa look like in 2025?

Surprisingly, several central areas of the national consciousness in the continent, such as Gabon, Ethiopia, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Central African Republic, Mauritania, South Africa, Cote d’Ivoire, Burundi, Rwanda, Togo, Uganda, Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Cameroon, increasingly are defining what they desire in reaction to what they perceive to be the hostile impact on them of the inside and outside world.

Through this humble proposal, I return to what I call “the culture of ignoring the facts” which has become usual in the African political culture. Looking over the past several years; much opposition has staged intermittent demonstrations in the continent for economic and political reforms, with a spike in protests and political violence in the run up to long-delayed legislative and presidential elections. This mix of fiction and futurology is one of the possible answers to what Africa will look like in 2025. Part of the reason that future wars in now relatively peaceful countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leon, Chad, Rwanda and Mozambique – whose civil wars is now almost 30 years in the past – Comoros and Tanzania are the contention that revolution itself is going to become far less common.

There are already troubling signs as popular discontent raises the risk of unrest in urban centers, in recent days; the violent dispersal of protesters in some parts in Cameroon, Kinshasa, and other African towns has left several people dead. But there are worse scenarios, as the regimes clamp down, fail to secure parts of the country, and stoke instability in others, the risk of a steeper descent into chaos remains; with grave regional implications.

If we look closely at the bigger picture and as Egypt reminds, revolutions are made by the young, the continent is home to more than 1.1 billion people. Of course that’s a big number considering that the majority of that population is young; more than 40% of Africa’s population is younger than 17; according to some recent statistics. To give you a clearer picture, up to 85 percent of Africans are below the age of 45, and just around four percent are aged 60 or more. African youth today represent the greatest influence on the governments in many regions because it is a generation that is completely different from previous generations.

Things are already changing on the ground as struggle methods have changed, the methods of struggle in the 1950s and 60s are different from today, the opponent was in that time invisible to what it is today, and the weapons of struggle have also evolved. Social networks can contribute to the creation of awareness and catch up with the nations of the world, all this is going to push things and incite people, especially young people who have lost their patience, so many of them have abandoned their countries, many of them died on the threshold of Europe, recalling their ancestors who lived in slavery and exploitation for centuries. Thousands of them have put their lives at risk as they go on a boat journey in search of what they think would be an easier and a better living – it is a journey that begins with hope, but often ends in vain and despairs. Consequently, such failure and despairs is just going to fuel more angers and political revolution sentiments at home.

Youth & audiovisual and cinema industries

As stories allow us to imagine the transformation of our lives and our world; I spent a few time in some African states interviewing current and former government officials; members of civil society and international actors, and what I heard suggested that the tensions are rising because young people are raising basic questions concerning their political and economic future, meanwhile, activists and civil society organizations are likely to fuel such social tensions. Therefore, I totally agree with many experts who believe that a radical reform of many African regimes is not only required, but an unavoidable necessity. Simply, because those governments’ capacity is gradually getting weaker to meet the needs of the people and Africa’s current challenges, thereby increasing popular discontent and citizens feel they have been deprived of their rights guaranteed by law.

Easily recognized aspect of this new inter-continental development is the emergence of new African audiovisual and cinema industries. New and dynamic African actors/actresses of various kinds with different  ideological competing and conflicting projects – if we look at Burkina Faso’s FESPACO and Nigeria’s Nollywood which rose from anonymity to become the world’s third largest movie powerhouse after Hollywood and India’s Bollywood.

Its movies are enjoyed by millions of people in the continent. These African audiovisual and cinema industries have become powerful channels for promoting the continent’s rich culture, fashion, languages, heritage and food across the globe. These industries have achieved tremendous success and global recognition without support from the continent’s governments or political class, of course the youth control and dominate every aspect of the industries; from content production, marketing, distribution and down to consumption. Meanwhile, Africa’s music artistes are most recognizable faces on the global scene and some of the continent’s most influential ambassadors. Such industries will eventually contribute to the “New Voice of Africa” and perhaps, will reflect a new identity of the prospective Sub-Saharan African revolutionaries within the next two decades and act as glue for the continent’s youth.

