Young Diplomats

In January, 2020 following the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously for the removal of the remaining U.S. troops in the country. The non-binding resolution was encouraged by Shiite political factions outraged by the killing of Iran-backed militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in the same airstrike. The resolution was subsequently passed without minority Sunni or Kurdish lawmakers present. However, Iraqi-U.S. relations have improved since the selection of a new prime minister in May, Mustafa al-Kadhimi. This selection came about after a leadership vacuum plagued Iraq for four months, following Adil Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation in November 2019. As the country’s former intelligence chief, Kadhimi has good relations with U.S. officials but emphasizes his desire to take back sovereignty from foreign powers.

On June 11 the United States and Iraq began strategic talks covering the future of the 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and the economic situation following a collapse in oil prices and the developing Covid-19 pandemic. Iran-backed forces in Iraq have been applying pressure for U.S. military withdrawal through relentless shelling of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

The U.S. have an important decision to make on how to withdraw troops from the region without undoing years of hard work since the U.S. first began engaging in Iraq in 2003. However, as conflict between U.S. and Iranian proxies accelerates a path toward two alternatives is developing; all-out war or a fast US withdrawal. Is there an outcome where the U.S. can avoid further conflict without undermining previous efforts to suppress Iranian and ISIS influence in Iraq?

Here, I will briefly outline what I perceive to be the outcomes from the U.S. choosing to either withdraw, partly withdraw or remain in Iraq.

Firstly, the option to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq would avoid further conflict and all-out war in the region with Iranian proxies. However, this undermines the U.S. efforts to counter Iranian influence in the region. The U.S. acts as a counterweight to Iran and once withdrawn would expose an economically hurt Iraq to the more powerful Iran. The increasing Iranian presence is likely to spark yet more protests against foreign interference following protests in October 2019, resulting in the death of 420 Iraqi protesters and the resignation of prime minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi. Furthermore, the U.S. has held an important role in training and funding Iraq’s counterterrorism service. Peter Neumann, the founding director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization claims this service is “multi-ethnic and largely incorrupt”. The U.S. withdrawal from the region would lead to this counterterrorism service being merged with the Shiite Iranian-backed militias also fighting ISIS. Without the funding and training towards counterterrorism from the U.S. there is the possibility of an ISIS resurgence in Iraq and with it a threat to U.S. national security.

A second approach to U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be to transfer troops to military bases in the autonomous Kurdistan region in the north, at the request of the Kurds. The presence of US forces acts as an insurance policy for Sunni’s and Kurds against a rejuvenation of ISIS and help to strike a balance between all Iraqi religious sects and political powers. Galip Dalay, a fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs noted that a U.S. withdrawal would mean that “the Kurds would be more at the mercy of the militias, Iran and the central government”. This option would likely relinquish Iraq’s ability to resist Iran and so surrender the majority of Iraq to Iranian influence in the same way as in the previously explained option. In addition, would U.S. bases in Kurdistan afford the Kurds the strength to apply pressure in disputed regions, leading to increasing tensions between Kurdistan and the ceded pro-Iran Iraq region?

Moreover, the U.S. may choose not to withdraw and remain a presence in Iraq but levy significant economic sanctions on Iran leading to a defunding of the militias in Iraq. The U.S. policy of “maximum pressure” imposing economic sanctions on Iran, has led to an inflationary recession in the country and the Iranian currency to fall two-thirds of its value. Despite food and medicine being exempt from sanctions the lack of Iran’s access to the global financial system has led to shortages in these necessities. Although the sanctions are failing to bring Iran back to the negotiating table or trigger unrest in the country and an overthrow of the regime, the sanctions are successfully cutting funding to Iran-backed militias in Iraq. Earlier this year the new commander of the Iranian Quds Force, Esmail Ghaani, had to substitute the usual cash handouts to Iraqi militias for silver rings. The reduction in funding has led to divisions emerging in the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), the umbrella group of mainly Shia fighters. Could economic sanctions on Iran lead to a breakup and loss in cohesion between the Pro-Iran factions responsible for attacks on U.S. forces?

The final option occurs where the U.S. does not withdraw from Iraq and the U.S. are unable to sufficiently thwart Iran economically leading to a continuing of the current status quo of retaliatory conflict in Iraq between militias and U.S. However, is it impossible to conceive of a “hot war” between the U.S. and Iran in the future if tensions rise and the Iranian regime is not brought to its knees? Despite the U.S. comparatively dwarfing Iran militarily with the U.S. military budget being over 57 times larger than Iran’s, the challenges of increasing competition with Russia and China makes conflict with Iran unappealing. Therefore, if the U.S. were to maintain their presence in Iraq, they should do so by continuing with the small force currently stationed there focused on training and support of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Of the options discussed here I would suggest maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq with a focus on avoiding conflict and training Iraqi Security Forces. By staying in the region the counterweight the U.S. holds against the increasing Iranian presence in Iraq and against the rejuvenation if ISIS is maintained. Furthermore, the insurance the U.S. provide to minority groups is not threatened and conflict is not heightened by moving U.S. troops to the Kurdistan region.

