Young Diplomats

In the light of strengthening the spirit of communication between nations and support of human values; the young Chadian player Idriss Dougaye (12 years old), and the junior Chadian reporter Hamza Assef (12 years old) were chosen from Chad’s “Farcha Milezi” academy in order to participate and represent Chad in the International Children’s Forum, to which the Russian company Gazprom annually invites hundreds of young players from top African, Asian, European and South American football clubs.

The young Chadian star will be accompanied by the emerging journalist Assef for the final events of the program, which will take place in the Russian capital Moscow, from June 8 to June 15. These include the International Friendship Camp for three days, the International Football Tournament for Friendship and the Children’s Forum. The two Chadian children will participate in the program as ambassadors of their country to support the basic human values: friendship, equality, justice, health, peace, dedication, victory and honor promoted by the program.

Children participating in the Forum not only meet and communicate with their peers from other countries, as well as famous football players and public figures, but also become young ambassadors to promote universal values by themselves among their age-mates.

The Football for Friendship program’s mission is to developing children’s football; promoting youth sports and a healthy lifestyle; promoting friendship among children from different countries, fostering tolerance and respect toward other cultures and ethnicities.

The program was first launched in 2013 with the aim of improving the skills of young football and promoting healthy lifestyles, as well as promoting peace, openness and friendship among children from around the globe.

This year’s program has seen the launch of the sixth season, which had been held from February 15 to June 15, 2018, with the participation of a large number of countries and regions to reach 211 countries and regions from all over the world.

Football for Friendship is supported by such renowned footballers as Vitor Baia, Didier Drogba, Anatoly Tymoshchuk, Luis Neto, and Ralf Faehrmann, as well as football associations and federations in many countries.

The program is supported by FIFA, UEFA, the European Football Association, the Olympic Committee, the Paralympics, football associations and children’s institutions, as well as hundreds of prominent athletes and thousands of journalists from all over the world over the past years.

It is also worth mentioning that the previous events were held in London, Lisbon, Berlin, Milan and St. Peter’s. The number of people who know about the program is about 3700 participants and one billion people worldwide. Over the past years; the program has expanded from 8 to 211 countries and regions.

Modern diplomatic practice as we know it today has evolved from a generous history of traditions, protocols and narratives. While the United States (US) president Donald Trump is a new face in the diplomatic community, he has already built a reputation for being largely unpredictable thus the twist in the possibility of formal diplomatic roundtable discussions between these countries happening is feasible in the near future.

While the winter Olympic games in Pyeonchang, South Korea may have provided a soft takeoff for the possibility of the talks holding following high level delegation from both North Korea (DPRK) in person of Kim’s sister Kim Yo-Jong and the United States vice president Mike Pence both in official capacity; Kim Jon Un unnaounced and hurried trip to China who is DPRK’s biggest market show a sign at these crucial moment that China wants a fair share of the ‘deal’ and will use its economic, geographical, and strategic influence over DPRK to influence negotiation and inturn give China upgraded shots at negotiations for concessions from the US or to merely score a mark for being sidelined in the early process.

Unlike China that has a relative offer to the US, DPRK is at a disadvantage on the table with the US except for longstanding threats of a “mutually assured destruction” thus making the game (negotiation) adopt a zero-sum approach. More so, hurried attempts by long time US diplomatic foe Russia’s attempt to influence the talks are emerging following DPRK’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho’s visit to Moscow  this April and an acceptance of a reciprocal visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the coming days all in a bid to ensure their interests are protected in these conversations

As conversations between the US and DPRK started becoming official and passing through the State Department and DPRK’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs despite being sworn enemies at all fronts in decades past, these two countries have actually kept in constant touch through back channels which involved both states secret service officials (Central Intelligence Unit for the US and General Reconnaissance Bureau for the DPRK) and the “New York Channel” which involve using permanent representatives of both countries to the UN. The channels have been effective in negotiating issues like hostage release, prisoners swap, extradition etc. especially when these acts are state funded most notably the 1968 USS Pueblo seizure by DPRK on its territorial waters. More to this is the recent revelationof new CIA chief Pompeo secretly meeting with Kim Jong Un.

As official channels open for talks, it will be about a location with historic and futuristic characteristics of neutrality and favourability for both sides with Sweden, Mongolia and Switzerland making proposals to host. While not much is known of Mongolia’s relevance to the talks, and Kim being partially raised in Switzerland, Sweden may emerge the stand alone contender due to its long standing ties to DPRK and its role of conducting consular responsibilities for US citizens in DPRK.

In summary, the use of back channels such as these is almost as old as diplomacy itself but becoming more prominent in our era of constant rivalry; despite admitably having its own forthcomings, historical agreements have been made and crises prevented through these channels. For the US – DPRK talks, the dialogue would certainly involved the “New York Channel” most notably through US Special Representative for North Korea Policy Joseph Yun and Pak Song Il, a senior DPRK diplomat at the United Nations.

Daniel Nwaeze – University of Lagos, Nigeria

Throughout the history of the United States, presidents have brought forward their own security strategies in order to promote effectiveness and dissuasiveness in foreign policy. As circumstances alter rapidly in the world isolationism and activism have been two fundamental instruments in U.S. foreign policy.