Likewise, it is obvious that the internet in Africa has become the youth revolution’s hammerhead for change. Before the rise of social media; governments and the political class could easily gag the media and censor the news content that was released to the general public. A shackled media had been a powerful grip on public awareness and allowed the reign of political office abuse and insensitive governance. Nevertheless, young people are actively and successfully using social media across Africa, to confront their leaders, and raise tough questions concerning a wide range of problems, especially, corruption, human rights issues, political irresponsibility, social conditions, race, ethnic divisions, insecurity and intolerance.

In Nigeria for example, BudgIT – led by a young Nigerian – is an internet-based platform that  monitors public projects, tracks government spending and educates citizens on how the government allocates resources., the platform also creates apps, games, interactive websites and info graphics that break down government spending, including how much is spent on the president’s breakfast, lunch and dinner.

In a similar pattern in 2011, young Nigerians – using social media – pulled off one of the most successful civil disobedience protests in the history of that West African nation. They firmly opposed the government’s decision to hike the retail price of petrol – though the decision was not reversed – everybody was shocked by the turnout and participation. Such social media skills are just a half way revolution for a greater move in Nigeria, and perhaps in East and West Africa in general.

This article is the first part of a two-part paper written by our excellent YoungDiplomats leader in Africa : Idriss Zackaria !

Globally, both governmental and non-governmental agencies work tirelessly to assist refugees, but with more people being made refugees daily, there is need for more help and awareness aimed at ensuring that refugees are treated fairly and catered for, instead of being neglected or shunned, thereby innovating projects that will be responsible for the upkeep of the refugees.

As at the last count by the end of 2016, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) suggests that the world is now witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record. This is as a result of an unprecedented 65.6 million people around the world that have been forced from home due to persecution, conflict, violence or human rights violations. This is in contrast with the 2015 year of 65.3 million respectively. Among them are nearly 22.5 million refugees; over half of whom are under the age of 18, 40.3 million internally displaced (IDP) and 2.8 million asylum seekers.

It is also estimated that there are 10 million stateless people who have been denied a nationality or access to basic rights such as education, healthcare, employment and freedom of movement; a critical phenomenon that falls short of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with the call to action that will end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. Thus, the UNHCR suggests that ‘the World’ response to large scale movements remains inadequate and underfunded; thereby leaving refugees with an uncertain future’.

With such intensity, the “New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants”was adopted unanimously on September 26, 2016 in line with a new refugee regime, containing a wide range of commitments by member states, in order to strengthen and enhance mechanisms that will ensure adequate protection to people on the move, which eventually paved way for the adoption of two new global compacts for 2018. They include the global compact on refugees and a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.

Highlights of the New York Declaration include;

1. Profound solidarity with those who are faced to flee.
2. Reaffirmation on states obligation to fully respect the human rights of refugees and migrants;
3.  Agreement on the protection of refugees and supporting the countries that shelter them;
4. Shared according to international responsibilities and must be borne more equitably and predictably;
5.  Pledging of a robust support to those countries affected by large movements of refugees and migrants
6. Agreement upon the core elements of a Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework and;
7. Agreement on working towards the adoption of a global compact on refugees and global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.

For Africa and Nigeria in particular, the Comprehensive Refugee Framework(CRRF) will be of utmost importance, considering the regular and irregular migration waves that have characterised its citizens. More importantly, is the important CRRF components that will further strengthen the governments in Africa and Nigeria. Such components include;

1. easing refugee pressures on host countries; thereby leading to the abuse of its citizens through human trafficking, abuse, slavery and torture.
2. A framework aimed at enhancing third country solutions.
3. Enhancing refugee self-reliance and;
4. Supporting conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity.

Interestingly, as the world awaits the agreement in September 2018 on the two new global compacts, it is expected that African governments; especially Nigeria will seize the outcome of the agreement of such framework to further strengthen policy makers, think tanks, diplomats and academics in formulating a formidable country response that will discourage the waves of migrations and refugee issues, thereby causing untold hardships to our citizens within and outside the country. Nigeria must find a way of curbing the menace; especially through effective border security, diplomatic mechanisms through multilateral agreements on effective management of refugees and creating a healthy atmosphere for refugees both within and outside the country. However, recent efforts by Nigeria in the wake of the Libyan slavery saga must be commended, but more needs to be done in line with the expected agreed UN framework later in September known as “the global compact”.