 

Last couple of weeks have flash-pointed challenges and prospects of Afghan peace deal with different actor’s influences for win-win policies of global sustainability and diplomacy. The War on Terror that influenced America’s dominance on stable allies estimated billions of dollars for US to spend on global security and ideology of “political democracy.” Political scientists and strategist from global actors have estimated the new era challenges and optimistic end to long Afghan war or the War on Terror that shows estimated casualties and loses—- 800,000+ people killed and at least 37 million people displaced as per Wikipedia. Despite growing facts of “hot conflicts”, there has been decay of political stability, raising of social issues, immigration, diplomacy of weaponisation capabilities, economic inflation, and Geo-political confrontation in South-Asia—Indo-Pacific sea. The greatest stratagem that one of the Raising Asian calm giant wanted to push is accelerating economic development in the initiative of “OBOR” One belt one road or BRI-belt road initiative. Whether the global influences dominate future peaceful grounds, it is to look over the following analysis of various roles of state actors in the new era of peaceful coexistence, end to long Afghan war and undisturbed neighbors.

Afghan peace process and Islamabad security Dialogue
     On 18 March, 2021 US Department of State brought up joint statement on peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. US, Russia, China and Pakistan were a part of the settlement. They agreed on participation of 10 points negotiations which were mainly for sustainable peace, reducing violence, comprehensive ceasefire to end long four decade Afghan war, political resolution for security, protection of socio-economic developments, and UN to play a peaceful role in Afghan reconciliation process.
On the other hand, Pakistan Chief of Army stuff, General Qamar Javid Bajwa speech at Islamabad Security dialogue focused on various layers of national security and impacts of Cold War era. Further, he talked about the multi-dimensional challenges of Pakistan and the future of the State in geopolitical South Asia. Army Chief’s statement was a gesture to energies Afghan Pakistan transit trade agreement and play a vital role as a bridge access to India in peaceful settlement. For stabilizing peace in South Asia, Pakistan acknowledged to bridge with Afghanistan by inviting Afghanistan in CPEC initiative.
The security dialogue is a statement exclusively focused on Geo-economic vision linked with Xi’s BRI and a peaceful neighborhood. To be clear on certain grounds, BRI has been transforming issues related to political correctness, social developments and not only to economic development in particular. Moreover, the world developmental strategist opinions have shifted the idea that the powers of the states linked with massive military power is not the only structure that attracts global power but economy that has a vital influence and power capabilities. There is no deny in fact that raising Asian oyster—-China is accountable constantly towards growth in Southern countries of Asia. What is  learned from the Islamabad security dialogue and US statement? Pakistan has played its role significantly stable to security dynamics and focusing on technology benefits, human development as stated by the Army Chief and a peaceful South-Asia inclusively Kashmir issue which needs moral satisfaction from India.
Furthermore, Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recognized Pakistan’s pivotal role by its visit from Islamabad to Beijing in 1971 where Pakistan role in establishing US-China relations was highly prioritized. If the Current analysis from the Afghan peace process acknowledges it outcomes, tomorrow’s South Asia growing capabilities end the long crisis of unstable relationships but Is it true that US leaves Afghanistan with the following promises?
A survey by US National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in 2020 shows 59% People responded on with-drawling troops from Afghanistan while other surveys didn’t have a degree for people to answer the question of US troops in Afghanistan. Thus, it is still a debate that “Will the US government decide to withdraw its troops?” Correspondingly, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is not as difficult for US however, there remains some footprints that may unstable Afghan soil and impact the regional peace.

US defense secretary visit to India- Expectations and Realities
Likewise, the first overseas trip visit of US Defense Secretary from Biden Administration pinned India for defense relationships as by analysts. On the other hand, Pakistan Army chief dialogue is providing a peaceful environment of economic development and trade in South Asia. US policy of the Afghan peace process is justified to certain elements if US looks over the China’s calm rise and will have strong defense relationships with India such by upgrading defense capability of India while Pakistan new era of economic stability will be in hot spot for human development and growth due to unequaled arsenal. The Biden Administration challenges are hard for client states. Where, Pakistan’s stance towards clientele was to focus on growing trade capabilities for peace in the region. But the repetitive diplomatic efforts of Biden administration are same as were Obama’s clientele relationship in which “Kerry Lugar Bill” didn’t democratize the so called “democratic diplomacy”. Unless and until, US sums up peaceful settlements in practice, the deal file remains on the table.

A responsible Withdrawal
As for the extreme will of resulting peaceful settlements, Pakistan promotes in success of Intra-Afghan talks which is a possible recipe to US “responsible withdrawal” for Global sustainable order and the political development in South Asia. Pakistan focuses on China Pakistan Economic Corridor which is the future of stability and Pakistan priorities it the most. As a result, Pakistan never underestimates the political crisis and civil war that may take place on its neighbor and unstable Afghan soil that shall be used to destabilize the projects of Pakistan. Instead, International influences have been subject to polarization and instability in the past events in War regions. A final responsible US withdrawal is the peaceful future of the region and global order.

