Young Diplomats

If we are eager to start a revolution every injustice becomes a reason. But in all our activism, let us also remember that there are no pure malignant evil people. So let our activism be directed at institutions, and not at individuals.

There is a part in every man that seeks to be guided to truth, to see a better world and an inclination to abandon own malignity. Many of our attempts to reform society are resisted or fall on deaf ears because we didn’t bring to them our authentic side. People despise our extemporaneous activism; so they go on to reject the ‘truth’ because it comes from us. They don’t hear us when speak with gags, exaggeration and fanaticism.

Activist or not, we are all radicals in certain mood. We are all better than our pretense, but it is our resistance to our true nature that robs us off our manhood and the power to reform. We lose authenticity because we never want to upset any that cheered us once. We tie ourselves with friendly chains of intellectual prostitution for few cheap praises and empty affections. To be praised and flattered; gliding ghostlike with thin masquerades – we go on skulking and pretending.

In every part of society, we still see a beam of optimism and fresh breaths of idealism – all making claims to know the best path for the rest of humanity. We are quick to stand for a thought or an idea, for new terminologies and trends – but how many of us are ready to pay the full price to realize these aspirations?

Also are pessimistic reformers – they loom over to cast shadows of doubt to foretell our destruction. With malaise and resentment, they warn us all of the impending calamities. They see no hope and no salvation for the natio unless we follow their dictates. But how does one makes activism out of doom saying?

With new spirit of protest, all are eager to declare their discontent of the conventional. Some blame government for causing all our troubles. Some can only drag in the President to rest on him all the troubles of the society. Others argue it’s the selfish or mischievous opposition leaders. Some blame it on the wickedness of ‘tribalism’, and the ‘ignorance’ of the masses.

Each reformer defies the other’s dictates like gang of kings trying to rule over one kingdom. All are proposing new projects and remedies for the salvation of the nation.

Constant – is a sincere protestation against existing evils and social injustices. Many are moved by moral conscience and want of a better and a more just society. But behind every sincere protester, quickly follows a copycat protester or a brainless underling to add plenty of vapory, hypocrisy and backsliding in our every discourse.

Every protest is still noble if it is the dictate of man’s conscience and moral beatitude – even where the perception is flawed. What is honest and original is always elegant. Solitary resistance and honest dissent is always noble. But all protests will turn vain, dull and suspicious when it is adopted for a cheap popularity.

My highest appreciation goes to the reformers calling for reform of our education system. Many students now graduate with a bag of wind, memory of words and are indoctrinated to seek out a master through their employment. Practical knowledge is rarely taught; common sense that’s not backed by theoretical speculations is rejected. Students are given these theories and philosophical dictates they could never learn to apply in practical life. Mathematics, the mother of all sciences is only taught and seen as a theoretical oppression of the analytically disadvantaged – instead of the universal language and the practical philosophy of life that it is.

We learn foreign languages through high school but couldn’t recall a word in those same languages two years after graduating. In our social studies, we memorize bunch of dates and names of the old that has zero relevance to the practical life of the man today. Still, we are told Christopher Columbus discovered America.

Very little is done to develop our intuitive faculties and students are forced to expend all their energies into useless memorization without any practical use for them in our real lives. We are taught at school that to try and fail makes one a failure, and without a certificate no amount of essential knowledge is useful. We are diminished of our true proportion and full use of common sense after we finished our formal education. Is like warfare against common sense and program to train us to serve the ‘new masters’.

Unfortunately, the push for reform in our education is abysmal. It is in political activism that our brute nature is aroused. Some of us are passionate to talk about the lies and misgivings of the government, whilst others eagerly talk about the lies and the malaise of the opposition. All seem to forget about the lies and deceptions of the common man – from whom all these lies proceed. In advancing to rid darkness, all bring along their own forms of darkness through their dogmatism but call it the ‘ultimate light’. We see with only one eye. The eye that pleases our whims!

The chaos in our activism often rises out of moral and intellectual deficiency; when the ambition to change society is outmatched by the capacity of the activists. So they employ insults and lies to guile these weaknesses instead of refining their own latent forces. When the going gets tough, some are afraid to scale or ascend because they are terrified of falling. We are afraid to help anyone whose light we assume will dim ours.

Nevertheless, this keen scrutiny of government, political and social institutions proved benefit in keeping government and institutions more responsive.

The general purpose of great many of our activists remain to be good and noble; always working on course; paid or unpaid, seen or unseen and never wasting a day on triumphing. They are always too busy working in the fields. Their only reward is to have their work done well!

Those that change the world came to it with their whole nature and hid little from our senses. They came to us with certain gravity, making even their simplest gestures look terrific! These folks don’t wait for society to choose their place for them. They act with moral courage to bring society the way – a promise of a better tomorrow.

To all these activists and reformers – I salute you.

Jamal Drammeh

Vladimir Putin was again, confirmed as the Russian government’s leader on March 18^th with 77% of the ballot. After many years, it seems that Putin is the only man capable to maintain Russia’s unity and international impact on the world’s major conflicts.

