Young Diplomats has the immense pleasure to introduce a new project called the Young Diplomats Leader(s) of the Month. The people featured in this project, showing a great potential and desire to make a positive impact, are significantly contributing to the development of Young Diplomats worldwide.

Leaders of November:

Raman Butta is a geopolitical and economic analyst who is always committed to achieving excellence in everything he does. He has proved to be the pillar of Young Diplomats in South Asia, always coming up with innovative ideas for development.

Idriss Zackaria is an international reporter, editor, and specialist in international media and strategic communications. He is currently based in Chad and writes mainly for international media on Middle Easter, African politics, human rights, political risk and media ethics. Idriss is wholeheartedly working to make a positive change all across Africa.

Albert Sutanto is relentlessly overcoming any challenge in the process of building a strong Young Diplomats network in South East Asia.  Albert believes in the importance of fresh perspective and unbiased information. He strives to accommodate bright minds in Southeast Asia by offering Young Diplomats as the platform for young minds.

Raman Butta, Regional Director for YD India
Idriss Zackaria, Regional Director for YD Africa
Albert Sutanto, Regional Director for YD South East Asia.

 

Interview with Jean-Francois Copé, ex-chief of opposition in France between 2012 and 2014.

Background: Jean-Francois Copé is a famous French Politician was the leader of the UMP party, the Party of ex-French President Sarkozy, and after Holland Victory, he became the main opposition leader in France until 2014. Copé was invited to hold a conference in the Netanya Academic College by the Campus Francophone, one of the leading Academic Institution for the large French community in Israel. The Campus Francophone is known in Israel for organizing events with important figures from France from the Economic, Political and Cultural Sector. Their program is considered as one of the most important components of the tumultuous but genuine France-Israel diplomatic Relations. Special thanks to the organizers of this great event: Claude Grundman Brightman and Nicole Farhi. A list of the future event is available below.

Let’s say the truth, there would be other terror attacks in France.

Dear Mr. Cope , first of all, welcome to Israel and thank you for the 20 min interview for Young Diplomats.

Thank you, I’m really glad to be here and to speak to Young Diplomats

Our first question for you Mr. Cope would be “ What do you think of the Foreign Policy actually led by the newly elected French President, Emmanuel Macron”?

It’s a very open question, President Macron is doing the right job right now. He is being pragmatic and objective. In my opinion, the choices that have been made by President Macron since the beginning of his term are the good ones. Why? First of all, because he is exactly doing the right thing, by replacing France at the Center for the resolution of war issues (Terrorism, War and stability).

I would like to praise the courage of Mr. Rajoy (The President of Spain)

What do you think of Macron’s decision not to invite President Trump for the new environmental conference in Paris after he withdraws from Paris Agreement?

Donald Trump chooses to withdraw from the Paris agreement because of his commitment he made before the elections. Head of states should be aware of the real environmental threats, it’s a pity for the world to have to deal with these kinds of decisions. Even if I don’t agree with it I respect it.

What do you think should be the position of France on Kurdistan and Catalonia referendums for independence?

I think you shouldn’t put the two situations in the same questions since these are two radically different situations.

OK let’s answer point by point, them, what is your take on the current situation in Catalonia, what do you think France should do?

First of all, I would like to praise the courage of Mr. Rajoy (The President of Spain) , independence is could be a source of problems and destabilization and Mr Rajoy which is facing a tough challenge but is in my opinion handling it quite efficiently since it’s the future of Spain that is at stake. In my opinion, he tries his best to keep Spain as a whole.

What is your take on Kurdistan, where 92% of Iraqi Kurdistan voted to break apart from Iraq and became an independent state? After years of fighting ISIS on the ground and being the most reliable proxy of the west. Don’t you think that the Kurds that were fighting ISIS, one of the worst French Ennemy after the Paris and Nice attacks, deserve to have their own state? What is your take on Kurdistan independence?

I won’t be long on this question, the only thing I can say is that my intuition is that once there will be a Kurdish State. What is going on now is the main step, because they are things that cannot be back as they were. The Kurds are determined, they might deserve to have a state, I don’t know. I’m not expressing myself as a diplomat, but I have an intuition that it may happen but it depends on the reality on the ground.

Many of our readers are interest in French Politics and they are struggling to understand what is the statutes of French Politics with the collapse of the traditional parties and the incredible emergence of the Center. Do you think it’s a good news for France?

Not good or not bad. Traditional Parties Republicans and Socialist have been defeated, because they were not able to achieve good results. French decided to kick their traditional parties out. They had plenty of choices: Far right, Far Left or the Center. Emmanuel Macron and the Center won.

What is interesting is to know what kind of Policy Macron is actually going to perform. Despite its claims that he will not do a rightist or leftist policy, in my opinion, Emmanuel Macron is clearly applying the principles of the right. Economic Measures are all coming from the right side. He is exactly doing what Sarkozy Should have done. He is implementing the structural economic reforms that France needed. For the moment it’s very difficult for the right side to criticize his policy because they would be inconsistent with their own program.

But , and I insist, he is not doing enough on Security question in France. He should give more powers and more funding to our security and intelligence apparatus in France. France faced terrible terror attacks in Paris and Nice in the last years. We had Al-Qaeda, we had ISIS, and unfortunately, let’s say the truth, there would be other terror attacks in France. A lot of these terrorists are coming from everywhere in the world and are totally obsessed by performing terror attacks in France. So we have to be cautious mobilized but most importantly much more efficient.

We also need to improve security at home and fight petty crime

Thank you, maybe an advice for the young diplomats that are watching us in live on Social Media right now?