Geoeconomics is the economics of politics in which states as well as supranational and intergovernmental institutions use their economic resources to help them gain political leverage.

China is an energy dependent country. In order to feed its 1.4 billion population, China needs resources.

China’s strategies ranging from the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to Shanghai Cooperation organization (SCO), speak the language of geoeconomics. Geoeconomics may not be part of China’s official dictum.

 

However, its economic strategies from trade to aid and from investment to institutional initiatives insinuate its geoeconomics. Geoeconomics is China’s strongest instrument to make its mark in the world affairs. China is creating balance of dependence with its geoeconomic strategy in the world. China is an energy dependent country. In order to feed its 1.4 billion population, China needs resources.

Its geoeconomic strategy is its way forward to make necessary resources available for its population. However, it does not end here. Creation of a Sino-Centric world order and the promotion of One-China policy are at the core of China’s geoeconomics. This article focuses on China’s geoeconomics in Africa and how does it help China promote its One-China Policy in the continent.
The One-China Policy is China’s official stance which stresses on diplomatic recognition of People’s Republic of China’s government as the only legitimate Chinese government. China considers the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, as its breakaway region which will one day reunify. The end of civil war in 1949 created the demarcation between China and Taiwan whose leader Chiang Kai-Shek withdrew to Taiwan and established the Nationalist government there. Since then both sides claim to be sole representative of the whole territory of China. However, Taiwan’s claim over mainland China is somehow receding. Mainland China, on the other hand, strongly claims Taiwan to be its integral part and does not leave any stone unturned to diplomatically isolate it. Geoeconomics is China’s main weapon to achieve this political goal.
Due to its geoeconomics, China’s footprints in Africa are getting strength with every passing moment. China uses its geoeconomic leverage to promote its One-China policy in Africa and strives to further isolate Taiwan diplomatically.

However, China’s geoeconomics in Africa is not a recent phenomenon. It can be traced back to Mao’s Great Leap Forward era. In this context, Julia Lovell in her book, “Maoism A Global History” claims that from the very beginning of Africa’s decolonization, China started exerting a symbolic influence on the continent. Such influence, she claims, was significant for China’s winning entrance into the United Nations. African states, however small, were numerous and played in favour of China’s seat in the UN. In 1971, China took over the seat from Taiwan and became member of the UN. Moreover, China also took over the permanent membership of the UN Security Council from Taiwan which it held till 1971. Hence, China’s geoeconomics in Africa has over a half century history which has been bearing multi-faceted fruit for China.

China maintains strong geoeconomic balance of dependency in all countries of Africa.

China’s geoeconomics in Africa supports its powerhouse in the world affairs. The African continent does not only support political stance of the mainland China in the world but it also provides China with abundance of resources. It is a win-win situation for China. The value trade between China and Africa in 2019 was over 200 billion dollars. Besides trade, China has heavily invested in the continent. Its investments focus ranging from building roads and railway tracks to building stadiums and presidential palaces in the Continent.

Therefore, China maintains strong geoeconomic balance of dependency in all countries of Africa. There are 54 countries in the African continent and out of those 54 countries, there is only 1 African country the Kingdom of Eswatini which maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan. However, China is also putting pressure on it to severe diplomatic ties with Taiwan too. Despite diplomatic pressure from the mainland China, Eswatini maintains its strong diplomatic ties with Taiwan which started after its independence in 1968.

Currently, Estwatini is the only African country among 15 countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan. However, despite diplomatic isolation, Taiwan maintains substantive ties with the US, countries in the European Union (EU), Canada, Australia and many other countries. Additionally, Taiwan’s passport holders have visa-free, visa on arrival or e-visa privilege in more than 150 states and territories in the world.

Nevertheless, it faces an existential threat from China which may not use force to take it back but it is using its geoeconomics effectively to isolate it diplomatically for the time being following Sun Tzu’s dictum, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. Therefore, following the geoeconomic footsteps, China’s government is effectively winning influence and subduing its enemy without fighting.

Under a global spotlight the World Health Organisation has not had its finest hour. The conditions for success were ripe: a health crisis that reached into every corner of the world and an unprecedented sense of uncertainty. Last month, a report commissioned by an independent panel investigated the WHO preparedness and response to Covid-19. Its findings were damaging. Once the dust settles in Geneva, we may indeed ask – how, when faced with a crisis that appealed to its very raison d’être, did the WHO flounder in its moment in the sun?

 

The World Health Organisation is a branch of the United Nations, with a clear mantra to “direct international health” and “lead in global health responses”. Like most international bodies, the WHO is cripplingly overburdened with a 7000-strong bureaucracy from over 150 countries. An alarming dependence of voluntary funding, thin initiatives and an unnecessarily complex structure, it is hard to disagree that “it is a body that is ripe for root-and-branch reform”. It has been criticised for a delay in declaring a pandemic, a word that it only uttered after 11 March 2020. The WHO had become saturated with meetings and paperwork before this time; meanwhile, the writing was already on the wall for national parliaments on every continent.