The heir of Yelstin came in charge 18 years ago and never lost power since. During the past 18 years, Putin had really never been concerned about losing Russia’s leadership.  Nevertheless, the most important seems to be its future as Mr. Putin cannot legally run again for president in 2024. The already established Russian elite is starting jockeying for the next vacant position. Putin could eventually run again for president by claiming a constitutional change. His current nationalist actions to rebuild the ancient powerful and respected Russia in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria are perceived as popular among the Russians, as the country gains international respect and leadership. Despite weak economic results, Putin is still a popular president and could use that popularity to claim the constitutional change.

However, there is a rising elite silently growing in Russia, under Putin’s government. Six of Russia’s 85 governors are under 40 and young technocrats are installed in the Kremlin or in other ministries. This new generation of leaders was installed by Putin himself, which could be the first step of preparing his next retirement for 2024, but still keep high influence on his followers. Should that scenario occur, the lack of democratic institutions to peacefully transfer Putin’s power to a future president is a danger for the of Russia’s stability.

The West could have an important part to play in the after-Putin process. In the past, the West undermined the military might and ex-Soviet Union economic, cultural and moral appeal. The West could carry on punishing Putin for his international rights violations and unfair economic behaviors and meanwhile protecting the upcoming Russian elite. But the West lost lots of its reputation, especially with the delusion of Brexit and Donald Trump. Recently, Donald Trump touched one of Russia’s internal weaknesses by congratulating Vladimir Putin for his reelection and therefore frustrating young Russians wishing to rise for 2024.

The main cause of Putin’s constancy as president is his ability to maintain order and be respected in such a big country, with lots of different populations. The new generation, even though well trained to govern, will be faced with key challenges at the same time: fighting Russia’s corruption; keeping the unity of Russia and rebuilding a strong economy.

May 17 2018

Donald Trump ponders North Korean threat to cancel Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un (USA TODAY)

A guide to Prince Harry’s ex-girlfriends (BBC News )

The Malaysian election results were a surprise. Here are 4 things to know. (Washington Post)

House Republicans nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize (CNN)

Iraqi election makes US foe al-Sadr a potential kingmaker (CNN)

Lately Cuba has faced a serious, almost unbelievable change: Raul Castro, brother of more famous Fidel Castro, announced a start of the elections to the presidency of the Council of State, meaning that people could choose the second person of power after Raul himself, since he officially remains the First Secretary of Cuban Communist Party until 2021, as he claims. This position was taken up by Raul’s First Deputy in the State Council and Government, Miguel Mario Diaz-Canel Bermudez, the first President of Cuba to be born after the Cuban Revolution of 1953-1959.

Undoubtedly, the newly elected Head of State is absolutely faithful to the principles of the revolution, otherwise he wouldn’t have earned Castro’s trust. Still, we can already see that his rule is about to bring changes to the habitual state structure of Cuba. In this article you will see, what tendencies have come along with the Castro family, and what are analysts’ forecasts for island’s future.

Fidel Castro’s reforms

First thing we should consider when talking about Castro’s regime is that he didn’t let the opposition act. He established a great amount of revolutionary field courts whose duty was to prosecute the opposition representatives, especially those who strongly supported Batista, the former Cuban ruler which was overthrown during the revolution. He even conducted demonstrative executions in Havana and provinces. He also closed and banned lost of casinos and brothels owned and held by American mafia.

Second thing is the agricultural revolution. Castro realized that Cuba has very fertile soil, which has much more potential than it was used for. He started a process of industrialized farming development, 40% of the lands went to the state sector, whereas all the rest went to peasants. At the same time 90% of private enterprises were nationalized.

These and many other actions prevented the US from influencing Cuba. US government realized that Cuba’s new administration is about to stay for a long time, so they attempted to exert pressure on Castro and his family by entering quotas on sugar purchase. This was just the beginning of an impending economic blockade.

At the same time Cuba’s relationships with USSR were getting stronger than ever. In 1960 they signed a loan agreement for Cuba, equivalent to 100 million US dollars. Why did the Soviet Union need it? Only to exert even more pressure on USA. They immediately started to supply military equipment to the island, ostensibly to help Cubans repulse potential attacks from the US, but in reality, with their own intentions. This sooner led to the famous Cuban Missile Crisis, being the tensest moment in the Cold War.

From the economic point of view, Castro took actions in favor of industrialization, concentrated in the hands of the State. With the help of USSR, Cuba quickly obtained all the required equipment, oil and loans, while selling sugar, nickel, tobacco and rum back to the Soviets. By the 1970s Cuba reached economic stability, increasing their GDP to 4% per year. Metallurgy and light industry developed, the unemployment rate fell to a historically low level. In 1976 a Constitution was adopted, finally fixing the communist way of State government.

What should Cubans expect from Diaz-Canel

Analysts believe that new Head of State will follow a course of moderate market reforms that Raul started. Still, despite the statement of Cuba’s new government on GDP growth of 1.5% per year, the UN economic commission for Latin American countries and in the Caribbean, the real growth was of 0.5%.