President Donald Trump delivers a speech on national security, Monday, Dec. 18, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Many of previous presidents conducted isolationist policies such as George Washington, and many of others have conducted activist policies in foreign policy such as George W. Bush.  Mr. Obama could be seen as the last implementer of some form of isolationism. On the other hand, in the recent years, rising rivalry conspicuously began to be argued in domestic affairs and seen as a critical problem for American leadership. So, it seems that, Trump’s administration does not want to ignore the risk toward the worldwide dominance of U.S.

Critics Over Obama’s Administration

When Mr. Obama’s presidency taken in hand, it’s obvious that during his era, national security strategies of U.S. were much more inclining towards  ”Soft Power’‘ in an effort to appease Anti-Americanism. According to some, Obama’s presidency has prevailed reversing negative considerations toward U.S. In other respects, current president Trump is been exerting his boldness by enhancing the sense of ”Making America Great Again”.

As President Trump addressed in his national security strategy speech, he brought to the fore front the notion of ”America First”. This stands as intrinsic part of his doctrine. Also in the newly decided Security Strategy, preserving American citizens’ rights are depicted as a sworn duty of the U.S. Government.  Many people see Obama’s presidency as an era of deterioration of America’s dominance meanwhile others favor his policies.  Allegedly, his policies have enhanced Russian influence especially in Syria and even in the Black Sea in parallel with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Therefore, it is not so hard for many to advocate Trump’s policies. During his campaign, he had showed his eagerness to convert foreign policy from Isolationism into the Activism.

As he stated numerous times, it is the right time for America to consider effective transformation in many fields such as economy, health care system (cancellation of Obamacare) and so on. According to many Republicans, predecessor’s mistakes in both domestic and foreign affairs, overwhelmingly coerces U.S. to handle with current and forthcoming circumstances. Let’s look into Trump’s commitments in his security strategy.

Dwelling on Facts

It is a striking point that during the announcement of the Security Strategy, Mr. Trump labeled Russia and China as ”Rival” powers. Also he added that they are willing to shake US dominance utterly. That could be a correct indication with many aspects. United States is the world’s leading state on military spending with approximately $600 billion (it has been decided to be increased by $80 billion) whilst Russia and China have around $200 billion combined. It is a well-known fact, Russia and China are about to increase their military and economic strength in parallel with their regional and global goals in the future.

Especially since 2015, Russian naval production is been increasing tremendously. Only within 2017, in parallel with the Russian Naval Doctrine ratified by Vladimir Putin and published in 20 July 2017, Russians aimed to include around 30 new modern warships to their naval forces in order to gear up the capacity to challenge with the U.S. dominance in the seas. Yet, U.S. Naval Forces has worldwide impact thanks to its active 11 Aircraft Carriers while Russia and China combined only have 2 Aircraft carriers in service.

               Putin, Rogozin and Shoigu discuss the new Naval Doctrine of Russia

Education, Economy and R&D

For a nation, almost all of the success comes from educational development and innovation rate of communities. When U.S. education system observed, the knowledge generation looks better than any other country. United States has 18 universities in the best 50 in the overalls meanwhile China has 6 and Russia has none (Lomonosov Moscow State University has the highest ranking in Russia, 95th). This is not the only comparison. Also most of the world innovative companies are located in the Silicon Valley.

Eventually, the development in education will reflect the economic capability and a substantial element on economic growth based on technology and innovation. When the data is observed, U.S. expenditure on Research&Development seems around $480 million in PPP. This is the highest expenditure on R&D all around the world. Chinese expenditure to R&D seems around $370 million. This is the second biggest amount after U.S. and numbers clearly demonstrates that U.S. leadership is still continuing in many fields. However, China’s growth of potential has been gaining momentum every year thanks to its high labor force with around 1.40 billion population (2017) and governments correct tax regulations towards Foreign Direct Investors.

Also, there are many reasons for investors to choose China. Towards  the end of the 20th Century, China has started the liberalisation process and trying to entice foreign firms by making circumstances convenient for them. China would get ahead of the U.S. economy in the forthcoming decades. In addition to this, China’s lead on global economy is ”inevitable” to some. Donald Trump’s nascent tax reform could be seen as kind of an attempt of clawing back the financial advantage from the hands of China. The reform includes decreasing percentage of taxation in case of firms moving back to U.S.

A Sworn Component to Soft Power: Culture 

After all of those facts taken in hand, let’s take a look at the issue from a different perspective. The importance of China in economic and also we could add military field, has been increasing sharply. Yet, these are not the only competitive fields. Also, culture is such a key instrument on rising influence. Also, it is a significant advantage that U.S. holds the world’s biggest and effective cultural tool called Hollywood. The U.S. culture is able to stretch and spread its existence. This is another reality that needs to be taken into account by rivalry candidates. The Hollywood is in the forefront in the cinema sector across the world and that accelerates spread of US identity.

This way, U.S. identity obtains a vital chance to embrace with the people with another identity. Accessibility is a superior necessity to a nation. Throughout the world, almost all sectors are being dominated by American firms. If the rivals are willing to gain leverage in any field, than the success requires an efficient mobilization backed up by a long-term planning.