 

In a time before Covid (if at all imaginable) the WHO was not itself immune from criticism. I have never considered these criticisms to be aimed at the medical professionals who inform the organisation, rather it is the question of necessity and functionality that draws attention. By analysing the WHO’s funding, it is perhaps clear to see from where at least some of the problems have arisen. From data published on its website, last year 20 states collectively owed the World Health Organisation $440 million. By April last year, the United States owed $196 million and China’s outstanding bill stood at $57 million. While the incoming Biden administration in the US has reversed the intended July 2021 withdrawal announced by Donald Trump, the funding crisis in the WHO will not abate from this news alone. Over time the WHO has relied increasingly on private donations as opposed to membership dues. This is a risky model that has created an operational culture of short-termism, wrestling with uncertainty, temporary staff and very little control of what it wants to do. For example, in the last quarter of 2020 only three of the ten biggest financial contributors to the WHO were countries (UK, USA and Germany). Instead, it was a mixture of Bill Gates’ incredibly lucrative charity, vaccination organisations and – somewhat ironically – the European Commission (read more here). Notwithstanding the anticipated donor increase as part of the Covid fallout, there is a major issue here. Indeed, as a member Global Health Centre at Geneva’s Graduate Institute made clear that weak donation framework leads to a weaker organisation in the end.

 

The WHO has also vowed to establish to origins of SARS-CoV-2 by travelling to Wuhan, China where the virus is suspected to have emerged. Talking to the Guardian last month, Dr Dale Fisher of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, confessed how little hope he had of the WHO finding any substantial. In the face of aggressive totalitarianism and the wild alternative theories coming from Beijing as the WHO team landed, should its paying members have ever expected anything profound? With very few teeth, it is difficult to envisage the WHO squadron confronting Wuhan’s state officials with the determination and curiosity that is so abundant everywhere else over this issue. Moreover, with the large payment deficit between the WHO and China, questions over the aims of the trip are dubious.

 

One thing that underscores the Covid-19 pandemic is the shift away from intergovernmental practice, a practice that has been building momentum since the end of the Second World War. In Europe, the institutional framework of EU evaporated when the virus took hold of its major economies, only emerging to try its hand at vaccine procurement where it has, to be polite, fallen way short of expectation. The EU, much like the WHO, has struggled to take charge. In the absence of transnational leadership, national governments have naturally assumed charge of their own destinies and safeties. This produces two questions that, until the demons of Covid are truly destroyed, are insurmountable – but they will become front and centre through this decade. First, the by-product of the breakdown of international organisation is an existential crisis for those advocates of global cooperation. Concerted efforts have, quite rightly, cited the ‘global issues need global solutions’ tagline for decades. This problem remains a very real threat to NATO, especially from Washington, which I have argued misses the central premise of such blocs.  Second, how can the WHO recover from a damning judgement? This is evident in the aforementioned report (which you can read here) as well as in the actions of national leaders everywhere making ad hoc decisions and devising isolated strategies.

 

A world health crisis and a world health organisation should have been an institutional recipe for success. As the success in tackling Ebola on the African continent proved, the WHO is not completely ineffectual at delivering results. Calls for reform have steadily increased in number and volume, and by the time Covid entered the picture, the WHO was demonstrably ill-equipped for its precise function. The recent report kicked the organisation while it was down, stating that the WHO is “underpowered to do the job expected of it” as part of a wider indictment on how unfit the global mechanism for virus control really is. From Covid, the WHO can be the change we need in global virus response. With wide-reaching reforms and a radical transformation of each rung on its ladders, a future as a key global player might just be on the cards. But with its shaky funding model and plenty of shaking heads just now, the WHO must spend the coming months and years fighting an existential – not global – emergency of its own.

 

 

nder a global spotlight the World Health Organisation has not had its finest hour. The conditions for success were ripe: a health crisis that reached into every corner of the world and an unprecedented sense of uncertainty. Last month, a report commissioned by an independent panel investigated the WHO preparedness and response to Covid-19. Its findings were damaging. Once the dust settles in Geneva, we may indeed ask – how, when faced with a crisis that appealed to its very raison d’être, did the WHO flounder in its moment in the sun?

 

The World Health Organisation is a branch of the United Nations, with a clear mantra to “direct international health” and “lead in global health responses”. Like most international bodies, the WHO is cripplingly overburdened with a 7000-strong bureaucracy from over 150 countries. An alarming dependence of voluntary funding, thin initiatives and an unnecessarily complex structure, it is hard to disagree that “it is a body that is ripe for root-and-branch reform”. It has been criticised for a delay in declaring a pandemic, a word that it only uttered after 11 March 2020. The WHO had become saturated with meetings and paperwork before this time; meanwhile, the writing was already on the wall for national parliaments on every continent.