Caesar Jadu Payi is a Researcher in Diplomacy, African Governance and Global Security

Venezuela is currently submerged in one of the biggest economic crisis ever seen. With a projected hyperinflation of 1.000.000% this year alone, there is no food or drugs and not much available gas. What is worse, even if the country was not out of essential and basic goods, the currency is so devaluated, that the Venezuelans would not be able to afford it with its minimum wage, currently 29 US dollars after 4 increases this year.

According to the United Nations, since the crisis started, more than 2’300.000 Venezuelans have fled their country in search of a better life, emigrating to countries like Colombia (550,000), United States (290,000), Spain (208,000), Ecuador (288,000), Chile (119,000), Peru (100,000), Brazil (34,000), Argentina (31,0000), Dominican Republic (28,000), etc.

Most Venezuelans are going to Colombia because the government doesn’t require a passport. They are using this border in order to go to other countries like Ecuador or Peru. Entailing a very risky walk of one or two weeks on the highway, this journey is mostly made by foot. As a consequence, these countries and others, like Chile, are now requiring a passport to enter the country, document which is impossible to acquire for most Venezuelans, creating an invisible barrier. Meanwhile, Panama closed its Colombian border since 2016 to stop the flow of migrants from Venezuela and another countries, like Cuba. These migrants final destination is the United States, Mexico or Panama itself. This Panamanian prohibition forces them to go through the very dangerous Darien jungle, a crossing that not everybody lives to tell.

As if the problems that the Venezuelans are already facing with the deplorable situation of its country were not enough, they are now experiencing xenophobia, exploitation, forced prostitution, etc. in various countries, which have exhausted their hospitality.

The Venezuelan government denies the migration and humanitarian crisis. It, however, offers free repatriation flights and has announced various measures to face the economic emergency, such as including a new currency, advising its population to buy gold, creating a crypto currency called the Petro, signing oil, mining and security agreements with China, forcing the employers to pay the minimal wage in dollars, etc. Nevertheless, the truth is that Maduro is just putting a Band-Aid on something that needs stitches.

It’s urgent for Latin America to work together towards resolving the Venezuelan crisis and helping the migrants with open borders, work permits, camps where they can stay, bath, eat and continue their journey, no discrimination campaigns, etc. Furthermore, the world cannot turn a blind eye to this problem; an involvement of the international community is also necessary to aid the migrants.

The city of Hebron, located south of Bethlehem, is the largest city in the West Bank with around 215 000 palestinians people. I spend 3 weeks in this city, so i’m gonna tell you my experience.

I arrived for the first time in Hebron by an Israeli bus taken to the bus station of Jerusalem. After a long travel (1 hours and half) and many traffic jams, this one left me on the Israeli side of the city.

Yes, because the main thing to know about Hebron is that this city is divided into two distinct districts with, at its heart, well-established Isreal settlements.

At first I was a little surprised because I had no idea where I was. But more than that, the streets were totally empty. There was nobody, and I was alone in what first appeared to me like a ghost town. With all my luggages, I ventured into what seemed to me the main street of Hebron. I finally made my first meeting with Israeli soldiers near to the checkpoint. They asked me where I was going, whether I wanted to go to the Palestinian side or the Israeli side. Once I passed the checkpoint, I finally discovered the city of Hebron: crowded streets, souqs and falafel stands. We can not escape to the famous “welcome to Hebron! ». The streets are full of children, and the roads full of cars.

Hebron is a city divided in two parts : H1 for palestinians people and H2 for Israelians people. After many centuries of history between Jews and Muslims in this city, it was in 1997 that Israel, after many massacres on both sides, decided, with the new Palestinian Authority, to establish a peace agreement. The Hebron protocol is then signed by Yasser Arafat and divided the city in two parts. Only around 500 jews are living there today. However, the daily life of the Palestinians does not correspond to the peace agreement that was wanted in the 1990s.

Indeed, when you visit the main sites of Hebron, you can quickly realized that the Israeli settlers, with their weapons, control everything. Walking in the old city makes you aware of the situation. You can think of being in the old city of Ramallah or any Palestinian cities, but when you look up, the huge walls with barbed wire and the Israel flags remind us of the occupation. Some street near of the settlements are empty.

