Articolo pubblicato su YOUNG DIPLOMATS. THE LEADERS OF TOMORROW di Alessia Salzano The worldwide famous American flag could soon have an extra star. In fact, one of the most pressing issue 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...
young diplomats
Articolo pubblicato YOUNG DIPLOMATS Are Turkish-Iranian relations transformed from an alliance of common interests to struggle for regional influence? Introduction The Arab region has great economic and strategic importance at the global level. In its interior there are about 62% of the world’s oil reserves, which represents the main source of energy, and represents an area of 10.2% of the world’s area. Large more than 300 million people. That is why it was, and still is, a theater for the various regional and international projects, axes and alliances, which have endeavored and seek to control their interactions and benefit from their potentials, and try to map the political balances in them in a way that achieves the interests of their parties. And after the region was the object of international competition, other regional parties entered to try to impose their control and influence on the countries of the region, and the most prominent of those parties were Turkey and Iran, who are trying to use the region as a pressure toll in order to achieve their interests with Western countries, and find a place for them within the map of the superpower affecting the world. Turkish project Turkey is trying to enter the Arab region from many different ways, most notably the historical way by trying to revive the time of the Ottoman Empire, which is clearly shown in the drama it exports to the Arab world in its various forms, as well as portraying itself as an Islamic model at the same time following the secular approach in Thinking and defending the Islamic religion and Arab sanctities, taking advantage of that Palestinian crisis, and its successive developments, as well as its continuous attempts to penetrate and extend influence within the Iraqi and Syrian lands, taking advantage of its participation in the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates with Both countries, and do not forget that there is a common Arab-Turkish desire not to establish a Kurdish state in the Syrian north or Iraqi lands, as this could cause more tensions and conflicts in the hot region, meaning that Turkey is trying to portray itself as a maker of peace and economic cooperation with Islamic history. Modern European thought, and at the same time, economic and political power capable of assisting Arab peoples to achieve their dreams for a better future. Iranian project When we pronounce the word Iran, the first thing that rushes to minds is the Shiite tide and the Iranian leadership’s attempt to play the role of the sole representative of the Shiites in the region and the protector and the preservation of that faith from its elimination by the countries surrounding it .. Rather, the Iranian authorities are trying to communicate with the different Shiite parties in the Arab world, Establishing a communication bridge with it to use it as a pressure tool against its countries and also as a point of negotiation if necessary, as well as its support for Shiite regimes and...
Articolo pubblicato su YOUNG DIPLOMATS Idriss Zackaria is the Director of Young Diplomats Africa, the part of Young Diplomats project. Young Diplomats is the first non- governmental diplomatic association with a mission of shaping, sharpening and inspiring a new generation of enlightened international leaders. Idriss Zackaria is one of them. As Young Diplomats’ Africa Regional Director, he sees himself as a bridge and trust builder. We talked with him about his start at Young Diplomats, leadership, challenges, international relations and other topics… D: How was your start at Young Diplomats? How did you contribute to the evolution and the success of the association? We simply start our project by writing and publishing articles on our website… then my colleague David Allouche thought that I was the right person to represent YD in Africa and take care of our activities in the continent. Since then; we started to define and set up our team globally. —We really needed to think about what skills we need to deliver our project successfully. Building the team has taken from us 3 years to set things on the ground; because we always tried to avoid over-complicating things. We knew that when we get started on the project initiation phase, things can feel a bit vague and team members can get confused about what the project actually is. Hence, we always try to make sure our team in Africa knows what they are delivering and are invested in it. We always involve the team in the setting of the brief, definition of deliverables and approach to any phases. Young Diplomats has clear different phases from its inception, for example a discovery phase separate from the development, and we treat each phase like a mini-project rather than doing a bigger upfront piece. This strategy has provided key starting points for each phase, rather than trying to make a lot of assumptions at the beginning. About Committee… We lately have appointed a committee to examine and shape our operations around the world. The Committee is a part of the organization that makes operational decisions and guidelines. Members of the Committee are in charge of elaborating and following up the guidelines of our organization. They accompany the different directors of Young Diplomats and manage the website as well as the global and cross-border projects. The appointment and removing of regional and country directors is done by this committee. Team members of the committee are David Allouche, Noam Hakoune and me. YD: How do you see YD Africa under your leadership? Currently, our project in Africa has involved a number of young leaders in dozens of African countries, and we are seeking to connect our disparate projects across the continent and reach more young leaders. Africa’s youth are taking the stage to make their voices heard about the continent. Therefore, I have a global mandate to advocate for the implementation of the African Youth Charter, the Demographic Dividend Roadmap and Agenda 2063. As Young Diplomats’ Africa Regional Director; I see my role...