Good luck guys, your project is really good. The world needs young future diplomats like you! You need to understand the reality of the world, you should keep in mind that we are never sure of anything you need to be pragmatic, open and think what is good for the country.

 

 

http://www.young-diplomats.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Hariri-resignation.jpg
 On November 4, 2017, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri made a sudden surprise announcement that he was resigning from office. In explaining his decision, Hariri had scathing words for Iran and Hezbollah, saying that Tehran is forcibly trying to impose facts on Lebanon: “Iran bypasses the Lebanese regime in an attempt to impose a reality on the ground.”
According to Hariri, “wherever Iran is, there are civil wars and destruction…Its hands in the region will be cut off.” Hariri did not spare Hezbollah from his ire: “The organization has managed to impose a reality by the force of weapons,” adding that “we oppose the existence of weapons outside the hands of Lebanon’s legitimate governing authorities.” Hariri accused Hezbollah of trying to assassinate him, the way it assassinated his father in February 2005.
Related image
In Lebanon , the Hezbollah , an Iranian Proxy is becoming the strongest player in the government.

Hariri : Who is he? 

Hariri has been in office since December 2016, elected as part of a deal in which the two rival political blocs in Lebanon – the Saudi and Western-backed March 14 revolutionary forces and the Hezbollah-led March 8 resistance camp – agreed, after a long deadlock, to the appointment of Maronite Michel Aoun as President and Saad al-Hariri, the head of the Future Movement and leader of the Sunni community in Lebanon, as Prime Minister. Until his resignation, Hariri’s conduct indicated that he was sincere in his attempt to find a common denominator to unite the camps, despite constraints exerted by Hezbollah and Iran, mainly because of developments in Syria: the defeat of the Islamic State, the strengthening of the grip of the Syrian and Iranian regimes, and growing US pressure on Hezbollah.

Lebanese Political System

Saudi Arabia Vs Iran

From the range of reactions to date, it seems that the resignation caught all power brokers operating in Lebanon by surprise, except for Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, then, the timing was indeed coordinated ahead of time with Hariri’s Saudi patrons, after he met with Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and other Saudi senior officials before making his announcement. Support for the theory that his resignation was at least coordinated with senior members of the House of Saud, if not outright forced on him, may lie in a statement by Saudi Minister of State for Gulf Affairs Thamer al-Sabhan, a harsh critic of Iran and Hezbollah, who also met with Hariri. Several days before Hariri’s resignation, al-Sabhan called for the toppling of Hezbollah, saying that anyone cooperating with the organization must be punished.

Saudi Arabia and Lebanon

In late 2016, relations between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia improved somewhat after the kingdom gave its blessing to the political deal that was reached. Perhaps the Saudis had hoped to be able to influence President Aoun to abandon his current political allies. There were reports about a visit to Lebanon planned for King Salman, and a new Saudi ambassador to Lebanon was appointed, after a year in which the kingdom had no emissary there. Moreover, the thaw in state relations prompted a sharp increase in Saudi tourism to Lebanon: the number of Saudi tourists to Lebanon has doubled since the beginning of 2017 over the previous year.

Saudi Arabia sees Hezbollah as an Iranian proxy in every respect. It believes the organization is not a Lebanese resistance organization, rather a force to increase Iranian influence in the region and undermine the stability of Arab states. In March 2016, the Gulf Cooperation Council – the body uniting six Arab Gulf states – decided to put Hezbollah on its list of terrorist organizations, and Saudi Arabia withdrew $4 billion of financing to the Lebanese army and security services, apparently concerned that the weapons would be funneled to Hezbollah, although some of the French-made arms managed to make their way to Lebanon. Consequently, even if the official explanation for Hariri’s resignation is vague, it seems that it is the result of a Saudi assessment that the political move it endorsed in Lebanon in 2016 is not helping restrain Hezbollah’s power. On the contrary: in practice, Hariri as prime minister was apparently overpowered by the organization’s agenda and proved incapable of reducing Hezbollah’s and Iran’s influence on the state. Indeed, the Iranian-Hezbollah influence grew over the past year. Perhaps the Saudi leadership assumes that the resignation will erode the legitimacy Hezbollah received from sitting in the Lebanese government.

The extent to which Hariri’s resignation is part of a considered strategy formulated by the Saudi leadership to counteract Iran, or if the strategy includes further steps to reduce Hezbollah and Iranian influence in Lebanon, is unclear. Nonetheless, the move was presumably made as part of a power struggle that is heating up between Riyadh and Tehran, especially in light of Iran’s successes in Syria and Iraq, which have demonstrated that Tehran now has the upper hand in several Middle East arenas, and Saudi Arabia’s wish to stop this trend. The move might also be aligned with US strategy, as expressed by President Trump, aimed at increasing pressure on Iran and Hezbollah. Congress has passed legislation to harshen sanctions against Hezbollah., and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and advisor, visited Saudi Arabia recently and reportedly conferred with the crown prince during this visit.

 

Hariri’s resignation escalates the existing political tensions in Lebanon. The harsh criticism leveled by Iran and Hezbollah against Hariri’s resignation and the spotlight on Saudi Arabia as the entity directly responsible for undermining the Lebanese order indicate that in their view, the political arrangement established in 2016 served their goals and that the political chaos liable to be created now in Lebanon has the potential to create an undesirable situation.