 

In a time before Covid (if at all imaginable) the WHO was not itself immune from criticism. I have never considered these criticisms to be aimed at the medical professionals who inform the organisation, rather it is the question of necessity and functionality that draws attention. By analysing the WHO’s funding, it is perhaps clear to see from where at least some of the problems have arisen. From data published on its website, last year 20 states collectively owed the World Health Organisation $440 million. By April last year, the United States owed $196 million and China’s outstanding bill stood at $57 million. While the incoming Biden administration in the US has reversed the intended July 2021 withdrawal announced by Donald Trump, the funding crisis in the WHO will not abate from this news alone. Over time the WHO has relied increasingly on private donations as opposed to membership dues. This is a risky model that has created an operational culture of short-termism, wrestling with uncertainty, temporary staff and very little control of what it wants to do. For example, in the last quarter of 2020 only three of the ten biggest financial contributors to the WHO were countries (UK, USA and Germany). Instead, it was a mixture of Bill Gates’ incredibly lucrative charity, vaccination organisations and – somewhat ironically – the European Commission (read more here). Notwithstanding the anticipated donor increase as part of the Covid fallout, there is a major issue here. Indeed, as a member Global Health Centre at Geneva’s Graduate Institute made clear that weak donation framework leads to a weaker organisation in the end.

 

The WHO has also vowed to establish to origins of SARS-CoV-2 by travelling to Wuhan, China where the virus is suspected to have emerged. Talking to the Guardian last month, Dr Dale Fisher of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, confessed how little hope he had of the WHO finding any substantial. In the face of aggressive totalitarianism and the wild alternative theories coming from Beijing as the WHO team landed, should its paying members have ever expected anything profound? With very few teeth, it is difficult to envisage the WHO squadron confronting Wuhan’s state officials with the determination and curiosity that is so abundant everywhere else over this issue. Moreover, with the large payment deficit between the WHO and China, questions over the aims of the trip are dubious.

 

One thing that underscores the Covid-19 pandemic is the shift away from intergovernmental practice, a practice that has been building momentum since the end of the Second World War. In Europe, the institutional framework of EU evaporated when the virus took hold of its major economies, only emerging to try its hand at vaccine procurement where it has, to be polite, fallen way short of expectation. The EU, much like the WHO, has struggled to take charge. In the absence of transnational leadership, national governments have naturally assumed charge of their own destinies and safeties. This produces two questions that, until the demons of Covid are truly destroyed, are insurmountable – but they will become front and centre through this decade. First, the by-product of the breakdown of international organisation is an existential crisis for those advocates of global cooperation. Concerted efforts have, quite rightly, cited the ‘global issues need global solutions’ tagline for decades. This problem remains a very real threat to NATO, especially from Washington, which I have argued misses the central premise of such blocs.  Second, how can the WHO recover from a damning judgement? This is evident in the aforementioned report (which you can read here) as well as in the actions of national leaders everywhere making ad hoc decisions and devising isolated strategies.

 

A world health crisis and a world health organisation should have been an institutional recipe for success. As the success in tackling Ebola on the African continent proved, the WHO is not completely ineffectual at delivering results. Calls for reform have steadily increased in number and volume, and by the time Covid entered the picture, the WHO was demonstrably ill-equipped for its precise function. The recent report kicked the organisation while it was down, stating that the WHO is “underpowered to do the job expected of it” as part of a wider indictment on how unfit the global mechanism for virus control really is. From Covid, the WHO can be the change we need in global virus response. With wide-reaching reforms and a radical transformation of each rung on its ladders, a future as a key global player might just be on the cards. But with its shaky funding model and plenty of shaking heads just now, the WHO must spend the coming months and years fighting an existential – not global – emergency of its own.

 

 

Protests have engulfed Belarus since the dispute election. There have been calls for Alexander Lukashenko to resign. He is referred to as “Europe’s Last Dictator” and has been the only President Belarus has ever known. He has really shaped Belarus is his image. Which begs a serious question: When Lukashenko leaves, either resigning or by death, what happens to Belarus?

To understand the complexity of this question, you have to understand Belarus. Throughout most of history, there never was an entity known as Belarus. Belarus was formed as a result of back and forth conflicts between Russia and Poland. Through the back and forth, a new language and identity emerged; although heavily influenced by Russia, it wasn’t quite Russian. So it was nicknamed White Russia, or at it is in Russia, Byelorussia, or, Belarus.

In the aftermath of the fall of the tsar, Belarus, like so many other regions of the Russian Empire, declared independence. However, the White Ruthenian Republic, as it was called, did not last long, and was quickly conquered by the Red Army. In the Treaty of Riga, which ended the Polish-Soviet War, it was partitioned between Poland and what would eventually become the Soviet Union, who established the Belarussian Soviet Socialist Republic.

This lasted under the signing of the Belovezha Accords, signed between the Soviet Republic states of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. This formally dissolved the Soviet Union, made official with the resignation of Mikhail Gorbechav on December 25, 1991. Following this, Belarus had a parliamentary system, with Prime Ministers Stanislau Shushkevich, Vyacheslav Kuznetov, and Myechyslaw Hryb. Follwing this, a new constitution was established in 1994, transforming Belarus into a Presidential system. Alexander Lukashenko won the election, and has been in power ever since.