KFC and McDonald’s signs in Xiamen, China. Photo: sly06 / Flickr Creative Commons

As a conclusion, it is not rational for rising rival powers to acquire head to head capacity in worldwide sphere in a short period. The huge potential of the east would be worth pondering in following decades. A well utilization of potential in the long-term could have an impact upon roles.

Mustafa Aydogan is currently working on topics related to Russian Eurasianism and Middle East. He has a Bachelor degree from  Bahcesehir University Istanbul and he is keen on pursuing an academic career in the future.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has received widespread praise for the steely way that she has handled the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal in the sleepy market town of Salisbury. Those accolades are exaggerated. If anything, the British authorities reacted too fast and too furiously to the attack on Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer and convicted British double agent who was released from prison in 2010 in a spy swap that involved the glamorous Russian sleeper agent Anna Chapman.

May was the home secretary who in 2014 authorized an inquiry into the November 2006 assassination of former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko in London, after having withheld permission in earlier years. Now, as prime minister, she predictably wants to show that she will stand up for the national interest. It’s vital to be seen as strong, especially at a time when the daily headlines pillory her handling of Brexit negotiations with the European Union. Westminster was bound to take stern measures, because a swapped spy is meant to have immunity from retaliation. To make matters worse, Skripal’s innocent daughter as well as a local detective constable who went to their rescue were affected by the use of a chemical nerve agent on British soil.

But just as acting too quickly can backfire, it has always been counterproductive to act too late and too meekly. It’s worth recalling that it took nine long years from the Litvinenko murder to the conclusion of the inquiry, which laid the blame on two Russian intelligence officers, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun. The Litvinenko inquiry, after exhaustive proceedings, concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had “probably” given the order for his gruesome death by radioactive polonium-210 poisoning. What we do know, however, is that every Russian spokesman from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has ridiculed the use of the word “probably” ever since  and several Moscow newspapers that are usually capable of criticizing Putin followed suit. The political handling of the Skripal poisoning has exposed the British Cabinet to the same treatment by Russian officials. This time, Downing Street decided to condemn Putin without even bothering to put forward corroborating evidence.

After all, engagement with the Russian public matters, too, if the West is ever to counter the popularity that Putin currently enjoys with most Russians. For an entire week after the Salisbury poisoning, Russian TV’s Channel One carried commentaries ridiculing Britain for failing to take care of its Russian residents and rejecting British claims about Moscow’s long arm of terror as yet another example of official Russophobia. In addition to making earnest demands for proof, the TV network as well as some Russian diplomats dropped hints that the attack on Skripal was a devilish plot by the British secret services to stir up hatred of Russia and disrupt its preparations for the June 2018 FIFA World Cup.

Most Russians obtain their news primarily from Moscow-based TV channels, which subserviently toe the Kremlin line. And the prime minister’s total attribution of blame to Putin without publishing any evidence has played into the Kremlin’s hands. The same was true of British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who has a habit of scoring own goals by saying the first thing that comes into his head. Johnson hinted that the England soccer team might be withdrawn from participation in the World Cup. Johnson repeated his display of idiocy by comparing Putin to Hitler — a highly insensitive comment in the minds of most Russians, who are united in the pride they take in the Soviet Union’s role in defeating the Third Reich.

May’s government has begun to recover from this shaky start. In the past, getting support for a robust diplomatic response from Washington and Brussels would have been guaranteed in advance. European anger about Brexit and the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, an admitted admirer of Putin, have made it less straightforward. Trump has shown a reluctance to criticize the Russian leader even when various parts of his administration have enacted policies that run counter to Russian interests. Nevertheless, May succeeded in extracting a measure of support from Trump, and she and Johnson eventually found a sympathetic hearing among European leaders. They have also welcomed inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. They even persuaded the Trump administration and several European states to engage in a simultaneous large-scale expulsion of Russian diplomats.

Whether May and Johnson spoke more openly to U.S. and EU officials than they did in public about the evidence linking the poisoning to Putin still remains unknown. They would do themselves a favor if they were to discuss, however gradually, the contours of the evidence they have collected. When the Russian authorities make mischief by offering to assist in the investigation, the most effective response would be to accept the overture, share a sample of the poison, and then subject the Kremlin’s response to the same techniques of forensic exposure that Russians have been applying to British official announcements. It’s true that this risks could mean more RT spreading its propaganda. But Western democracies ought to have faith in their own resilience. Prolonged political transparency is more effective than secretiveness — people have had enough of politicians who seek to preserve their privileged access to information that doesn’t pose a danger for national security.

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

The Budget Speech by Mr Amadou Sanneh at the Gambia National Assembly in Banjul is brilliant, comprehensive and one of the best budget speeches I have heard and listened to regarding Gambia in recent years. It was presented by a notable economist, a seasoned politician and a very humble man. I had the honour of meeting him last year at an International conference in Jeddah. In the thirty minutes we met, he never discussed his personal ordeals at the hands of the former regime. Rather, he spoke substantively of macroeconomic policies to move Gambia forward.