In any case, any process that is about to occur will not be a big surprise for the population, since all his actions are yet strictly controlled by Raul and his entourage. However, US couldn’t stay aside of this situation. The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 included a point where it is stated that one of the demands for the economic blockage annulment was Castro family’s abandonment of power. Three weeks ago, the US representative in the UN raised a question of restarting the US-Cuba economic relationships. However, two days later, on Summit of the Americas in Lima, Peru, which was ignored both by Donald Trump and Raul Castro, US Vice-President Mike Pence returned to the traditional criticism of Cuba, pointing out the violation of Human Rights in Cuba.

To sum up, looks like the tendency of USA’s pressure on Cuban government is far from the end. This adds additional severe conditions for Diaz-Canel’s administrations, while increasing the population’s expectations. The closest crucial moment to happen is Raul’s total resignation in 2021, again, as he claims. From that moment he will have to fulfill those expectations while being considered a totally independent leader of possibly successful independent State of Cuba. We will see where it will lead us to.

M.I.G. studies International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 

With increased violence and instability in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, Turkish foreign policy has been a hot topic in international media and forums. Over the last two years, Turkey’s role in regional politics has come under increased scrutiny, especially in association with the activity of another resurgent power, Russia. Both Russia and Turkey, whose elites share so many similarities in perspective and their approach to the outside world, act united in their resolution to put their bilateral relations on a firm and strategically coherent foundation.

Conditions for deeper cooperation are ripe as never before. Both powers enjoy ambivalent relations with Western partners. Moreover, both Turkey and Russia have attempted to diversify their foreign relations since the end of the Cold War and move away from what they see to be a cumbersome dependence on Europe.  Against this background, the concept of ‘Eurasianism’ has long been viewed as an ideational platform that can further cement Russian-Turkish ties and can create an effective drive for a civilizational alliance capable of resisting Western pressure.

After the end of bipolar global confrontation in the early 1990s, Turkey and Russia discovered in each other prospective partners in many areas, especially trade, tourism, construction and energy projects. However, it was only with the establishment of the High-Level Cooperation Council in May 2010 that Ankara and Moscow could finally overcome their residual mutual mistrust and could approach each other regarding more strategic issues expanding upon their experience within the Eurasian political space.

Statements made by Turkish and Russian officials may serve as proof that both sides are considering expanding bilateral ties into multilateral cooperation focused on Eurasian integration projects. In November 2013, during the bilateral High-Level Cooperation Council meeting, Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposed the idea of Turkey entering the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and free trade agreements with Eurasian countries as a way to rebalance its’ unsuccessful accession talks with the European Union.  Signals to this effect were later repeatedly sent even after the 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 jet by Turkish forces. In August 2017, after having gained no progress over renewals of terms with the European Union Customs Union (EUCU), Turkish officials once again pointed at the possibility of Turkey seeking alternatives in Eurasian integration projects, such as the Eurasian Customs Union that unites the markets of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.

Even though, one may speculate that many statements made by Turkish officials in their essence remain mere rhetoric, there are instances where the Turkish government has undertaken practical steps to boost closer economic ties with Eurasian countries. Since 2008, Turkey began implementing a number of projects, mainly infrastructural, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway. Such projects aim to lay the groundwork for the wider integration of the Turkish economy in trade projects with China and Central Asian republics, within the framework of the One Belt One Road Initiative. Meanwhile,  Moscow tends to make statements that both criticize Western political dominance while singling out Turkey as a non-Western power that would be suitable for cooperation and participation in ostensibly Russian-led initiatives.

Historic perspective

The trend to push bilateral relations into a more ideologically refined, Eurasianist framework may have a historical rationale. Both Turkey and Russia share the experience of an imperial history and the related nostalgia for past glories.  After the collapse of their perspective imperial polities, the political process of Russia and Turkey has been defined by efforts of their national elites to modernize and carry out reforms that would enable them to compete with European, and later Western powers, on equal terms. While each country followed a different trajectory, such remedial modernization projects carried out in both Russia and Turkey may have contributed to convergence between Moscow and Ankara during the 20th century, despite the fierce ideological confrontation between them.

In the 1920s, Turkey and the Soviet Union considered each other perfect partners to overcome dangerous isolation of their newly established political regimes by European powers and the United States. The psychological burden of the Treaty of Rapallo and the Treaty of Sevres later played a decisive role in Ankara’s attempts to seek the cooperation and solidarity of Moscow when its own ties with America soured. In 1984, with Cold War hostility waning, Turkey and the Soviet Union managed to forge a very sophisticated goods-for-gas agreement.  This marked a firm beginning for deeper economic cooperation.

But it is not only a common historical legacy and a similar path of modernization, but also common contemporary challenges that today push Turkey and Russia closer. The geopolitical shifts of the post-Cold War order put tremendous pressure on the security and foreign policy of both powers. With the stabilization of national economies in Russia and Turkey in the latter part of the 1990s, both endeavored to expand their footprint in their close geographical neighborhood, in regions where a historical and cultural legacy would facilitate their penetration. The 21st century activism of these new rising powers has caused some political circles to believe that the old world is waning under the rising influence of new Eurasian powers like Russia, Turkey, China and others.