 

Even if the resignation sparks a long period of political instability in Lebanon, Hezbollah and Iran will be eager to avoid being dragged into confrontations and will hope it is possible to stabilize the system. At the same time, the pressures that may be exerted on the organization will likely not make it withdraw from the goals that have steered it to date, specifically the strengthening and upgrading of its military force. It is doubtful that the Saudi gamble – that Hezbollah will be blamed for the resignation and that this will weaken its status in the Lebanese arena – will in fact be realized. On the contrary: it may be that Hezbollah, with the help of President Aoun, will exploit the situation to strengthen its own status. The direct outcome of the resignation might even be erosion of the limited Saudi influence over the Lebanese government, in practice leaving a vacuum for Iran to fill. In any case, for now, it does not seem that the move will cause any change in Hezbollah’s current cautious approach to Israel; the impression is that the organization is still interested in preventing a deterioration of the situation vis-à-vis Israel.

Eldad ShavitYoel Guzansky

INSS Insight No. 989, November 6, 2017

The original article was published here.

The financial assistance program to Egypt by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), approved in November 2016, has scored important achievements, even as it has presented Cairo with complicated economic and political challenges. Ongoing monitoring of the economic-political developments over the past year in Egypt, coupled with a close reading of the IMF’s first annual review of the program, show that Egypt still faces a difficult uphill journey. The regime’s challenge is twofold: it must draft a comprehensive, inclusive social contract that will gain public legitimacy for the difficult but necessary reforms; at the same time, the regime must convince the international arena that it is adhering to the outlines of the reforms agreed upon with the IMF.

The financial assistance program to Egypt by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), approved in November 2016, has scored important achievements, even as it has presented Cairo with complicated economic and political challenges. In September, the IMF published its First Review on the implementation of the program, commending Egypt for its professionalism and political courage in leading the economic reforms. However, notwithstanding the complimentary remarks, ongoing monitoring of the economic-political developments over the past year, coupled with a meticulous reading of the report, show that the program’s achievements are fragile and Egypt still faces a difficult uphill journey until it achieves economic and political stability.

Economic Assessment

Egypt’s application to the IMF was submitted against the backdrop of the rapid rise in the costs of financing the budget deficit and the dwindling of its international reserves that in October 2016 were sufficient to cover only about three months of imports. However, since the IMF is not inclined to extricate countries from distress unless they undertake structural reforms, Egypt was not given any discounts in this regard. According to the agreement, Egypt was granted a loan of $12 billion, to be granted in a number of payments over three years, contingent upon the implementation of defined reforms that will be examined in the IMF’s review reports. The immediate principal reforms that Egypt undertook to institute include the introduction of value-added tax (VAT); wage restraint in the public sector; a drastic cut in electricity and fuel subsidies; de-pegging of the Egyptian pound from the US dollar; and removal of most restrictions on foreign currency trading.

The IMF’s First Review noted that Egypt indeed began implementing most of the defined reforms at a satisfactory pace. The high grades that it received enabled Egypt to draw $1.25 billion from the IMF, which along with the initial sum provided to Egypt when it launched the program, totals $4 billion. Egypt will soon be given access to an additional $2 billion, if it achieves the targets that will be examined in the IMF’s Second Review.

The agreement with the IMF and the reforms implemented over the past year improved Egypt’s external situation. First, the assistance from the IMF provided the Egyptian government with an immediate and essential source of foreign currency. Second, the IMF’s expressed confidence in Egypt helped it renew loan agreements with several additional institutions and enabled it to once again raise debt outside of the local market. Over the past year, Egypt succeeded in raising some $7 billion through the sale of bonds in international markets. The growing confidence in Egypt’s economy also contributed to a rise of about 6.5 percent in incoming direct foreign investments.

The liberalization of the foreign exchange regime has significantly contributed to the restored confidence of financial bodies in the Egyptian economy. Prior to the reform, the Egyptian pound was linked to the US dollar at an inflated rate of EGP 8.8/USD 1, which adversely affected the competitiveness of Egyptian exports and forced the central bank to lose foreign exchange reserves balances in order to sustain the exchange rate. De-pegging of the EGP from the USD caused a sharp devaluation of the EGP, and after a few months of volatile trading, the exchange rate stabilized at about EGP 18/USD 1. The devaluation of the EGP contributed to a rise of nearly 16 percent in goods exports and to a similar rise in tourism revenues.

These processes led to a significant upsurge in Egypt’s foreign reserves, which now exceed $36 billion and cover more than seven months of imports. However, the devaluation that helped resolve the foreign currency shortage triggered a rapid rise in the prices of imported goods. The rise in the import prices – as well as the sharp increase in the prices of fuel, electricity, gas, and public transportation that resulted from the cut in subsidies and the introduction of VAT – has fueled inflation. The annual rate of inflation reached a record high of about 33 percent in June, while the August and September inflation rates were a bit more moderate and indicated an annual rise of 31 percent.

Political Implications

At least in the short range, Egypt traded one grave economic problem with another, which makes it difficult for the government to convince the general public in Egypt to support the economic reforms, particularly those in the middle and lower classes. Although the economic data attest to annual growth of more than 4 percent and to moderate improvement in the unemployment rate (which dropped to about 12 percent, compared to 12.7 percent last year), as far as the general public is concerned, these figures and the improvement in the balance of payments are not felt at nearly the same daily, tangible extent as the rapid rise in prices.

Indeed, the IMF program has triggered a dispute between the regime’s supporters and its opponents, and a heated debate is underway in the Egyptian media over the reforms themselves and about the legitimacy of the current political-economic order in Egypt. While the regime is marketing its policy based on select economic data and on promises to improve the public’s sense of wellbeing in the medium and long range, critics are relying on the concrete reality of life and the hardships deriving from the cost of living, as experienced by broad segments of the population.