A merchant tells me « people are afraid to come here because of the soldiers, we are forced to cover our stands because they throw their trash in our streets, on palestinians people ! ».

Sometimes, palestinians must have an authorization by Israelians soldiers to open a shop.

« They want us to leave, but these are our homes » said to me a woman in the street.

When I go to visit the famous Tom of Patriarchs (Ibrahimi’s Mosque) with a palestinian guide, he also said to me « alone, it’s very difficult for palestinians people to go to this sacred place. We have to pass the checkpoints, and the Israelis, if we are not escorted by tourists, refuse us the access. They divided our mosque into two parts, and some days access for Muslims is even forbidden. “

This analogy with South Africa’s past may seem surprising, but in reality it is easy to explain why palestinians people are under an apartheid system. Many things remind us of segregation : a system of armed control over the Palestinians, a system of identification, separate roads, huge inequalities in infrastructures, the isolation of populations who can only obtain a visa after very difficult administratives procedures (they are not not allowed to travel to Tel Aviv airport, Ben Gurion). There is also access to land and resources that is controlled by the israelians with contempt for the Palestinians people.

All this is obviously contrary to international law. The international community considers settlements such as the one in Hebron illegal under international law. The Geneva Conventions, which were established and accepted after World War II, state in their fourth convention that an occupying power is forbidden from “deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

One week ago, a Palestinian was killed by an Israeli soldier near to the checkpoint of Hebron. This happens very frequently. However, Tsahal still find a way to justify these murders.

BIMSTEC: India’s alternative to SAARC

India’s interest towards the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) has been increased in recent years as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has become an ineffective regional bloc. The fourth summit of the BIMSTEC was held in Kathmandu on 30-31st August 2018 with the theme “Towards a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable Bay of Bengal Region”. The leaders agreed on poverty alleviation and increasing road, airways, transmission line connectivity of the member countries while BIMSTEC Free Trade Agreement, Customs Cooperation Agreement and Motor Vehicles Agreement are under negotiation since previous summits. BIMSTEC states have agreed to work towards counter-terrorism where SAARC failed.

Evolution and members of BIMSTEC

BIMSTEC is an International Organization which came into existence on June 6, 1997, through the Bangkok Declaration with the objective of Economic and Technical cooperation among South Asian and South East Asian countries along the coast of Bay of Bengal. It has seven littoral and adjacent member nations in South Asia and South East Asia with the total population of 1.6 billion people. The member countries are the dependent on the Bay of Bengal which includes Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bhutan, and Nepal.

Priority Sectors of BIMSTEC

There are fourteen sectors that have been prioritized in which six such as trade, technology, energy, transport, tourism, and fisheries has been identified earlier and agriculture, public health, poverty alleviation, counter-terrorism, environment, culture, people to people contact, and climate change were added into it in later. Blue Economy and Mountain Economy are the two other priority sectors agreed upon in the fourth summit which was held recently.

India’s interest in BIMSTEC

India has provided 33% of expenditure for the permanent secretariat of BIMSTEC situated in Dhaka. BIMSTEC is important for India as it needs cooperation in the areas of regional connectivity, coastal shipping, space, energy, transport, tourism, and counter-terrorism. Also, New Delhi’s Act East Policy and Neighbourhood First Policy push India to work with BIMSTEC countries. Myanmar is located south of India’s Northeast states of Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. The Indo-Burmese border stretches over 1643 kilometers. India should maintain a closer cooperation with its neighbours like Myanmar and Bangladesh in order to protect its Northeastern region from the expansionist policy of China and from the growing insurgency in the North East. As the only ASEAN country which shares the border with India, Myanmar serves as a bridge between ASEAN and India.

China’s entry into South Asian region and its massive investment projects in the region has become a major problem for India. Bhutan and Nepal act as a buffer between India and China. Therefore, India needs to work closer with these countries in order to minimize Chinese presence there. Also, as BIMSTEC includes five of the SAARC members and it is seen as a good platform for India segregate Pakistan out of the picture.

However, the newly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan has shown his willingness to host the SAARC summit in Islamabad this year. The last SAARC summit was scheduled to be held in Islamabad in 2016 but India pulled out of the summit accusing Pakistan of a series of following terrorist attacks in the Indian Territory. It’s in the hands of new Pakistani Prime Minister to make use of this platform for confidence building and cooperate with other SAARC members to build a better South Asia.