I listened to his maiden budget speech on Friday 15^th December 2017 from A to Z and found in it profundity, substance and policy. He started the Speech by the fact that the New Gambia inherited a debt burden of D58.5 billion (over 120% of GDP). I am no economist, but common sense can dictate to us the seriousness of the above assertion. According to the Minister, the New Government has a gigantic task to undo the 22 years of economic mismanagement and replace that with sound and good economic governance and financial discipline. Indeed, it is not going to be an easy task to rectify the many years of fiscal indiscipline and financial impropriety. However, that needs prudence and calmness to put heads together for a better and prosperous Gambia regardless of political affiliations and ethnic backgrounds. Gambia needs people with ideas and talents to fix the years of damage and mess economically, politically, socially and educationally. The country needs an overhaul in all the sectors. The country faces acute managerial and administrative issues that require urgent attention. The new Head of Civil service is introducing positive reforms in the civil service.  The highlights of the Budget Speech include the following:

1. Despite the legacy of a great debt burden inherited from the previous regime, the Government of Gambia is bent on initiating a reform agenda economically and institutionally to create efficiency within the Government, stimulate the economy and attract investment by the business community
2. Increasing transport allowance for the lower paid public employees
3. Commissioning of research on aligning Gambian pensions policies with world standards to provide Gambians with decent pension scheme during retirement

Minister Sanneh pointed out that the energy sector will witness marked improvement in the coming months and years. On another note, he emphasises the Government efforts to secure a good deal with partners to start tapping into the natural resources of the Gambia in both the energy and mineral sectors.

It is indisputable that the broken economy inherited will not be easily fixed. It will require concerted and collective efforts of all the Gambians in  Gambia and in the diaspora to cross-fertilise ideas in order to bring Gambia out of the mess it was put in for decades.

The Budget Speech is essentially a framework for economic stimulation, transformation and attraction of investors to Gambia. I am sure the Speech must have sent positive signals to global financial markets and created an assurance that the economy of Gambia is in safe hands and on the trajectory of recovery. We believe that this new economic transformation that Gambia is witnessing and the trajectory the Government is taking will change the livelihood of the ordinary Gambians and will enable them to provide their loved ones with basics necessities. I think it will soon be a right for every Gambian to have a decent education, a good standard of living and health insurance. These should be coupled with Government efforts to develop the infrastructure of Gambia both physical and human. It is not impossible to achieve the above if there is willingness to tap into the wealth of experience Gambians have intellectually, technically and above all the rich cultural heritage Gambia is endowed with. I have emphasised a lot on human infrastructure in my previous articles to underline the supremacy of human dignity, human freedom and human rights. It is easier to build the physical infrastructure than the human infrastructure.

Dr. Alhagi Manta Drammeh is an Associate Professor at Al-Maktoum College of Higher Education, Scotland, UK.

The Futility of Foreign Airstrikes on Syria…The worst or just one among many bad options!

The U.S., U.K. and France have launched coordinated attacks on sites related to the Syrian Chemical Weapons Program in Damascus and Homs on Friday.

Many observers gazing upon the current bloodshed in Syria, Perhaps, just like them, you have been wondering why America, France and Britain have launched a coordinated airstrike in Syria to punish the regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed more than 70 people last week.

It seems to be obvious that the issue of poisoning the Russian spy Sergi Skripal has paved the way to punish Moscow diplomatically, and played a decisive role in the decision of British Prime Minister Theresa May to participate in the strike operations without getting the endorsement of the British House of Commons, unlike in 2013 when former Prime Minister David Cameron failed to obtain parliamentary approval. However, some have even floated the idea that the UK is the one who poisoned the spy and his daughter to make Russia look bad, and eventually find a reason to attack Syria.

More than a hundred missiles were launched and the airstrikes lasted no longer than seven minutes. American, French and British naval and air force units were involved. A few hours after the airstrikes; U.S. President Donald Trump twitted “Mission Accomplished” – the U.S. president’s choice of words recalled a similar claim associated with George W. Bush following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and former French President, François Hollande.

After the seizure of Timbuktu on January 29, 2013, France’s Hollande declared: “We are in the process of winning the battle.” This naivety and lack of foresight were followed by the declaration of the former Defense minister of France, Jean-Yves le Drian, thus: “The mission is fulfilled.”

This funny scenario looks too much like the 2003 mission accomplished speech by former U.S. President George W. Bush after the fall of the Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, but look at these countries now after those arrogant declarations. Currently, these countries are nothing, but fragile states and strongholds of terrorists. These French and American temperamental behaviors only functioned as a guideline for future actions for the spread of terrorism, and it will only lead to further waves of immigration to Europe, thus reminding the world of their status of dominant powers. Any expert would agree that the war in Syria, Libya, Mali and CAR is far from being won. It’s clear that the recent airstrike on Syria has its own political and economic agendas, and it might just be a tool to please public opinion at home or challenge Russia and China abroad.

Numerous current studies clearly indicate that outside military interventions tend to lengthen the expected duration of civil wars, making the hostilities more bloodier and longer, consequently, more serious regional disaster, hence if we look back at Somalia, Libya and CAR or even Iraq and Syria, foreign military interventions in these countries are nothing, but just disastrous failures.

David W. Orme-Johnson, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Maharishi University of Management, who’s against all air strikes and for world peace; argues that there are over 50 highly rigorous studies show that group practice of Maharishi’s technologies of the unified field create coherence in collective consciousness, which provides the basis for peaceful negotiations and conflict resolution.