Lukashenko’s time in office has turned Belarus into a “mini-Russia”, a European version of North Korea, where the Soviet Union never ended. Many industries are nationalized, the hammer and sickle is on state symbols, there is a state police force called the KGB, and the borders are, by and large, sealed shut to the outside world.

All the meanwhile, the “mini-Russia” has certainly been put into effect. The Russian language was the official language, instead of the native Belarussian language. Belarus joked that the purpose of Belarus was to be the fortress of which to protect Russia from a NATO invasion (as well as a homosexual invasion) and jokes that Russia will re-annex Belarus are commonplace with both Belarus and Russia, as well as the international community at large.

This, however, began to change following Russia’s decision to place en emargo on milk being sent to Belarus in response to Belarus refusing to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent nations following the Russo-Georgian War, in what was dubbed as the “Milk War.” Later, Lukashenko tried to distance himself from Russia; more and more people began to speak the Belarussian language, and, rather than be a fortress for Russia, Belarus was instead place as a buffer between Russia and the West; a shift to seeing both as a potential threat. But make no mistake, Belarus was still a Russian ally, with Lukashenko turning to Putin more than any other world leader.

In spite of this, rather than define the Belarusian identity through the Belarusian language, Belarusian customs, Belarusian music, etc., the Belarusian identity was centered around an Alexander Lukashenko personality cult. Lukashenko is Belarus and Belarus is Lukashenko, or, an incredibly less barbaric version of the Congo Free State.

This, of course, brings about the central question of this article: What happens to Belarus once Lukashenko is gone? Will Belarus cease to exist?

Belarus will certainly not be the same once Lukashenko is no longer in power. But Belarus will not cease to exist. It will continue. And become less Russian and more Belarussian in the process.

Today Chinese Culture and society is a combination of ancient traditions, customs, and modernized developed and also westernized lifestyle. The Chinese culture and traditions are ancient, its history has huge diversity and variety. Historically, Chinese society is rich in arts, science, and literature. The culture of china has maintained its unique identity till the beginning of western culture in the 19th century.

The historical influence of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism is the reflection in Chinese society and culture. Confucianism spread the love and rituals to give respect for society and social hierarchy. The characteristics of Chinese culture unchanged over the period despite the influences and several invasions from the outside.

The philosophy of Confucianism stressed that people could be good if they follow the moral principles and made the rituals that respected the gods. In the hard times and war times, Confucianists emphasized carefully follow the traditions that could maintain unity within the society. historically, several Chinese rulers have adopted the core principles of Confucianism. During the Hans dynasty, Emperor Wu had encouraged the hierarchical social structures, the Emperor believed these principles would bring and also maintain the social harmony within the Chinese society throughout history. The Confucius philosophy was dominant during the Hans dynasty in ancient China. during this period the core principles were flourished and reached within the societal structures. The state ideology was based on Confucius’s philosophy, it has improved the societal values and norms. During 500BC the teachings of Confucius have played an important role in shaping the character of Chinese society, shaping behavior, and the way of life of Chinese people. The main objective was to achieve societal harmony and social norms and values. Another core principle and value of Confucianism is forgiveness, compassion, and tolerance.  Even today, Chinese society and academicians give immense respect and also promote the core principles of Confucius’s philosophy.
Modern Chinese society and culture are rapidly influenced by western cultural values and traditions. It’s quickly changing nowadays with popular American culture and other cultures of the world. The youth in urban areas are more influenced by popular western culture. Their lifestyle although reflects their wish to adopt the world’s popular culture. This is the 21st century and era of globalization, no society in the world is pure now. The free flow of information through different sources of media has been influenced by the societal existing order. So the modern Chinese society especially in urban areas, developed cities are more likely to become modern, acceptance of new cultural values, lifestyles and easily adopt it.
Personally, it is my observation so far, I interact with general people in the market, train stations, shops, many other public places. The people more like to open to the world now. The youth want to interact with other cultures, curious to know about other people thinking, ideas. But in rural areas and the countrysides there still traditional societal norms and values exist. The people have strong connections with their family backgrounds and also the Confucianism. The strong family system, the hierarchy with the society, and obedience exist.
Here I want to share an example of Chinese modesty when I was doing volunteering in Wuhan railway station, the general people came to me and tried to speak, I just can speak, hello, thank you, bye-bye in Chinese, but still, they are complimenting on my excellent Chinese by saying that (your Chinese is very good). The Chinese people are excellent compliment givers and encouraging other people to learn. They never discourage, although they complement that, you are handsome, wow your nose is so big it’s beautiful. Indeed the traditional Chinese traditional food, delicious and also healthy. The hotpot, although its too much spicey but its interesting to eat in the winter season.
In the winter season, when chilly temperatures and frigid winds prevail over the land, people like to eat food that instantly warms their bodies and lifts their spirits. For that, the hot pot is a delicious and hearty choice. Families or groups of friends sit around a table and eat from a steaming pot in the middle, cooking and drinking and chatting. The hot pot is not only a cooking method; it also provides a way of eating, it is also a cultural mode.
However China has opened its doors to the world now, it means that society is more sophisticated and also the acceptance of new ideas and thinkings. The youth want to interact with the world and also want to contribute to the peace and development of the world’s underdeveloped societies. The philosophy of Confucianism works here, dominance in every sector of society.
I would like to conclude by one sentence that yes there should be accepted for new ideas and values but also should promote their societal rich traditions and values to the world.