Egyptian economists affiliated with the opposition point to a series of failures in the government’s policy. Inter alia, they describe the outside loans as an imposition of the debt burden on the upcoming generations and the creation of economic and political dependence on foreign powers. They also allege that the economic projects that are supposed to generate income and be used for future debt repayments were not adequately scrutinized and prioritized, and that therefore the investment in them is liable to be lost. As an alternative to the government’s policy, some recommended imposing a differential tax on the wealthy, stepping up the battle against corruption and monopolies, and terminating the military’s involvement in running the economy.

Moreover, the economic program was interpreted by critics as dashing the hopes for social justice that arose after the recent revolutions, which were supposed to be manifest in the creation of a more democratic contract between the regime and its citizens. Against the backdrop of the fourth anniversary of the June 30, 2013 Revolution (which overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood regime), accusations were published in the Egyptian press whereby the middle-lower classes are forced to bear most of the burden of the reforms, although they are excluded from the decision making processes, due to the lack of government transparency, the restriction of freedom of expression, and the exclusion of political forces that initially supported President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi by the military hegemony. These accusations reflect the alienation that segments of the population feel toward the regime and their skepticism about its commitment to public welfare.

Regime spokesmen and supporters have devised a variety of responses to the criticisms, including: highlighting the program’s achievements relating to investments, growth, and development; blaming the policy crisis on previous regimes and describing the reforms as a bitter pill that must be swallowed for Egypt to be cured of its ailments; stressing the government’s commitment to protect the weak populations through price controls on basic goods, improving the welfare services, and replacing the broad regressive subsidies with increased transfer payments to the needy; presenting the government’s handling of the crisis as an expression of national responsibility  i.e., preferring to institute unpopular courses of action that serve the interests of the general public over misleading illusory measures; and instilling hopes about the medium range and long range economic benefits of the program.

Considering the authoritarian political climate prevailing in Egypt, it is difficult to assess whether the majority of the public supports or opposes the economic program. The answer to this question may emerge with the presidential elections, scheduled for 2018. If el-Sisi runs again and is reelected in free and pluralistic elections, then the legitimacy of his economic policy might be bolstered.

Conclusion

At the moment, inflation is the main challenge facing Egypt. Besides the difficulty in marketing the reforms to the public, inflation is also liable to counter the original program’s objectives. Since the government consumes numerous imported goods, the hike in the import prices resulting from the floating of the EGP constrains the government’s efforts to balance the budget. Furthermore, the central bank contends with inflation by raising the interest rate, which is liable to derail the attempts to encourage private investments and reduce the concentration that characterizes the business sector. The Egyptian government and the IMF economists are hoping that the inflation data reflect a one-time hike in prices that derives from the initial shock caused by the devaluation of the EGP and the elimination of the subsidies, and that following an adjustment period, the inflation rate will stabilize.

At this stage, signs of a material withdrawal from the outlines of the reforms, which will cause international entities to lose interest in providing loans to Egypt, is actually liable to exacerbate inflation and cause additional shocks. The possibility of obtaining loans in international markets has lowered the costs of financing the deficit, but these costs remain high, and a substantial portion of the budget is allocated for interest payments on the government debt, which is now about 100 percent of the GDP. These costs can be expected to skyrocket if international lenders become concerned that political pressures will cause Egypt to withdraw its intentions to reduce expenses and increase the tax revenues.

Therefore, the Egyptian regime must adhere to the economic reforms. At the same time, the achievement of political stability over time is contingent upon increasing the public’s confidence in its policy. To this end, the regime must back up its declarations with realistic orderly plans that are formulated with credible timetables, and it must carry out a series of political adjustments that will allow the Egyptian public to feel that it is not excluded from decision making processes. The reforms are now imposing a heavy burden on the public; most of the economic benefits will be felt in the more distant future. Consequently, the Egyptian regime’s challenge is twofold: it must draft a comprehensive, inclusive social contract that will gain public legitimacy for the difficult but necessary reforms; at the same time, the regime must convince the international arena that it is adhering to the outlines of the reforms.

This article was published by the INSS and written by Nizan Feldman and Ofir Winter

This article was originally published by the INSS : http://www.inss.org.il/publication/imf-egyptian-assistance-program-one-year/?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=INSS%20Insight%20No.%20988

Veteran Gambian politician and Member of Parliament Halifa Sallah has recently sparked off a storm of controversy following remarks he made in London where the renowned sociologist is said to have lamented the lack of system change in the Gambia though the county attained regime change at the ballot box last December.

Gambia is a small country located in Western Africa inside Senegal.

The comments, which had seismic implications in Banjul and beyond, did not go down well with the Barrow Administration with the Office of the President issuing a strong-worded and a rare press release denouncing the remarks. The Presidency has labelled Mr. Sallah, who also serves as Secretary General of the Peoples Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism, as someone who finds it easier to criticize rather than take responsibility, in a veiled reference to the latter’s refusal to take up a Cabinet portfolio upon the formation of the Coalition Government of which PDOIS is a part.

Situation in the Gambia, where critical thinking and outspokenness are misconceived as sabotage of the sitting government.

Current Situation in Gambia

Despite the storm the comments have generated, I personally believe that Sallah was partly right in his assessment of the situation in the Gambia, where critical thinking and outspokenness are misconceived as sabotage of the sitting government. The Facebook backlash was largely emotional, void of reasoning or a thorough research. As a result, I deem it imperative to unravel the terminologies involved in this debate and eventually determine whether or not the Gambia is witnessing system change. System change is defined as “change in organizational cultures, policies and procedures within individual organizations or across organizations, that enhance or streamline access and reduce or eliminate barriers to needed services by target population.”

On the other hand, regime change is defined as “the replacement of one regime with another. It can occur through conquest by a foreign power, revolution, an election, coup d’état or reconstruction following the failure of State.”