“The only practical way to achieve this; is to create large coherence creating groups on every continent. Otherwise it is same-old going on century after century leading countries according to policies that are based on a profound ignorance of the possibilities of human life to be aligned with the total potential of natural law at the basis of every human mind.” Orme-Johnson stressed.

The leaders of all countries should be aware of this research before they eagerly pull the triggers that will lead us all into more war. We have arrived at a time in history when such stupid actions will no longer be held excusable by future generation.

In a moment of hope and frustrations in our modern world, perhaps you may wonder, whether the cold war is coming back again? The Cold War, which followed the Allied victory in World War II, saw the U.S. and its allies facing off for decades with the Soviet Union, of which Russia is the main successor state.

Jonathan Adelman argued in his research that the Cold War is gone, never to return, and a weakened Russia can hardly launch a new Cold War. Talk of a revival of the Cold War is merely rhetoric, not reality. “Putin’s Russia is not the superpower of the Cold War era. It still retains a major nuclear capability comparable to that of the United States. But its conventional capabilities are far weaker than after World War II when it played a major role in defeating Nazi Germany and occupied Eastern Europe. The Red Army performed poorly in the first Chechen War (1994-1996) and showed modest improvement in the second Chechen War (2000-2004). Its victories have come against weak forces in Georgia, Crimea and Left Bank Ukraine. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Red Army has been pushed back up many hundreds of miles from the center of Europe to defending Saint Petersburg and Moscow. Meanwhile the American military budget is over seven times greater than that of Russia.” Adelman said.

On the other hand, The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said during the second meeting of the Security Council this week on the conflict in Syria the ”Cold war is back with a vengeance”, as he issues a warning that the world is at risk of ”full-blown military escalation” over the latest suspected chemical attack in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with Dr. David R. Leffler, Executive Director at the Center for Advanced Military Science (CAMS) argued that there is no peer-reviewed research that shows that air strikes create peace. Invincible Defense Technology is backed-up by peer-reviewed research showing that it does create peace. If President Bashar al-Assad would properly apply Invincible Defense Technology (IDT) in Syria it would be the ideal solution to quickly create a lasting peace to this troubled region. The phase transition to start this process would take less than 500 experts who would practice the advanced IDT technique in group twice-a-day.

“If the leaders of the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia really desire to marshal their righteous power against the barbarism and brutality of war they should have the courage to order the their militaries to use IDT, if any of them quickly act, their military could make history and gain international prestige by creating lasting peace.” Dr. Leffler added.

The political landscape in Syria and the Middle East in general is very fragile and complicated, it is a mixture of thousands of years of deep ethnic and religious conflicts, Western powers must realize this and deal with the bloodshed in Syria and the tensions in the Middle East in a spirit of realism, noting that the spread of the conflict would be a “catastrophe” at a crucial stage of the global economic recovery. The recent airstrikes will only pave the way for ISIS 2.0 or other terrorist groups to come back again; we can’t face barbarism with brutality; ladies and gentlemen.

You may wonder also, is there any political solution for Syria? At the first glance, it would seem to you like there’s no political solution for Syria because Russia and Iran don’t want it. Perhaps their characters and strategies are very different from the West’s. However, and to answer that question, one would do well to look at a map of the region during the Ottoman Empire. Of course Turkey and Israel won’t be ignored on this map. What Syria needs is a real and effective political solution, not more airstrikes.

Certainly, Washington’s goal is to establish a friendly government in Syria to counter the influence of Iran and Russia, their “old enemy” in the region. However, direct military interventions at this stage can be the real and realistic option if the international community and the Arab Sunni states are serious about keeping the Syrian state from political collapse and the disintegration of the social fabric that binds the Syrian sects and ethnicities.

But we are now talking of much greater matters, America and its allies do not have clear authority to launch airstrikes or use force in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and they may not care whether their actions are lawful under international law, Under the U.N. Charter. The recent airstrikes on Syria sounds to me like “you can kill whoever you want, but don’t use chemical weapons!” The U.S. and its allies are prohibited from using force in Syria unless authorized by the Security Council or exercising its right to individual or collective self-defense.

There are a million reasons to believe that foreign military interventions usually fail in the 21st century. Regional initiatives would actually be more effective than Russian and Western interventions because they minimize the likelihood of imposed solutions. Any foreign airstrike on Syria should be in a wider coordination with the U.N. Security Council and the Sunni Arabs in the Middle East and perhaps Turkey as well. Despite the fact that Turkish military operations against YPG which is considered as an ally by the U.S. and its allies in its fight against ISIS in Syria, makes the existing relations between the actors in the field more complicated than ever.

The nature of opposition politics in Nigeria is such that, matters that should ordinarily generate healthy public debates are often relegated for petty issues or otherwise implicated in mere rabble-rousing. This sometimes makes a party in power to be lost in avoidable denial of the obvious. The comments made by Bill Gates at the expanded national economic council meeting on March 22, 2018 gave a trampoline for the opposition parties to raise their value in the political space by enriching the developmental debate with their findings on the government’s Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP). Bill Gates had said that the execution priorities of the ERGP do not fully reflect people’s needs, prioritizing physical capital over human capital (words which he reiterated in an interview with the CNN). In all conscience however, he acknowledged the fact that the Economic Growth and Recovery Plan identifies investing in people as one of the three strategic objectives.