The worldwide famous American flag could soon have an extra star. In fact, one of the most pressing issues that has echoed amidst the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. for a long time is that of the district’s statehood. The city’s Mayor, Muriel Bowser, has showed an unwavering commitment to the cause, pointing out that “Washington is the only capital of a democratic nation that denies its residents a vote in the federal legislature”. More specifically, the local population has neither a Senator nor a House member in Congress, but just a delegate – Eleanor Norton Holmes – who, like delegates from other areas without statehood such as Guam and Puerto Rico, can only draft legislation and consider it in Committees, but cannot vote on final passage of bills on the House floor.
In addition, residents of D.C. pay the highest federal taxes per capita but still are denied voices and votes, thus making the current situation a perfect example of ‘taxation without representation’. But the reasons to embrace a changing of status for D.C. don’t stop here. Firstly, the District of Columbia is large enough to be a state, since the area counts around 712,000 residents, more people than Vermont and Wyoming. Secondly, a favorable point toward creating a new state is its adherence to constitutional principles. The U.S. Constitution says indeed that the Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district and shrink its size. Such act has already been done in 1846, when the portion west of the Potomac river was returned to Virginia. Following this frame, there would be a resizing of the federal capital to a small area which encompasses, among others, the White House, the Capitol building, the Supreme Court and the National Mall. The rest of the city would become the 51st state, named the Washington, Douglas Commonwealth after abolitionist Fredrick Douglas.

Even though not brand new in the political landscape of the capital, the fight for granting statehood has recently returned into the spotlight. The racial justice turmoil following George Floyd’s death and the assault of Capitol Hill advanced by pro-Trump demonstrators put an even stronger emphasis on the need to provide safety and independence for Washingtonians. While the recent attack took place, Mayor Bowser promptly requested to the federal government to dispatch the district’s National Guard, but the response was quite slow. Contrary to governors who can summon the Guard of their states at will, the District’s one can only be deployed after approval given by both the Pentagon and the President. Despite the particular circumstance of the mob, Donald Trump did not sign off on the deployment, and proper aid arrived only after a joint consultation of the Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and the Vice President Mike Pence.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is not astonishing that Mayor Bowser, along with a lot of high-profile D.C. politicians, endorse the cause of statehood. For instance, in a tweet that was referring to the House Resolution 51 – the Washington D.C. Admission Act, passed by the lower chamber of the Congress with a vote of 232-180 on 26 June 2020, the new President claimed: “D.C. should be a state. Pass it on”. Kamala Harris, the first woman ever to be elected Vice President, also wrote on the famous social media, stating that lack of representation for the people from the district “it’s undemocratic and it must end.” Previously, both former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama supported the legislation to give birth to the 51st state. But the path to realize D.C. sovereignty is clearly marked by sharp obstacles. Notably, Republicans expressed vehement opposition to the Resolution 51, labelling the attempt as an act that “would empower the most radical agenda in modern American politics”. However, it is worth noticing that this resistance to the bill occurred last summer, when Republicans fully controlled the Senate. Now, the unexpected capturing of the upper chamber by Democrats following the runoff elections of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia, means that Democrats hold 50-50 majority. Joe Biden can therefore implement his legislative agenda more easily, with vice President Harris able to cast any tie-breaking vote.

Despite this remarkable accomplishment, the topic of statehood, which quoting again the words of Mayor Bowser “must get on the president’s desk within the first 100 days”, could cross the so called ‘filibuster’, a tactic largely used in the U.S. Senate which consists of trying to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on a specific measure. This obstruction could seriously impede any progress to make D.C. a state, considering that the ‘cloture rule’ would come into play, hence requiring 60 votes to cut off debate and moving to the voting procedures. In order to curtailing the use of filibuster, the Senate can adopt options such as setting a new precedent, placing restrictions on its use or even changing the rule itself. Nevertheless, those scenarios are inevitably destined to clash in an arena of contrasting views. On one hand, it is undeniable that being a state would give to the District of Columbia considerable advantages in terms of representation, as well as a highly probable progressive track that would see Senators engaging on workers protection, paid sick leave and police reform. On the other hand, there are still strict constitutionalists who highlight that this possibility constitutes a contradiction with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who decided that the center of the government did not have to reside in a state. They wrote in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that “the congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation…over such district, as may become the Seat of the Government of the United States”. The battle for statehood is fierce, the managing of the problem complicated, so only time will tell whether the 117th Congress will be capable of calming Washingtonians’ grievances, turning the dream into a reality.

Britain has left the European Union. The process of leaving the leaving the European Union defined the premiereship of Theresa May, as well as Boris Johnson. It resulted in the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn, the near destruction of the Liberal Democrats, and the rise of the Scottish National Party, as well as other secessionist movements.