His ouster was regarded by many as a revolution given that regime change was a mere dream just few months ago ahead of the poll.

A Revolution?

Based on the definition above there is no doubt that the Gambia had witnessed regime change on December 1 following the presidential election that dislodged the long-term autocratic ruler Yahya Jammeh. His ouster was regarded by many as a revolution given that regime change was a mere dream just few months ago ahead of the poll.

The bone of contention lies with the system change. Sallah and his diehards are of the opinion that there has been no system change in the country referring to a catalog of factors that make them hold this view.  The definition of system change involves a key term, which is cultural change. David Dressler and Donald Caens define cultural change as “the modification or discontinuance of existing ‘tried’ and ‘tested’ procedures transmitted to us from the culture of the past, as well as the introduction of new procedures.” From this definition one could agree with Sallah that the Gambia has a long way to go as far as system change is concerned.

The bulk majority of the civil servants swirling around President Barrow today are the same technocrats who have served the former despot

To rebut Sallah’s argument, the government’s press release referred to several changes it had put in place since coming to power, including freedom of expression, conducive business environment, reduction of fuel prices, improved ties with the international community, fiscal discipline, youth employment, public-private partnership, among others. Yes, while the government is making the right noises about change, the ones it has referred to are not sufficient enough to institute system change for we need to reengineer mindsets, first and foremost.

#OccupyWestfield Movement

The bulk majority of the civil servants swirling around President Barrow today are the same technocrats who have served the former despot and helped perpetuate him in power and prop up his repressive regime through subservience and sycophancy over two decades. Most of those technocrats need immediate transformation to set Barrow’s change agenda into motion. Recently, the government has denied the #OccupyWestfield Movement permit to protest under the pretext of Public Order Act which was enacted by the former regime to kerb any form of dissent against the government. The movement was planning to stage a peaceful march to express frustration over erratic power supply in the country.

Since the new government came to power, there has been no organizational restructuring with the ministries and key government departments remaining unchanged. Even the merger of ministries that the former ruler has put in place remained the same. This is partly attributable to the inexperience of the new administration coupled with the high expectations pinned on it while the change is a gradual process. Equally, the legacy of 22 years is hard to purge or erase over night.

Gambians need to show respect to each other in order for all to express themselves without prejudiced or being insulted. In a democracy, people need to embrace convergent and divergent views to promote health debates.

I remain quite optimistic that the Gambia will eventually see system change provided that people embrace change by resetting their mindsets!


Basidia Drammeh

Acceptance and Cooperation:


The final strategy is a more laissez-faire approach, where the US accepts NK as a nuclear power. After all, America has lived with far greater threats for almost half a century.

Instead of using a aggressive strategy with military, intervention or/and democracy expansion, then USA could adopt a “less destructive” strategy where the key elements are interdependence, cooperation and multilevel governance.

USA could work closely with the other countries and the UN and restrain from the use of force and continue with sanctions to strengthen peace. By punishing NK financially, this may in the long run force them to retreat and stop power projectile.

Recommendation:

Following the analysis of the four possible solutions, my recommendation for a re-orientation of the strategy towards NK would be the latter one – Acceptance & Cooperation.

 

This is the most peaceful and liberal oriented solution that seeks to deescalate the conflict to avoid a very costly war both in terms of money and lives.

As Michael Doyle states in the book named Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases:  “In relations with powerful non liberal states, liberal states have missed opportunities to pursue the negotiation of arms reduction and arms control when it has been in the mutual strategic interest, and they have failed to construct wider schemes of accommodation that are needed to supplement arms control. For that reason, I am of the belief that an invasion or a decapitation of the regime will not benefit the international society nor better Trump’s chances of a re-election for presidency (Hence what happened to President Bush after the Iraq War). So far, the use of military power has not been fruitful and therefore I address the importance to choose rationality over the “realists” desire for power. USA has to accept that NK will become a nuclear power. When said is said, however I believe that USA should work towards not making this happening by following this strategy.

It is a very complex conflict and USA cannot solve it without a strong transnational collaboration with other regional allies as well as continue the multilateral governance with UN as a mediator.

The election of the South Korean President Moon-Jaea together with the strong partnership with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will create opportunities to change the more military approach to a more diplomatic approach where there exists an increased focus on cooperation, sanctions/embargoes and deepen the collective defence towards NK.

I also believe that the administration should encourage China to take more responsibility in solving the conflict with NK. China is after all a super power in Asia. However, USA has to take China’s interests into account. It is not in China’s interest that NK one day could be “merged” with South Korea since this would imply that China would now have a very loyal US-ally as a neighbour.

Regarding the sanctions, I would recommend these to be further strengthened by imposing secondary sanctions upon companies that trade with NK. The sanctions are crucial to force NK to prohibit their nuclear program. This will create a base for future cooperation where other countries including China seeks to increase transparency, cooperation, free trade and economic interdependence – the cornerstones for lasting peace according to the liberal theory. At the same time this will require NK to open up more and slowly democratize. By doing so, it will discourage the involved states from using armed force because it would threaten each side’s prosperity.

To achieve the latter one, it is recommended to create a forum that has the purpose of drawing the Northeast Asian nations together and collectively take responsibility and participate in peace-building measures that deal with security, humanitarian and political issues that concern Northeast Asia. An opportunity to create such a forum would be when President Trump travels to Asia in the upcoming month. Overall, this recommendation will hopefully lead to a more balanced international system and minimize the risk of a nuclear war.