To put the matter in perspective, we can infer from the foregoing that Bill Gates did not fault the plan but, its implementation. He specifically harped on the string that the investment in young people, in health and education is not good enough. Over time, Nigeria has had wonderful development plans but the problem has always been with implementation and ensuring plan discipline. Hence, it is imperative that we look at different responses and case scenarios to this timely caution and voice of reason. These scenarios on whether the lessons are lost are presented in a typical multiple-choice format of “Yes”, “No” and “Maybe.”

The “Yes” scenario: The Lessons are lost

In the case the lessons from the comment are lost, there are certain indications which include: trivializing the comments or reducing it to another national joke as to whether Bill Gates is an economist or not. First, it wasn’t a comment made by a pseudo neoliberal scholar to sly the government of another country. Rather, he was invited to participate in the expanded economic council meeting having considered him worthy of that. Another indication would be whisking away the comment in a cavalierly attitude like “we-are-doing-good-enough.” However, it will be bold to pretend that the investments in young people in health and education in the country are good enough. As a matter of coincidence, in an interview with News Agency of Nigeria a week after the comment, the President of the Nigerian Medical Association, Mike Ogirima, said that Nigeria had a ratio of one doctor to 6,000 people as against the WHO’s recommendation of one doctor to 600 people in a community. He decried the lack of facility to absorb almost 3,000 medical doctors being produced annually by the medical schools despite the need for them. According to him, those rounding off their training in medical schools lack places to do their one year training. Yet, those who are engaged are daunted by poor working condition as a result of lack of hospital equipments, poor facilities and understaffing forcing many to seek better opportunities abroad. This, no doubt, will have a serious impact on the quality of health service and the productivity of the people.

In the same vein, no nation can grow beyond its education system. Education is the treasure trove for the human capital of a nation. At a time of critical change, nations always turn to their education sector to serve as the conveyor belt and pillar of support for the desired development. After the launch of Sputnik 1 as the first artificial Earth satellite by the Soviet Union in 1957, America felt they might be outstripped by their archrival in space technology. Hence, they overhauled their education system and adopted pragmatism as the new education philosophy. The education system in Nigeria is yet to receive such a wave of change to lead in the march to greatness. Many emerging economies are investing in their young ones through education. According to Kishore Mahbubani, educational excellence is a prerequisite for cultural confidence. He asserted that, what makes Asia’s rise to be irreversible is the simultaneous successes of China and India. Both countries have the most optimistic generation of young people they have seen in centuries. Nothing can hold down the dynamism and rigor they will bring to their societies and the whole world. For instance, education is one of the key indicators in measuring Global Innovation Index. The top 25 spots in the list have always belonged to the high-income economies. In 2016, China broke through this barrier and took 25^th place and by 2017, China inched up to 22 in the list. If the leadership of the country remains complacent in their education for “meal ticket” system in this innovation driven and knowledge based world, then the lessons from Bill’s comment are undoubtedly lost.

The “No” scenario: (The lessons are not lost)

If we tick the “No” response scenario, that would amount to a positive attitude by the leadership of the country and accepting the comment in good faith. The manifestation of that would include factoring in social inclusion measurement and indicators in the periodic assessment of the ERGP especially in relation to the young population in Nigeria. The young people constitute about 60% of the estimated population of 180 million which makes their case a concern for all. A positive reaction would also require assessing the effectiveness of current policies and programmes aimed at the young people such as the N-Power and school feeding programme. Importantly, measuring social inclusion is highly relevant in order for countries to assess their performance, to determine the progress being made and to evaluate the impact of their policies. Social inclusion indicators should not only focus on economic growth but also on social spending and access to services. The measurement should cover areas such as poverty alleviation, access to social services (education, health and sanitation), access to job/decent works, social protection, opportunity to participate in decision making process (that affect their lives), housing, empowerment etc. This would ensure the government’s plans are kept on track as stated in the ERGP to support the economically disadvantaged, create jobs, improve accessibility, affordability and equality of health care across the country and guarantee improved human capital through access to basic education for all.

The “Maybe” Scenario (Not sure whether the lessons are lost or not)

This case scenario would be that of finding reasons to justify the current mode of executing the ERGP. The country truly reels under the burden of infrastructural deficit as a result of abandoned projects that have accumulated over time. The infrastructural decadence arising from the mismanagement of past administrations dictates that we must start from somewhere. This is in addition to the fact that we just emerged from a serious recession.

Nevertheless, we would still want to be reassured that we are on course with the implementation pattern of the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan. Perhaps, the National Orientation Agency will work towards carrying the people along in government policy execution so that we can be convinced that we have not lost focus as a nation.

Kamal Ololade Ahmed is a graduate of Political Science and Public Administration and he is currently a postgraduate student at the Nigerian Defence Academy where he is pursuing a Master’s degree in Defence and Strategic Studies.

The present document is a commentary to an article dating back from March 24^th, 2018, written by Hannah Devlin, Science correspondent for The Guardian (which is a middle left English newspaper). Hannah Devlin reports a scientific analysis arguing the fact that selective school is making difference to pupils’ General Certificate of Secondary Education results. This study presents now a challenge to May’s government policy of allowing existing schools to expand their campuses and debate the role of genetic testing. 

The main problematic deriving from this article is such: is a selective system, optimized for the brightest pupils the best way to educate the nation?