Articolo Originale in inglese su Young Diplomats Tensions between major and regional powers have facilitated the increased military use of satellites in outer-space. Growing advancements in satellite and anti-satellite (ASAT) technology have given governments greater tactical and strategic control during warfare, enabling greater communication speeds and sharper imaging. Improvements in kinetic and non-kinetic ASAT weapon capabilities have increased the effectiveness of advanced GPS and communication jamming techniques, threatening military and commercial satellites. Unprecedented economic growth in China over the last 20 years has allowed it to modernise its military capabilities and advance its space interests. In 2013, China announced the successful development of an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile with the ability to attack intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance satellites positioned 35,000km above Earth’s equator. In 2015, Beijing established the PLA Rocket Force, a branch of the armed forces responsible for satellite management and space warfare capabilities. While in 2018 Russia announced it had developed a new laser ASAT weapon system with the ability to cause permanent damage to orbiting satellites. The United States is wary of the growing space capabilities of its adversaries and the shrinking American space advantage. The Trump Administration has established ‘Space Force’, a sixth military branch intended to strengthen the protection of America’s space interests and enhance American space operations. However, questions remain over the funding and resource capabilities of Space Force and how its commitments will differ to that of the U.S. Air Forces, America’s current space warfare service branch. Space militarisation is not only reserved for major powers. India, Iran and North Korea have continued to invest heavily in satellite and space exploration endeavours in the hopes of increasing their influence and stability within their respective regions. India-Pakistan relations are perpetually strained due to continued cross-border terrorist attacks and the ongoing crisis in Kashmir. India has focused heavily on modernising its defence capabilities, including acquiring satellites to improve its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP) and further developing its ASAT capabilities. By contrast, Pakistan’s economic weaknesses has left it strategically vulnerable as India furthers its strategic and technological edge over its regional adversary. Satellite photographs of launch sites in North Korea and Iran indicate both countries are hoping to further develop their own ASAT missile capabilities. Pyongyang and Tehran are concerned about potential U.S. interference and have successfully developed hacking and jamming techniques to bolster their defences. States in the Middle East and East Asia have called for the U.S. to play a greater role in improving regional stability, aggravating Iran and North Korea’s fear of American involvement, and further influencing the militarisation of their space assets. As more satellites are deployed for military use, outer space becomes less of shared domain equally owned by all of humanity and more of a state-owned military asset, with possible impacts to global day-to-day civilian life. Damage to key commercial use satellites would impact GPS and communication signals used by the public with huge potential effects on global finance sectors. Even more detrimental would be the effects on climate...
Articolo pubblicato sul sito Young Diplomats Idriss Zackaria is the Director of Young Diplomats Africa, the part of Young Diplomats project. Young Diplomats is the first non- governmental diplomatic association with a mission of shaping, sharpening and inspiring a new generation of enlightened international leaders. Idriss Zackaria is one of them. As Young Diplomats’ Africa Regional Director, he sees himself as a bridge and trust builder. We talked with him about his start at Young Diplomats, leadership, challenges, international relations and other topics… YD: How was your start at Young Diplomats? How did you contribute to the evolution and the success of the association? We simply start our project by writing and publishing articles on our website… then my colleague David Allouche thought that I was the right person to represent YD in Africa and take care of our activities in the continent. Since then; we started to define and set up our team globally. —We really needed to think about what skills we need to deliver our project successfully. Building the team has taken from us 3 years to set things on the ground; because we always tried to avoid over-complicating things. We knew that when we get started on the project initiation phase, things can feel a bit vague and team members can get confused about what the project actually is. Hence, we always try to make sure our team in Africa knows what they are delivering and are invested in it. We always involve the team in the setting of the brief, definition of deliverables and approach to any phases. Young Diplomats has clear different phases from its inception, for example a discovery phase separate from the development, and we treat each phase like a mini-project rather than doing a bigger upfront piece. This strategy has provided key starting points for each phase, rather than trying to make a lot of assumptions at the beginning. About Committee… We lately have appointed a committee to examine and shape our operations around the world. The Committee is a part of the organization that makes operational decisions and guidelines. Members of the Committee are in charge of elaborating and following up the guidelines of our organization. They accompany the different directors of Young Diplomats and manage the website as well as the global and cross-border projects. The appointment and removing of regional and country directors is done by this committee. Team members of the committee are David Allouche, Noam Hakoune and me. YD: How do you see YD Africa under your leadership? Currently, our project in Africa has involved a number of young leaders in dozens of African countries, and we are seeking to connect our disparate projects across the continent and reach more young leaders. Africa’s youth are taking the stage to make their voices heard about the continent. Therefore, I have a global mandate to advocate for the implementation of the African Youth Charter, the Demographic Dividend Roadmap and Agenda 2063. As Young Diplomats’ Africa Regional Director; I see...