Rosa Sejer Ingstrup Knudsen 


Rosa Knudsen is a political science student at University of Copenhagen. Passionated by Strategy and Geopolitics she published a scientific article regarding the dispute in South China Sea.

The Current Situation:

The tension between USA and North Korea (NK) has intensified recently. On April 5th 2017, North Korea, with Kim-Jung-Un in the lead, launched a ballistic missile over the Japanese Sea. This led to the USA to rearm and send naval-force with carrier ships to the Korean Peninsula.

NK sees this alongside with the US-led missile attack in Syria as a sign of aggression, which confirms the belief of NK that it was the right choice to strengthen their nuclear program  “to secure its survival”. Furthermore, NK has also publically stated, that if USA pursues a military solution, then NK will respond to any kind of war the USA might wish.

During the spring, NK kept launching test-missiles and USA continued to rearm their presence in Asia and held multiple military drills together with South Korea. The disagreement has now turned into a conflict leading to sanctions and embargo against NK.

In the beginning of September 2017, the UN’s Security Council agreed on the “toughest sanctions in history against North Korea. Primarily, sanctions on import of oil and export of textiles are sanctioned and the issuance of working permits to North Korean guest workers is now illegal (guest workers play an important role in financing the North Korean economy) – NK finds these sanctions illegal. As a countermove to the public sanctions, the UN ambassador of NK states that these actions “will make USA suffer the biggest pain, the country has ever experienced”. The US’s UN ambassador Nikki Haley declared “that the world will never accept a North Korea armed with WMD”, and the Security Council stated that “if the North Korean regime does not stop their nuclear weapon program, then we will stop it ourselves”.

The Current Strategy:

Up until this point both the North Korean and the US administrations have to a large extent followed mindset where egoism and power centrism are the focal-points and the international order is dominated by uncertainty and self-help. Both NK and the USA’s political behaviour have been driven by self-interest and they are both power and security maximizing using military as their preferred tool of action i.e. launching missiles and beefing up its military presence in Asia.

The two outcomes to be expected from the current strategy is either an unstable nuclear power in NK or a large-scale war on the Korean Peninsula, which will have fatal consequences for humanity.

Analysis:

In the following section, Trump’s reorientation will be divided into four possible solutions and analysed.

Intervention:

An important mean to strengthen peace and maintain a somewhat balanced international society is through spreading democracy. The tool to achieve this is through intervention, even if it means showing aggressiveness towards non-liberal states. Trump could choose an all-out American invasion of NK, overthrow the regime and restructure the entire country and its system. An intervention on this scale would be extremely costly, not only financially, but also in terms of lives. It would demand boots on the ground and cause thousands if not millions of casualties. Two positive side effects of this strategy are, it will eliminate NK’s nuclear capabilities and liberate the oppressed citizens from the dictatorship. Overthrowing the regime could result in a failed state that the USA would have to govern for at least a generation. However, if USA is forced to intervene they should have a minimum of respect towards the international community, seek to minimize the casualties and they should to strive to avoid boots on the ground and their combatant causalities that follows such type of warfare. Furthermore, one could question “whether a country should be destroyed completely in order to be saved?”.

Cork and Screw Method:

The purpose of the second strategy is to exercise strategically limited aerial strikes and special operations where the administration would target Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear and missile development infrastructure. As with the previous strategy, this is a very hands-on military operation, where conflicts are solved using military rather than via peaceful cooperation and interdependence. However, NK could interpret this as a declaration of war and choose to retaliate military and cause great damage.

Fix the head first:

The third strategy is a decapitation strike meaning removing the leadership of NK using military strength. It is neat in theory, but very hard in practice and it could possibly trigger a nuclear counter attack.

Some liberalists believe that there is a “presumption of liberal thought” where states possess some autonomy/sovereignty over their own country and should not be subject for foreign interference.

Decapitation could be a possible step to a democratization of NK and according to the Democratic Peace Theory: Democratic states do not go to war against each other because of cooperation and economic interdependence.

In the long run, NK could carry-out a democratic election and choose a more transparent government that works towards a democratic state who follows the rule of law, interact/ cooperate and trade with the rest of the international society and one day could be part of the liberal zone of peace.

Rosa Sejer Ingstrup Knudsen


About the Author:  

Rosa Knudsen is a political science student at the University of Copenhagen. Passionated by Strategy and Geopolitics she published a scientific article regarding the dispute in the South China Sea.

 

 

Are you interested in global politics, foreign affairs and international security issues? Do you want to make the world a better place? If so, a career in international relations might be just the right fit for you.  

If the idea of working for the European Union or the United Nations appeals to you, or you dream of becoming a diplomat representing your country abroad, studying international relations is a solid idea. It’s one of the most versatile degrees out there, and can lead to a wide range of job opportunities. Follow these steps to set yourself up with an international relations career.

Do some career research

Since the field of international relations is a wide one, it’s important to have a clear idea in your head of what kinds of work you would most want to do. Doing negotiations at the EU parliament is quite a different beast than helping children get vaccinated in a developing country. Most international relations graduates work within one of three sectors: public, private and non-profit/NGO. Think about what would be your ideal job placement, as this determines what types of international relations studies you should pursue.

Get a bachelor’s degree

A bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree is the bare minimum you will need in order to work within the realm of international relations. Look for any of these majors: international relations, international affairs, international diplomacy, and international studies. Pay attention to the content of the degree programs: in certain schools international relations is lumped together with political science and global studies, for example at Adelphi University in New York and the University of Central Florida. At other universities, the degree of international relations is more closely affiliated with social sciences and humanities, like at the Budapest Metropolitan University. Some schools, such as the London South Bank University, offer both types of international relations degrees. You should pick the type of program that best aligns with your future career interests.