As such, Hannah Devlin shows (l.4) that the type of school doesn’t have a real impact on pupil’s results, it is rather their environment and family backgrounds which explains disparate levels of academic results.

The fact that the 7% difference on GCSE results between selective (private and grammar) and comprehensive schools (l.5) is not explained by the school itself but is explained by the difference of ability and family income of the pupils. The government’s tendency to expand grammar school will neither provides any increase in the level of education, nor increases a child’s chance of being academically more performant. (l.22: “The idea that private schools do not increase a child’s chance of being awarded more GCSEs and A-levels is not very credible”, Danny Dorling)

The problem of education disparity has its origins elsewhere, which are directly linked with the roots a child’s living environment. To analyze more in depth these origins, the study focused on differences of genetics between pupils as factor to reach their full academic potential.

Using genetics to increase education level is still controversial and not certainly the most efficient of increasing pupil’s education.  The study is the first to show up subtle genetic differences between children who attend schools and those who do not. Nevertheless, the method used to assess the children’s level is controversial and doesn’t reach a unanimous agreement between scientists as a true index for intelligence assessment. (l.12), Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute is confident on the specific results of the study, nevertheless, he is for more robust tests.

But is it the main goal of a nation, to build a homogenous, academically performant nation? This idea reminds us of the 20^th century’s darkest times when Hitler came up with the idea of developing a one and only human race in power: the Aryan race. Isn’t it the role of the state to balance social differences through its institutions such as school as a means to the end of erasing inequalities.

Following a recent series of deadliest attacks, Kabul was again shaken with heinous terrorist bombing on 27 January when an ambulance loudened with explosive materials was detonated on busy road near the city hospital. According to the Ministry of Public Health of Afghanistan (MoPH) 95 civilians have been killed and more than 191 others have been injured. Responsibility behind this attack was claimed by proxy Taliban militants.

Another such deadly attack has occurred at Intercontinental Hotel Kabul killing 25 people, almost 14 were foreign nationals, included nine from Ukraine, two from US and others from Greece, Germany and Kazakhstan when gunmen in army uniforms entered the hotel. It was also claimed by the Taliban, the shadow of Haqqani Network. In the course of such soft targeted attacks, yet another terror attack was carried out on British run aid agency ‘Save the Children’ in Jalalabad on 23 January where at least four people were killed and dozens injured.

The gist of the above reports is that in the modern warfare strategy, the adversaries make use of irregular and covert means, in other words unconventional dimensions of war strategy to achieve their strategic and political designs which is called hybrid war. For more than four decades Afghan people are victimized and winced in this excruciation of undeclared war, which represents the essence of hybrid war, imposed upon them from neighbouring states, particularly from Pakistan due to Afghanistan unfortunate strategic location and political importance in the region. In military warfare, this undeclared war is the most sophisticated warfare strategy against an adversary.

Hybrid warfare has non-standard methods or tactics used to combat the adversary through indirect war such as terrorist actions, indiscriminate violence, criminal activity, changing perceptions and propaganda. The strategic calculations of hybrid war are more lethal, potential and cheap allurements to belligerent state due to the use of non-state actors, as forefront liners in the combat ground against the rival. In the same way, the Pakistani military elite and intelligence agency ISI have launched proxy war against Afghanistan for its so-called strategic abyss, containment of Kabul for future retribution and bulwark against New Delhi.

For disrupting and destabilizing Afghanistan and the region as whole, Pakistan military establishment uses and calculates the Taliban, Haqqani network and other militant groups as foreign policy tools for many years and now by nurturing, recruiting, financing and sheltering these goons under aegis of Islamic sentimentalities in religious madrassahs and masques where they get Islamic edict or fatwa issued by Pakistan clerics to legitimize holy war in Afghanistan and where else.

The Haqqani network is most qualified, veritable arm and sophisticated militant group for Pakistan military establishment in Rawalpindi backing and sponsoring against Afghan, US and allied forces in Afghanistan. The group is led by Siraj Haqqani, the son of the famous anti-Soviet Jihadist Jalaluddin Haqqani, who also led deputy command of Afghan Taliban after death of Taliban leader Mullah Mansoor in US drone attack in Pakistan July 2016. Since the recent past the Haqqani network preserves huge command and control lines of Taliban operations which prove more extreme, disastrous and fatal for innocent civilians of Afghanistan and its national security forces. The recent atrocious and barbaric attack in Kabul via explosive ambulance has crossed and ashamed humanity and civility at all.

However despite much confirmation of sponsoring and sheltering terrorist groups, Pakistan repeatedly denies these allegations about collaborating with Islamist proxies against Afghanistan. While on the other side, for interval of times, suspected U.S. drones find and kill high profile commander level militants of Haqqani network or Taliban in missile strikes. Even the world most wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan.

In the recent months, sources close to the Haqqani Network confirmed to media that drone missiles had killed two militants of the Network in the compound in Dapa Mamuzai village of Kuram Agency Pakistan who were mid-level Afghan commanders. In response Pakistan clamours for condemning U.S. drone strikes and pursues the violation of its sovereignty and integrity while in sagaciousness, isn’t it being considered as the transgression of the territorial by Pakistan officials when its military establishment harbours, assists and foreign militants in safe havens within Pakistan soil? No, because it depicts the reality that these militants are the strategic assets the Pakistani state uses as policy tools against Afghanistan and India.