A further force that brought Turkey and Russia together was the expansion of democratic freedoms in both countries during the 1990s, and then a decline of democratization efforts and an eventual drift toward authoritarianism in the 2010s. Today, political regimes in Turkey and Russia can best be described as hybrid regimes. They have competitive authoritarian features with ostensibly functioning democratic institutions. While the ruling party or leader exerts pressure and control on the opposition via informal channels, there has not been a slide into outright authoritarianism which would be neither internationally acceptable nor productive under conditions where national economies depend on the outside world.

Problems with democratic process, the rule of law, human rights and freedom has long been drawing criticism from Europe and the United States. The underlying logic behind Western attempts to anchor democratic rule in Turkey and Russia may be expressed by a desire to see more predictable, cooperative and ideologically friendly regimes that would further contribute to promotion of these norms and values in their adjacent regions: the Middle East, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, Western attempts to secure democratic achievements of the previous years and to support civil society are regarded by ruling political elites today as a direct intrusion in domestic affairs, which represents yet another foreign policy challenge uniting Turkey and Russia.

Under these conditions, circles led in Russia by Alexander Dugin and by Doğu Perinçek in Turkey are being bestowed by the benevolence of their rulers, who are eager to talk about a common idea that would unite Russian and Turkish activism for the sake of their better and firmer resistance to the Western attempts to ostensibly subdue these nations. Roots of the Eurasian ideology go back to the early 20th century, when Russian intellectuals tried to redefine the roots of state crisis within the Russian Empire and to assess the results of the Bolshevik revolution that gave rise to the new geopolitical colossus, the Soviet Union. Eurasianists came to the conclusion that Russia represents not a nation, but a civilization that unites all local nations in the vast territories of Eurasia. In its essence this ideology was a reformulated tradition of Russian Slavic nationalism.

Today’s Eurasianism

Today (neo)-Eurasianism tends to describe the efforts of states to develop an indigenous framework of cooperation, usually as an alternative to the dominance of Western capitalism. Russian and Turkish official circles tend to credit Eurasianism as a practical ideological framework for mutual cooperation for several crucial reasons. First of all, by saying that all versions of national democracies have the right to existence, Eurasianists in essence emphasize the idea of sovereignty and vehemently reject interference into domestic affairs. Besides, Eurasianists’ focus on existing alternatives to the Western values and norms of international conduct add legitimacy to Russian and Turkish criticism of Western partners and, on a rhetorical level, improve their negotiating positions in talks over terms of future dialogue with the West.

But looking into the real world manifestation of the Eurasianist narrative reveals serious gaps. The tendency to ascribe Eurasianism as a driving force behind rapprochement seems to be a myth. Alternatively, it doesn’t seem to be a reliable driving force of bilateral ties that are loaded with hidden competition in the Central Asia, Black Sea, Caucasus and Syria. Moreover, advocates of Eurasianism in Turkey and Russia understand the term to mean different things. For Russian Eurasianists, Eurasianism entails an ideology that today is called upon to legitimize the Russian presence in its neighbourhood. Meanwhile, for Turkish Eurasianists the term tends to mean a foreign policy strategy that is focused on developing effective tools against Western pressure. Finally, Eurasian rhetoric serves the purpose of masking the transactional and situational character of bilateral relations, evidenced by the S-400 deal and cooperation in Syria.

While Russian and Turkish officials show a desire to talk about the underlying ideological foundation of the rapprochement, it is nevertheless evident that both countries are more inclined to advance ties with the Western world. The volume of trade between Turkey and the European Union in 2016 was at the level of US $145 billion, while Russian-Turkish trade hit a mark of US $21.6 billion in 2017. An unbalanced trade structure (with Russian energy exports enjoying better positions) and economic relations force Turkey and Russia talk about bilateral ties in more abstract terms by describing their relations as part of a bigger Eurasian project. Moreover, in cultural terms the population of both states feels more affiliated with Europe than with each other. Both Russia and Turkey each have a large expatriate community in European countries.

Attempts being made by Russia and Turkey to dress bilateral relations in a more rigid ideational framework are understandable. Still, Turkey and Russia can’t build the future of their relations on an anti-Western narrative. Paradoxically, it is their common movement towards the European community that may advance cooperation: historical process of entering the European civilization established better rules of diplomatic conduct while providing guarantees from breaking the law by the other side. Within this movement, each of the two powers feels more secure knowing that they share common ideas and values like the rule of law, democracy and human rights. These commonalities may further increase tolerance to inter-dependence and compromise in critical areas and help Turkey and Russia to overcome, rather than ignore their historical legacy of mistrust.

David İmoisi, originally from Nigeria, is currently studying international relations at Yakin Dogu Universitesi in Cyprus. His interests revolve around international politics and diplomacy.