It appeared recently that European politics is divided between two sides getting more and more opposed and clear. On the one hand, French President Emmanuel Macron took the lead of a liberal and open movement. In favour of a stronger Europe that would solve crises collectively, he is on the same side as European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council president Donald Tusk. He is also supported by the Southern European democracies including Pedro Sanchez (Spain, socialist) and Alexis Tsipras (Greece, radical-left).

On the other hand, a movement of conservative populists claiming protectionism and nationalism is clearly rising. It is led by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who is strongly against a collective solution of the migrant crisis but in favour of an homogenous Europe promoting traditional christian values. Orban is supported by conservative leaders such as Sebastian Kurz in Austria or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and was recently joined by Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister.

The opposition was officially unveiled as Mr Orban and Mr Salvini criticise

d Mr Macron’s open position regarding immigration. In response he called himself the direct opponent to nationalists. However the cleavage is not as clear as one would think. M. Macron’s opposition to populists is more about the disrespect of the rule of law than about their closed immigration policy. He insists himself on a clear distinction between war refugees and economic migrants, the latter being systematically sent back to their homelands. What is more, he is also reluctant to the European quotas and refused to welcome the migrant ships coming from the Mediterranean Sea.

Regarding the rule of law Mr Macron is much more strict and keeps threatening what we call ‘illiberal democracies’. Poland is a good example of Mr Macron’s current target. In Poland the nationalist party Law and Justice (PiS) took worrying measures that question the democratic rule and violate many EU treaties. However the EU almost did not intervene while Poland is receiving a lot of subsidies from Brussels every year. The solution could have been the use of the Article 7 by the European Commission. It allows EU members to punish one of them that repeatedly bypassed the rule of law. But the vote must be unanimous which makes it very hard to be implemented. Indeed illiberal democracies in Europe protect each other and it could be the same result regarding Hungary. On 12 September the European Parliament will debate on the use of the Article 7 against Budapest to punish new EU treaties violations. As a final solution the respect of the rule of law could be a condition for the next budget attribution. This is one of Mr Macron’s primary objectives and it creates serious tensions with the European ‘black sheeps’.

Despite Mr Macron’s efforts, some give more and more credit to the scenario in which nationalists may win the next European elections in May 2019. The rise of populism and nationalism in Europe over the past few years could eventually lead to an electoral victory at the EU scale. Indeed populism is thriving on the thickening of the migrant crisis. The absence of consensus between the EU members led to a serious issue of repartition. More and more people may see nationalism as the only option to make this crisis come to an end. As a result euroscepticism is the current trend and it seems nothing can stop it to keep soaring, especially since the failure of the European Union in June to agree on a solid migration policy. Moreover the election will occur two months after the Brexit, planned in March 2019. The actual exit of the United Kingdom from the EU will probably have a big influence on the ballot.

The European People’s Party (EPP), that includes all the right-wing parties at the European Parliament, is likely to play a very important role in the outcome of the elections. This party has been dominating the Parliament for years and it is now facing a serious issue. It widened so much that it now includes parties that do not have anything to do with each other, ideologically and politically speaking. Currently divided between Macron’s liberal wing and Orban’s conservatism, the party will eventually have to choose a side. But beyond that it is the open and innovative parties from all over Europe who will have the heavy responsibility to reverse the current trend. The movement Mr Macron pretends to be leading is not very clear. The squad of populists standing against him is much clearer and may take the power in eight months.

In a few days, the battle of Idlib will erupt. This one will remain in history as one of the numerous battles between the Syrian government along with its allies and rebel groups. Here’s a map of the city : 

Here’s everything you need to know in 5 bullet points : 

• Idlib is the last rebel stronghold. If the Syrian government takes over this city, the Syrian war would end. 
• Idlib is home to some three million people, about half of them displaced by fighting in other parts of the country, according to the UN. This demographic pressure can lead to a massive humanitarian disaster. 
• Turkey, alongside with more or less moderate rebel groups, does its best to avoid this conflict and to ensure the Astana process. 
• Russia and Iran are fighting with the regime in order to destroy what they deem as ” terrorist groups “. Indeed Idlib counts tens of thousands rebels affiliated 
• The U.S will not act except if chemical weapons are used during the assault.