Even the US President Donald Trump’s tweets about Pakistan’s duplicities and lies in international war on terror didn’t fall on the deaf ears of Pakistan ruling elites and military establishments. Its world prospects are even narrowed down to the level that Pakistani state confronts an isolation and diplomatic failure internationally for its double standards and carries on the same covert suicidal policies of harbouring and sheltering Islamic proxy terrorists and extremists at home and abroad and making denials officially.

Through these remarkable evidences, it’s an open message for the US, international community and Afghanistan that this strategy of Pakistan via proxy groups is much worth and more prohibitive for it. Its behaviour can’t be changed unless and until the steps of international sanctions and declaration of terror sponsor state are imposed on Pakistan.

Habib Khan is an M.Phil Student of International Relations at QAU Islamabad.

We should be clear that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is not an aiding program from China to the involving countries, especially the developing ones. China is not doing any charity with the BRI. The investments, trading and other projects will be profit oriented; it does not matter whether profit could be short or long term.

BRI is an established set of mechanism. I would like to take it as a new concept of regional and global development. If you review the bilateral agreement and relating projects China has signed with countries concerned you may find that there is no such standard version of cooperation under BRI. They were all negotiated and finalized in a mutual trust and win-win spirit. To shoulder the risk and burden together and share the achievements I also believe that more diversified form of cooperation will be adopted as more countries like Nepal are joining the BRI.

While talking about BRI and the Marshall Plan forged by the US after the World War II, I do not find any synchronization between the two. For instance, there might be some political intentions for China to promote this initiative so actively. However, it is totally different from Marshall Plan, which directly aimed at controlling the involved countries politically and economically.

The BRI has been promoted without setting any political precondition and considering the historical anecdotes about China it is difficult to buy the idea of Western scholars regarding the BRI that China might push its Communist ideology along with BRI as a major factor in this commercial world of today.

Although President Xi Jinping has famously said that China is a peaceful nation and will not interfere in the political affairs of any other nation, the recent political debacle in South Asian Countries like Maldives and Sri Lanka (debt trap) has seriously raised the question of Chinese influence in the internal politics of those countries.

The adoption of Mandarin as a national language of Pakistan, another South Asian country, is also a Chinese influence in internal politics of another country. Official consideration of national language seldom might be regarded as a minor issue as it has the potential to replicate the challenges in days to come. These three countries’ politics has been in turmoil within a short span of time due to their over-dependence with China.

These issues can be analyzed in another way too. Those three countries might have envisioned China as the alternate force to balance some other country or power. Similarly, their engagement with China does not seem to have been prepared well. China is a paramount factor in the today’s world unlike its predecessor. The Chinese are much focused on their agenda and they are clear about what they are seeking from their friends and foes.

The interactions between Nepal and China

Is Nepal prepared enough to engage with China in a robust way? To address the asymmetrical dependence of Nepal with India, Nepal needs to cooperate with China in all possible aspects. China and India are the only neighbors of Nepal. We do not have any other choices but to befriend them. Both are our geographical compulsions. To end the asymmetric dependence of Nepal with India, China is only a better choice.

Should the bitter experience of South Asian neighbors with India inspire us to pivot to China? It is true that Nepal wants to escape from political, economic and even psychological hegemony of India over Nepal in many senses. But we should not advocate China as an alternate to India. Nepal needs to take steps to correct the policy courses from equidistance to equi-proximity with two neighbors and reinvigorate relations which could be adapted to changing circumstances with both of our neighbors.

As we can figure out, the modality of International Politics within a decade has distinctly changed with the lasting impacts. Wars, conflict and terror still are in the driving seat; however, the present world is more inclined towards the commercial aspects. Chinese cities are slowly but steadily accepted as modern economic hubs.

Nepal can meaningfully cooperate with China in days to come. Will Nepal be in a position to reap the fruits from the cooperation? If we do not do proper homework in the near future, BRI could be next World Trade Organization for us.

China’s business with Nepal is expanding every year. However, the trade balance vigorously favors China. Considering the statistics presented by the Trade and Export Promotion Center (TEPC) China has surpassed India in the commerce in Nepal. Chinese trade has grown 17 times more in Nepal since 2006. If we look at Nepal’s trade with China in the past one year, exports have decreased by 22.6 percent and import has been increased by 13.8 percent (TEPC, 2017). Can we imagine what might be the condition with the proper implementation of BRI project and its embedded infrastructure?

Nepal hasn’t been able to decrease trade deficit in spite of being given zero tariffs for nearly 9,000 Nepali products in China. The government of Nepal still appears to be unprepared and unclear to deal with this issue. The main objective of BRI is connectivity and infrastructure. China has ample of things to export. But what are we going to export to China? Is only importing Chinese goods and Chinese tourists our purpose in joining the BRI project? BRI will benefit us only if we can re-customize it for our betterment.

With the implementation of BRI, Nepal will be free from singular sea route through India for international trade. Eventually, this could benefit Nepal in many prospects. However, we should also equally be vigilant about security challenges that might occur with Tibetan issues. Security challenges in Nepal ultimately will hamper stability of both the neighbours.