Glen Diesen (2017) defines geoeconomics as the economics of geopolitics in his book Russia’s Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia. He further adds that with more destructive weapons and growing economic interdependence in a globalized world, the power derives progressively from control over financial institutions, transportation corridors and strategic markets rather than territory. Moreover, in their book War by Other Means Jennifer M. Harris and Robert Blackwill (2016) define geoeconomics as “the use of economic instruments to promote and defend national interests, and to produce beneficial geopolitical results and effects of other nations’ economic actions on country’s geopolitical goals.” Thus, one can define geoeconomics as an economic instrument or set of instruments to achieve geopolitical ends.

China effectively uses the geoeconomic instruments to achieve its geopolitical aims in the twenty-first century.

China’s Economic Might in a Glimpse:

A specialist in Asian Trade and Finance, Wayne M. Morrison, argues that before the Chinese economic reforms of 1979, the Chinese economy was isolated from the other economies of the world besides keeping its economy centrally-controlled, poor, inefficient and stagnant. The economic reforms resultantly brought in foreign investment and trade into China. China, since then, has witnessed one of the fastest growing GDP growth rates in the world. China’s economy saw almost a double-digit GDP growth rate on an average in last three decades. According to the Trading Economics Website, China’s GDP growth rate from 1989-2017 on an average was nearly 9.66% which is slightly lesser than the two-digit growth rate that China maintained from 1989-2014 on an average. Besides this, China is not only the largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power parity but also the largest holder of foreign exchange reserves, largest manufacturer and merchandise trader. In 2017, China’s exports were $2.3 trillion.

Changing China Story:

According to Mark Leonard, ECFR Director, “If the big China story of the past few decades was about growth, exports and investments, the story of the next decade will be about the creation of a Chinese economic and political order.” He, furthermore, argues that despite its slow growth rate in the past few years, China has become part of the fabric of economic life of most countries around the world. Rather than overthrowing existing institutions as many had feared, China is utilizing its economic might to develop a series of relationships which connect world in a more China-Centric world order, Leonard adds. Moreover, Leonard says that the new world order (economic and political order) is designed differently from the Western-led multilateral institutions because China prefers to craft a series of bilateral and multilateral relationships with different states and also with regional forums or organizations.

China’s Geo-economic muscle in the 21^st Century:

Jennifer M. Harris and Robert Blackwill (2016) in their book War by Other Means state that there are at least seven economic tools apposite to the geopolitical application: trade, investments, sanctions, cyber, aid, financial and monetary policy, and national policies governing energy and commodities.

China effectively uses all these tools to meet its geopolitical ends. However, Wu Xinbo (2016), Executive Dean, Fudan University China, argues that China’s geoeconomic power particularly lies in five areas.

1. Trade

China, owing to its large exports and the largest domestic market, uses Trade as a geo-economic tool commendably. From Asia-Pacific to Africa and from Europe to Latin America China maintains trade relations with over a 100 countries. Xinbo (2016) in this regard claims that China is the largest trading partner of over a 130 states.

2. Investment Policy

China became an active provider of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) after the global financial Crisis of 2008. Behind only from US and Japan, China became the third largest investor country from 2012 to 2014 (Xinbo, 2016). However, according to World Investment Report 2017, China has become the second largest investor country in the world, leaving Japan behind. It is, furthermore, estimated that China is going to take over US in this regard by 2020. China’s investments are focused on infrastructure and energy mostly. These investments contribute to China’s geoeconomic power in the twenty-first century.

3. Financial Institutions

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and New Development Bank (NDB) are established recently. AIIB aims at providing financial support to the One Belt-One Road (OBOR) Initiative of Chinese President Xi Jinping which he announced in 2013 in Astana, Kazakhstan. NDB is BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bank which aims at providing financial assistance to infrastructure projects in BRICS countries (Xinbo, 2016). Xinbo (2016) adds that China holds over 30% of shares in AIIB and 41% of shares in NDB which give China more leverage in operations and making of rules of both the institutions. China’s economic power will enhance as states start taking assistance from these institutions.

Moreover, some argue that main objective behind AIIB is to compete with and eventually replace Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Bretton Woods Institutions in Asia-Pacific. However, it would be premature to compare and contrast between these at this stage.

4. Internationalization of Renminbi (RMB)

China started the policy of internationalizing of Renminbi from 2009. Internationalization of Renminbi includes its use in international investment and trade and also its inclusion in the reserves assets held by central banks in other countries (Xinbo, 2016). In 2015, Yuan (Renminbi) received the status of a reserve currency from IMF. Renminbi was added to IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket in 2016. Yuan (Renminbi) is included in the Special Drawing Rights basket of IMF along with Euro, US dollar, British Pound and Japanese Yen.

5. Infrastructure alliances under Road and Belt Initiative (BRI)

Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will connect China with the world from Asia-Pacific to Europe and from Latin America to Africa. Currently, there are 65 countries part of China’s Belt and Road initiative. China is building infrastructure, pipelines and helping countries to get rid of their energy woes.

Besides these instruments, China also uses Cyber as an effective geoeconomic tool to achieve its geopolitical ends.