Take on internships

Internships are key to getting your foot in the working world, especially when it comes to international relations and development work. A good time to start interning is right after receiving your bachelor’s, or in the middle of your program. You can search for suitable internships at the United Nations, the World Bank or within the government sector. If you are able to go to a developing country to intern for an NGO, that’s great – you will get valuable field experience and will develop your language skills.

You can also look for cross-cultural internships or volunteering opportunities in your own country, such as helping refugees. Unfortunately most internships are unpaid: start saving money early so that you can afford to live without any income for 6-12 months. If acquiring savings is not possible, try to get an assignment with UN Volunteers – these gigs do pay a small salary, contrary to the job name.

Get a master’s degree

Once you have some internship and work experience, you may want to move onto the next stage of your career. A graduate degree is necessary when looking for advanced-level international relations jobs, such as those within the United Nations. If you majored in international relations for your bachelor’s degree, you could pursue a different topic for your master’s, such as politics, international business or foreign languages.

But if your undergraduate degree is not in international relations, it’s a good idea to get your master’s in the field. Just as with the bachelor’s, there are different areas of emphasis when it comes to international relations master’s degrees. Some programs are more generic, such as that of Middlesex University in London, and some are more specialized. The American University of Washington D.C., for example, offers an international relations master’s focusing anywhere from global politics to just United States foreign policy.

About the Writer: Mirva Lempiäinen is a US-educated freelance journalist from Finland. After calling New York City home for about a decade, she now resides on the French-Caribbean island of Guadeloupe.

It is sufficient to follow the money. Since big investment corporations–such as BlackRock and Capital Group–started focusing on the lithium industry, it has become clear  that the silvery-white alkali metal isn’t only a fad, but a wave of the future.

Lithium reserves in the world

Expansion of tech companies

For instance, the shares of Abermarle–the largest lithium producer in the world–increased in value 56% in 2015 and 30% in 2016. The reason for such a boost is undoubtedly linked to the overwhelming expansion of tech companies that require larger quantities of lithium-ion batteries. Nevertheless, if the lithium demand growth could be considered marginal in the production of small electronic devices, in other rising fields–for instance, of electric vehicles–it will surely be significant.

Elon Musk–the CEO of a well-known tech company–recently announced that by the end of 2018 over 500.000 new electric cars will be produced; assuming each of those vehicles require approximately 50 kg of lithium, his company itself will use about 25.000 tons of lithium in 2018 only for one specific model–which will account for about the 10% of the world supply.

Australia, Argentina and Chile

However, last year, according to the United States Geological Survey, the identified lithium resources in the world have been revised to approximately 40 million tons–mainly, obtained from mines in Australia, Argentina and Chile. That’s why governments and companies from all over the world started reconsidering this (so far) underrated element and the above mentioned countries that mainly produce it.

While Chile is considering this white oil as a strategic asset, Argentina is attracting a considerable amount of investors, and Bolivia is limiting the lithium production–even though it has the most abundant mines in the world. On the other hand, China, which can boast the second largest lithium reserve in the world, recently announced the production of 5 millions electric vehicles by the end of 2020 and continues investing in Australian mines.

Environmentally-friendly

Since lithium is quite abundant on earth–and also seems environmentally-friendly–its fortune is likely going to be preferable. Although it’s still early to compare it to the petroleum market and speculate on a possible overwhelming effect, it is clear that the white oil fever has started, and pawns are taking their strategical positions on the international chessboard.

Moreover, if we consider the geopolitical importance that oil had in the last centuries –in particular, the tremendous amount of wars that have been related to it–, it is clear how we all should promote the ideas underlying this lithium demand, by learning from our past mistakes. The ‘lithium-ion age’ is only at the beginning.


About the Author : 

 

After he got graduated in Law, Jesse Colzani is currently studying International Relations at the University of Milan; his field of interest includes diplomatic relations, international law, human rights and IO management. 

http://www.young-diplomats.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Special-forces-3.jpg

Special forces, or special operations forces are military units extremely trained to perform unconventional, typically insecure missions for a nation’s political, economic or military purposes. The origin of Special Forces dates back to the early twentieth century, with fighting models set up by German Brandenburgers during the World War II.

Ranking the Best Special Forces from all over the world is a tough job. It’s just like trying to rank the best athlete from the world among the numerous different sports which require different skills and abilities. Throughout the world, every country train special forces within their military. And all these special forces train their men to be the best of the best, to take the impossible task and make it possible. Here is a list of top 10 Best SPECIAL FORCES from around the world. All these renowned Special Forces are always surrounded by an air of mystery as they cannot be exposed to the general public.

1. United States Navy SEALs

Navy SEALs usa
The US Navy SEALs is arguably the best special force. Created in 1962, the SEALs are trained to operate in all environments (Sea, Air, and Land). They go through years of training and, especially after 9/11, endure an incredible operation tempo. In addition, many foreign militaries base their special ops on the SEALs.

The Navy SEALs, also known as the United States Navy’s (Sea, Air and Land) Teams can trace their roots to World War II. SEALs are male members of the United States Navy, and are one of the United State’s most elite special operation force. The CIA’s highly secretive Special Activities Division (SAD) and more specifically its elite Special Operations Group (SOG) recruits operators from the SEAL Teams. Joint Navy SEALs and CIA operations go back to the famed MACV-SOG during the Vietnam War. This cooperation still exists today and is seen in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recent joint Navy SEALs and CIA operation in the finding and killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

2. Special Boat Service – UK

Special Boat Service UK
UK’s Special Boat Service is almost equivalent of the US Navy SEALs. SBS is one of the best Special Forces in world. The SBS can trace its roots to World War II. It is the maritime special forces unit of the UK Special Forces. The selection process of SBS is as tough as imagine. It involves a grueling endurance test, jungle training in the rain forests of Belize. In addition, the combat survival training, which involves intense interrogation of candidates. And you get only two attempts to pass.