But, with Brexit over, what is the future of British politics? The various political parties that make up the House of Commons?

Well, despite being handed a major victory, the work is not yest over for Boris Johnson. His handling of coronavirus has proven to be very unpopular, giving the new leader of the Labour Party, Kier Stramer, much needed breathing room to recover from their devastating loss in the December 2019 elections.

But, the real question, is, what of the Scottish National Party? Could Scotland once again become an independent nation for the first time since 1707? Would this start a chain reaction that would lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom?

Britain may have achieved Brexit, but it cost her everything in the process.

The worldwide famous American flag could soon have an extra star. In fact, one of the most pressing issues that has echoed amidst the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. for a long time is that of the district’s statehood. The city’s Mayor, Muriel Bowser, has showed an unwavering commitment to the cause, pointing out that “Washington is the only capital of a democratic nation that denies its residents a vote in the federal legislature”. More specifically, the local population has neither a Senator nor a House member in Congress, but just a delegate – Eleanor Norton Holmes – who, like delegates from other areas without statehood such as Guam and Puerto Rico, can only draft legislation and consider it in Committees, but cannot vote on final passage of bills on the House floor.
In addition, residents of D.C. pay the highest federal taxes per capita but still are denied voices and votes, thus making the current situation a perfect example of ‘taxation without representation’. But the reasons to embrace a changing of status for D.C. don’t stop here. Firstly, the District of Columbia is large enough to be a state, since the area counts around 712,000 residents, more people than Vermont and Wyoming. Secondly, a favorable point toward creating a new state is its adherence to constitutional principles. The U.S. Constitution says indeed that the Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district and shrink its size. Such act has already been done in 1846, when the portion west of the Potomac river was returned to Virginia. Following this frame, there would be a resizing of the federal capital to a small area which encompasses, among others, the White House, the Capitol building, the Supreme Court and the National Mall. The rest of the city would become the 51st state, named the Washington, Douglas Commonwealth after abolitionist Fredrick Douglas.

Even though not brand new in the political landscape of the capital, the fight for granting statehood has recently returned into the spotlight. The racial justice turmoil following George Floyd’s death and the assault of Capitol Hill advanced by pro-Trump demonstrators put an even stronger emphasis on the need to provide safety and independence for Washingtonians. While the recent attack took place, Mayor Bowser promptly requested to the federal government to dispatch the district’s National Guard, but the response was quite slow. Contrary to governors who can summon the Guard of their states at will, the District’s one can only be deployed after approval given by both the Pentagon and the President. Despite the particular circumstance of the mob, Donald Trump did not sign off on the deployment, and proper aid arrived only after a joint consultation of the Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and the Vice President Mike Pence.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is not astonishing that Mayor Bowser, along with a lot of high-profile D.C. politicians, endorse the cause of statehood. For instance, in a tweet that was referring to the House Resolution 51 – the Washington D.C. Admission Act, passed by the lower chamber of the Congress with a vote of 232-180 on 26 June 2020, the new President claimed: “D.C. should be a state. Pass it on”. Kamala Harris, the first woman ever to be elected Vice President, also wrote on the famous social media, stating that lack of representation for the people from the district “it’s undemocratic and it must end.” Previously, both former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama supported the legislation to give birth to the 51st state. But the path to realize D.C. sovereignty is clearly marked by sharp obstacles. Notably, Republicans expressed vehement opposition to the Resolution 51, labelling the attempt as an act that “would empower the most radical agenda in modern American politics”. However, it is worth noticing that this resistance to the bill occurred last summer, when Republicans fully controlled the Senate. Now, the unexpected capturing of the upper chamber by Democrats following the runoff elections of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia, means that Democrats hold 50-50 majority. Joe Biden can therefore implement his legislative agenda more easily, with vice President Harris able to cast any tie-breaking vote.

Despite this remarkable accomplishment, the topic of statehood, which quoting again the words of Mayor Bowser “must get on the president’s desk within the first 100 days”, could cross the so called ‘filibuster’, a tactic largely used in the U.S. Senate which consists of trying to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on a specific measure. This obstruction could seriously impede any progress to make D.C. a state, considering that the ‘cloture rule’ would come into play, hence requiring 60 votes to cut off debate and moving to the voting procedures. In order to curtailing the use of filibuster, the Senate can adopt options such as setting a new precedent, placing restrictions on its use or even changing the rule itself. Nevertheless, those scenarios are inevitably destined to clash in an arena of contrasting views. On one hand, it is undeniable that being a state would give to the District of Columbia considerable advantages in terms of representation, as well as a highly probable progressive track that would see Senators engaging on workers protection, paid sick leave and police reform. On the other hand, there are still strict constitutionalists who highlight that this possibility constitutes a contradiction with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who decided that the center of the government did not have to reside in a state. They wrote in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that “the congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation…over such district, as may become the Seat of the Government of the United States”. The battle for statehood is fierce, the managing of the problem complicated, so only time will tell whether the 117th Congress will be capable of calming Washingtonians’ grievances, turning the dream into a reality.