Cyber as a Geo-economic Instrument for China

Jennifer M. Harris and Robert Blackwill (2016) in their book War by Other Means state that although it is quite uncertain to gauge the magnitude and nature of cyber-attacks yet there is a good reason to consider cyber as the most powerful and the newest instrument of geoeconomics. They further argue that most of the IP addresses of the cyber-attacks can be traced inside China and Russia. They quote a private study and state that in any given day, cyberattacks account for nearly 15% but this figure plunged to 6.5% on October 1, 2011, when many workers in China took leave owing to China’s National Day. Furthermore, with regards to China’s use of cyber, Farid Zakaria opines in his article published in The Washington Post on April 5, 2018, “Look at the Chinese economy today. It has managed to block or curb the world’s most advanced and successful technology companies, from Google to Facebook to Amazon. Foreign banks often have to operate with local partners who add zero value — essentially a tax on foreign companies.” He adds that during these attacks intellectual property and secrets of American companies are shared with their Chinese competitors. Thus, cyber proves to be an effective and the most powerful geoeconomic tools in this era of social media and technology. However, understanding of Cyber as a geoeconomic tool needs thorough understanding which is beyond the scope of this article.

In addition to this, Financial and Economic Sanctions is also a geoeconomic instrument but China does not believe in it or at least does not use it overtly. However, China equivocally insinuates that it can use it against countries which support Taiwan’s independence claim and maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

Conclusion

China’s economic might has enabled it to gain geoeconomic power in the 21^st century. Unlike US and other powers of the past, China is using its muscles differently. It is reaching out to its purse instead of a gun to achieve its geopolitical ends as authors of War by Other Means put it. In this regard, China uses several geoeconomic instruments from trade and investments policy to cyber-attacks effectively which are on their way to shape China-centric world order.

Muhammad Murad has been writing for different magazines and blogs since 2011. He initially started writing on social issues of Pakistan and later on, he began writing on internal and external issues related to Pakistan. Currently, he is Young Diplomats’ ambassador in Pakistan. He believes in a peaceful liberal democratic world away from war and conflict which would be possible by the power of the pen, not the gun. Muhammad is a business graduate turned  social scientist and aspires to be a writer.

I think it is important to reason about the concept of democracy nowadays, in a period in which all countries should be more open and with more rights for its members than in the past. In this article, I will try to explain why Athens should be considered a democracy.

The term democracy comes from the Greek language, and it is composed of the words “demos”, which refers to the entire citizen body and “kràtos” that refers to the concept of power; so it means “rule by the people”. The concept of democracy is usually associated with the notion of freedom, which is also seen as the essential aim of democracy. Aristotle, in his book called “Politics”, states: “The underlying idea of the democratic type of constitution is liberty. This, it is commonly said, can only be enjoyed in a democracy; and this, it is also said, is the aim of every democracy”.

We have to consider that the concept of freedom changes with the passing of time. During the age of the Athenian democracy, it was linked more with the political sphere than with the private life of the individual citizen. Therefore, I think the ancient democracies of classical antiquity, like Athens,  represent precursors of modern democracies, whose theories were not formulated until the 17^th / 18^th centuries after the French and the American revolutions. The concept of democracy is clearly different now than during the classical era, because it is related to the political and historical context, so we should not be critical about the different meaning that Athenians gave to the term democracy.

To understand Athenian politics we should also have a brief view of its history. The birth of the Athenian democracy was set in a very troublesome period. In fact, during the 5^th/4^th century B.C,  there were high levels of conflict between the city-states of Greece, approximately 15% of the Greek cities of the time did not survive the conflict. In this dangerous environment, Athens was able to survive, and remains, after it defeated Sparta in 432 B.C, the strongest and wealthiest city-state till the arrival of Alexander the great. The secret of the Athenian power was it is Navy. Since no costly weapons and horses were needed for it, most of the rowers and the sailors came from the Athens’ common citizens.  So, with the increase of Athenian dependence for its navy, this portion of the Athenian population started earning power. Athenian leaders understood this and tried to catch their consent; one of the reasons leading to the democratization of Athens.

Political engagement was limited to a certain section of society, after all, only male citizens who were older than 18 years of age could participate in the political process, this was nonetheless a remarkable step forward for that era.  Indeed, the concept of “citizenship” was revolutionary; it meant the direct and truly participation in the affairs of the state. The public and the private spheres of the Athenians’ life were extremely linked; this city-state promoted the concept of being active and truly involved in the politics, in a process of self-government, establishing its law with the participation of the majority of the people.

The heart of the Athenian direct democracy was the assembly, called “Ekklesia”, which used to meet about forty times a year and in which all male citizen above 18 years had the right to attend and vote.

The votes there were usually taken by raising hands and assembly participants were paid a small amount of money from public funds to compensate their commitment in political service away from their workplaces. This was a true symbol of democracy because also poor people could take part at the Ekklesia without a financial loss given the time dedicated to the assembly as opposed to, dedicated to work.

In the assembly, the decisions were taken by the votes of the majority of the present, and there were two very democratic rules. One was called “isegoria”, which meant there was a universal right to talk in the assembly, and the other one was called “isonomia”, which meant “equality before the law”, so no distinctions between citizens in front of the law.

The preparation of an agenda for the assembly was the main duty of Council consisted of 500 members selected annually by lot, 50 from each of the ten Athenian tribes.