See also; 10 Most Powerful Militaries in The World.

3. SAS – United Kingdom

Best Special Forces in the world
The British Special Air Service, known as the SAS, is one of the world’s best special forces. SAS is the infantry counterpart to the SBS. They are most well trained, most elite special forces in the world.

Special Air Service is one of the best Special Forces in UK. SAS was set up in 1941 during the Second World War and has served as a model for Special Forces around the world. It was reformed as part of the Territorial Army in 1947, and named the 21st Battalion, SAS Regiment. The Regular Army 22 SAS gained worldwide fame and recognition after successfully attacking the Iranian Embassy in London and rescuing hostages during the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege. It currently comprises one regular regiment and two territorial regiments. It,s primary tasks are counter-terrorism in peacetime and special operations in wartime.

4. Sayeret Matkal – Israel

Israel's Sayeret Matkal is another of the world's most elite units
Israel’s Sayeret Matkal is another of the world’s best special forces. Its primary purpose is intelligence gathering, and it often operates deep behind enemy lines. It is also tasked with counter-terrorism and hostage rescue beyond Israel’s borders. The world’s most elite unit modeled after the British Army’s SAS, taking the unit’s motto “Who Dares, Wins”. In addition, Only the strongest get selected. Sayeret Matkal is equivalent of US Delta Force and to the Special Air Service of United Kingdom.

5. GIGN – France

GIGN, France
Few of the world’s best special forces can compete with GIGN (France’s National Gendarmerie Intervention Group). One of the most extraordinary elite unit, is a group of 200 strong and trained specifically to respond to hostage situations.

The GIGN is a special operations unit of the French Armed Forces. The unit is trained to perform counter-terrorist and hostage rescue missions in France or anywhere else in the world. It was formed after the Munich massacre in the 1971 Olympic Games. Its basic goal was to prepare for possible future responses to the extremely violent attacks. In 1973, the GIGN became a permanent force of men trained and equipped to respond to these kind of threats. It is renowned for its swift responses and proficient combat capability in hostage rescue and anti-terrorism operations. GIGN currently deployed for large-scale intervention, search and protection missions.

6. Alpha Group – Russia

Russias Alpha group best special forces units
Alpha Group is one of the best special forces units in the world. This elite anti-terrorism unit was created by the Soviet KGB in 1974. Although little is known about the exact nature of its primary directives, but, it remains in service under its modern-day counterpart, the FSB.

Russian special forces — the Alpha Group, in particular is available for extended police duties, for paramilitary operations, and for covert operations, both domestically and internationally.

See also; Strongest Armies in the World.

7. Unidad de Operaciones Especiales – Spain

Spain's Unidad de Operaciones Especiales
Spain’s Unidad de Operaciones Especiales is another one of the best special forces units in the world. Known since 2009, UOE — or the Naval Special Warfare Force, has long been one of the most-respected special forces in Europe. The UOE, tasked with Special Operations in maritime, coastal and inland environments, was established as the volunteer Amphibious Climbing Company unit in 1952, it has since become an elite fighting force.

8. SSG – Pakistan

SSG Commandos Pakistan
The Special Services Group (SSG ) in Pakistan is better known in the country as the Black Storks because of the commandos’ unique headgear. It is a special operations force of the Pakistan Army. The unit was created in 1956, it is quite similar to the U.S. Army’s Special Forces and the British Army’s SAS. Training reportedly includes a 36-mile march in 12 hours and a 5-mile run in 50 minutes in full gear.

The SSG considered one of the world’s best special forces because of their courage and bravery. As a Russian president once said that if he had Pakistan’s army and Russian weapons he could conquer all the world because they are very brave. The SSG has trained for these specific missions: Asymmetric Warfare, Special Operations, Counter-Proliferation, Unconventional Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense, Special Reconnaissance, Direct Action, Hostage Rescue, Counter-Terrorist and Personnel Recovery. Recently, SSG has been active in anti-terrorist operations in Pakistan’s restive western borders with Afghanistan and fighting Islamic extremists in Pakistani cities.

9. Delta Force – United States

Best Special Forces in the world
1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (1st SFOD-D), popularly known as Delta Force, was officially approved in 1997 after numerous, well-publicized terrorist incidents in USA. It’s the best and one of the most secretive forces in the US. Modeled after the British 22 Special Air Service Regiment, or SAS. The founder/co-founder of SFOD-D was a former SAS operative who thought the US needed an elite force like the SAS. Delta Force’s primary tasks are counter-terrorism, direct action, and national intervention operations, although it is an extremely versatile group capable of conducting many types of clandestine missions, including, but not limited to, hostage rescues and raids.

10. GSG 9 – Germany

GSG 9, Germany
GSG 9 is a German counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police. It was officially established in 1973 after the mismanagement of the German Police to successfully free 11 Israeli athletes who were kidnapped in Munich during the Summer Olympic Games. GSG 9 is deployed in cases of hostage taking, kidnapping, terrorism and extortion. It also be used to secure locations, neutralize targets, track down fugitives and sometimes conduct sniper operations. The unit is very active in developing and testing methods and tactics for these missions. From 1972 to 2003 they reportedly completed over 1,500 missions, discharging their weapons on only five occasions.

This article was written by Wonderlist authors and has been published here : https://www.wonderslist.com/10-best-special-forces-world/