Another essential part of Athenian politics was the court of law, located symbolically right at the centre of the city. It was composed of 6000 jurors and a body of chief magistrates, selected every year from common citizens. It was here in the court that the decisions made by the assembly could be challenged, and you could be harshly punished if you had made an illegal proposal or provided ‘improper’ advice out of bad faith.

With the complex process of choosing random people to take part in the political system, it was possible to prevent any individual or small group from dominating or over influencing the decision-making procedure. Anyway to avoid any dangers for democracy itself, there were two institutional instruments called “ostracism” and “graphè paranom.” The first let to exile a citizen that had too much influence and power in his hands for a certain time without loss of his civil rights, however. The second was a public action in which one could blame a citizen for having made an illegal proposal; the equivalent of today’s parliamentary immunity was therefore not a practice in place. This was to protect the freedom of the assembly and the freedom of individual citizens.

In conclusion, I can state that Athens should be considered a proper democracy, albeit, fit for the context of an era gone by and as such quite different from a modern democracy. Athens was a unique and revolutionary city for its time, in essence, a successful experiment of democracy as a political system. It allowed ‘common people’ a voice within the political spectrum for the first time in history. This analysis of the Athenian model helped us to measure the distance between the policy present during the Athenian era and the modern way of governing. Indeed, the simplicity of the ‘Ekklesia’ organization clearly contrasts with the complexity and sometimes the stagnation of the current policy. Even if in our century as in the past, the most influential people and the ones who has the real power in their hands was a small group of people, in the Athenian democracy this élite had to listen also common people ideas and proposals to take them into account. So what we should learn, looking through the spirit of an Athenian citizen, is to get more involved in politics of our democracies and concern more about what the lobbies, which sit in the government, decide for us.

Dans cet article, je veux discuter du rôle que joue le genre dans l’arène scolaire. Il est fréquent de ne regarder que les obstacles auxquels les filles doivent faire face à l’école en raison de la prédominance de l’hétéronormativité dans cet environnement; Néanmoins, je veux aussi me concentrer sur les barrières que les garçons doivent surmonter pour maintenir un comportement masculin s’ils veulent être acceptés. En effet, pour certains hommes qui affichent des attitudes généralement associées aux filles, il peut être difficile d’intégrer l’étiquette établie par l’idée commune de masculinité que l’école tend à imposer.

Tout d’abord, je pense qu’il est important de donner une définition au mot «genre» et de le distinguer du mot «sexe». D’une part, le sexe est le critère biologique, généralement accepté, à travers lequel nous identifions quelqu’un comme un homme ou une femme à sa naissance. Habituellement, les personnes sont classées dans une catégorie de sexe en fonction de leurs critères de sexe, mais il est possible que les deux ne coïncident pas. D’autre part, le genre est la conduite que nous maintenons dans la vie de tous les jours avec des activités, des conceptions normatives et des attitudes préventives appropriées à la catégorie de sexe. La conception du genre est souvent liée à la notion de sexe, et les différences biologiques sont donc associées à des attentes différentes de comportement entre la femme et l’homme. Ces différences ne sont pas essentielles mais elles sont construites par la société.

L’inégalité dans l’éducation est causée par l’hypothèse que ces distinctions sont naturelles et dépendent de la manière dont elles sont gérées. Cependant, ce n’est pas seulement une question de répartition de la justice entre les élèves, mais aussi de pouvoir, de culture, d’opportunités et de gains matériels.

Un type d’école dans lequel les différences dans l’éducation des garçons et des filles sont plus soulignés est l’école non mixte. Dans ce modèle d’éducation, il n’y a pas de possibilité de communication entre garçons et filles ou de chance de travailler ensemble. Le danger en ceci est qu’ils pourraient aboutir à la promotion du sexisme parce que lorsque les hommes et les femmes sont enseignés dans un environnement différent, ils pourraient arriver à la conclusion qu’un sexe est meilleur qu’un autre. Au lieu de cela, la coéducation conduit à un nombre plus important d’expériences pour les étudiants qui peuvent interagir les uns avec les autres et ainsi acquérir une meilleure connaissance des relations sociales.

L’Irlande est le pays d’Europe qui compte le plus grand nombre d’institutions non mixtes. En fait, 42% des étudiants de deuxième cycle y assistent, et la majorité d’entre eux sont des filles. Ce phénomène des institutions ségréguées selon le genre peut être compris à travers une perspective historique, car au XIXe siècle, de nombreuses dénominations sont nées et ont établi ce modèle d’écoles à travers l’Irlande selon le mode de pensée catholique traditionnel.

Certaines féministes ont déclaré que les écoles non mixtes pour les filles sont positives parce que les filles apprennent plus vite que les garçons et que la coéducation pourrait avoir un impact négatif sur la participation et les résultats scolaires des filles. C’est, comme je l’ai déjà mentionné, au cours du XIXe siècle, que ce type d’écoles a été mis en place, répandant la vision catholique traditionnelle des filles comme docile, innocente, polie et «bon goût». Cette influence catholique est toujours présente dans la plupart des écoles de filles modernes et les valeurs telles que la gentillesse et la docilité sont toujours partagées en tant que modèle de conduite.

Dans certaines enquêtes menées dans quatre types différents d’écoles en Irlande, il a été démontré qu’il existait certainement des différences entre les écoles de ces filles en ce qui concerne leur histoire et leurs traditions; En effet, ils étaient tous caractérisés par un contrôle et une surveillance rigoureux du comportement et de l’orientation scolaire dans les domaines social et de bienveillance.

La plupart des filles interrogées se sont plaintes de la limitation de la liberté de leur corps et de l’invasion de la vie privée causée par ces règles. Les enseignants étaient conscients de la résistance des élèves à ces règles, mais en général, ils ne les prenaient pas au sérieux. Au sein de la classe, les enseignants construisaient généralement un climat très stressant, exerçant beaucoup de pression pour obtenir de meilleurs résultats. Le niveau de perturbation était également faible en classe, et les filles devaient travailler dur.

In contrast, the values of single-sex boys’ schools are opposite and focus on strength, agility and power, and they especially applied in the sports activities. Differences are also shown in the extra-curricular activities of these schools and change for boys and girls. Music and arts are considered traditionally more important in girl’s schools while sports are more valued in boy’s schools.

The predominance of “laddish” behaviours in school could also be a hindrance to school performance for some students because they can use it as an excuse for their failure in exams and to show off the fact that they possess the hegemonic characteristics of masculinity. One explanation of this conduct, stated by Jackson, is the self-worth protection theory; which describes this department as a shield from the consequences of a lack of ability and from the implications of being accounted as “feminine”. In fact, creating an excuse for failure allows you to avoid being labelled as “stupid”. Ultimately being a “lad” is associated with doing With not doing feminine ascribed things, hanging out with mates and not working hard, which would ruin the “laddish” image.

Gender differences and also influences the choice of subjects. For example, it is typical for only boys to be suitable for technological subjects and there is a strong differentiation between the number of males and females that decide to take them up. Even where schools reinforce such stereotypes, some girls contest these labels and decide to undertake careers in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). The low representation of girls in technological subjects could be an obstacle to them with the entrance into the job world, because they will lack the particular skills that could be relevant for some specific tasks. The school context has a significant role in the selection of subjects: school may provide specific subjects or not, may frame the choice in a particular area in a “gendered” manner, and the daily interaction between students and teachers, who give a guideline to their pupils, may also influence subject choices. For instance, girls’ schools are less likely to provide technological subjects and offer more choices in humanities.

In conclusion, I think that Kimmel’s statement: “Schools are like old-fashioned factories, and what they produce is gendered individuals, perfectly summarizes the general idea of the heteronormative school environment. Schools, thus appeared to reinforce gender stereotypes instead of promoting the equality among genders and a culture of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation differences. This is the framework in which the students spend most of their time, in which they start interacting with each other and build their identity. The education system is put in charge of the formation of the mentality of future women and men, therefore they should help students in reflecting around the stereotypes created by society and breaking through the barriers created by those labels. Unluckily, it seems that they still work the opposite way, ignoring the existence of these differences, doing little to help the students to understand themselves and reinforcing the strong division between males and females and the stereotypes correlated to them.

This week’s edition of Explaining Brazil will discuss a highly charged issue that transcends our borders: the Venezuela crisis.

Approximately 70,000 Venezuelans had crossed into Brazil by February this year, amid rumors that Brazil might close its border (something that the government has vehemently denied). Boa Vista, whose population is now 10 percent Venezuelan, is struggling to provide adequate shelter, employment, and healthcare services. And Brazil’s central government seems unsure of what to do, flip-flopping between moving all Venezuelan migrants to one location or dispersing them throughout the country.

For this episode, we’re hosting Rosario Hernandez, a political analyst from Venezuela and member of the Young Diplomats. She discusses just how bad things are – and what the future may hold for her country.

The podcast is available on SoundCloud and on Apple Podcasts.

On this podcast:

Gustavo Ribeiro has extensive experience covering Brazilian politics and international affairs. His work has been featured across Brazilian and French media outlets, including Veja, Época, Folha de São Paulo, Médiapart and Radio France Internationale. He is the recipient of multiple awards, including the Abril Prize for outstanding political journalism. He holds a master’s degree in Political Science and Latin American studies from Panthéon-Sorbonne University in Paris.

Ciara Long is a journalist based in Rio de Janeiro and a contributing writer for The Brazilian Report. Her work has been featured in PRI, CBC News, and World Politics Review, among others.

Rosario Hernandez is a political analyst from Venezuela and a member of Young Diplomats. She grew up with the challenges of the 21st century. She studied journalism, holds an M.A in Political Science, and a diploma in Political Marketing. She specializes in the changing political landscapes of South America and the Middle East.

This podcast was edited by Peter Clare, University College London (Diploma in sub-titling, translating). Peter has radio work experience with the BBC, the University of Brasilia and the University of Campinas.

This article is part of a series launched by our partner, The Brazilian Report and was originally published here.