articolo originale: Young Diplomats Turkey is now in a tough position to choose between America’s F-35 advanced jets and Russia’s S-400 missile defence system as Washington has given a deadline to cancel its orders with Russia and purchase the US Patriot air defence system instead. Turkey has already made a deal with Russia and has sent some of its officials to Russia to be trained on the S-400. Though Turkey is a member of NATO and a part of the US F-35 warplane programme, it’s not ready to reconsider the deal that has already made with Russia as part of Russia-Turkey alliance. What is S-400 Triumf It is an upgraded version of the S-300 family, an anti-aircraft weapon system developed in the late 1970s. It has been used in the Russian Armed Forces since 2007. The current S-400 is the latest version of this family and it has also been described by The Economist as “one of the best air-defence system currently made.” Why the US opposes S-400 Russia has been working on radar and missiles targetting the low observable aircraft. The primary concern of Kremlin is to tackle US air power. S-400 is one of the most sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems in the world with the range of 400Km. It has the ability to shoot up to 80 targets simultaneously ranging from low-flying drones to aircraft or long-range missiles. The reason behind the worries of the US officials is that the S-400 radar could access sensitive US military technologies in service and also it would gather technical details of their F-35. Other countries with S-400 deal with Russia China and India have already placed their orders and now Turkey joins the list. China also faces US sanctions for buying S-400 and other arms from Russia. In October last year, India signed a 5 billion dollar deal to buy five S-400 regimental units amidst US concerns over this deal. Neither India nor Turkey has come to the US sanction list yet. Iran has also shown its interest to purchase S-400 from Russia but Russia has rejected the deal as there is already increasing tensions between Iran and the USA after President Trump called off the nuclear deal with Iran and Russia didn’t want a further escalation of tension in the region. Here’s another article explaining the capabilities of such Russian air defense system: https://www.young-diplomats.com/s-300-missiles-in-syria-bad-news-for-israel/
Articolo originale apparso su Young Diplomats Erdogan – The once-great strategist he was when it comes to power struggles in the domestic scene is now having troubles finding the balance between his personal political gains and the sacrifices he has made in order to make such gains. He has been very sufficient in maximizing the damages he can cause to the country and in turn to himself while gaining very little in return. The very recent defeats the AKP has suffered in the municipal elections and the re-election in Istanbul are a great testament to this. He has virtually gone against the policies the AKP had pursued ever since they came to power in the early 2000s in every conceivable way. Not only has he torpedoed the relations with the US by fanatically insisting on purchasing the Russian-supplied S-400 anti-aircraft missile programs despite the risk of losing F-35 contracts and facing potential economic sanctions but also his authoritarian conducts involving repeated transgressions of democratic institutions and the blatant disdain to some European countries’ calls have contributed to the long-term deterioration in Turkey’s relations with the EU. His intransigence in refusing to let the Kurds have their own strongholds and persistence in launching a land invasion into Tel Rifaat, Manbij and the east of the Euphrates to chase them out have also added to the causes of tension with Turkey’s NATO allies. But that’s not all. He has also managed to tremendously wreck the relations with both his strategic allies and the neighboring states. The Idlib demilitarized zone agreement he brokered with Putin last year has become a disaster because of his failure to deliver his promises, which has triggered growing impatience in both Damascus and Moscow, ultimately resulting in a Russian-backed Syrian offensive into the region. The very recent aggressive attempt to drill offshore oil in the disputed areas nearing Cyprus’s coast has also sent alarming signals to both Greece and the internationally-recognized regime in Cyprus. The only two adjoining entities that have maintained relatively better relations with Ankara, apart from Iran, are Iraq and the Kurdistan regional government, but that is only because Iraq has suffered tremendous loss in the war against ISIS and is currently too weak to lose friends, and in the case of the KRG, it is because a huge proportion of its revenues comes from Turkey through trades and oil deals. In addition, the 2017 referendum in the KRG has not only pushed Baghdad and Ankara together but also made Erbill even more dependent on Turkey. Nevertheless, these ostensibly amicable relations are also about to be seriously tested. The ongoing Turkish military campaign that started last year involving frequent cross-border airstrikes targeting PKK fighters in areas within the Kurdistan region has drawn increasing condemnation on the part of Iraq. Reacting to two very recent air raids that caused five civilian casualties, Baghdad has begun to depict Turkey’s incursion as “unilateral acts of war” and urge Ankara to stop violating Iraq’s sovereign integrity. Although falling behind...
Articolo originale pubblicato sul sito internet Young Diplomats Tony Benn said “War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy” and waging a war is mean to be failed. Yuval Noah Harari, in his book “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” also notes that “if somebody finds a formula to wage a successful wars in the twenty-first century conditions, that gates of hell might open […] Tony Benn said “War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy” and waging a war is mean to be failed. Yuval Noah Harari, in his book “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” also notes that “if somebody finds a formula to wage a successful wars in the twenty-first century conditions, that gates of hell might open with rush”. In the era when the world has Mass Destruction weapons (MDW), thinking to wage a war is to destroy the life on planet. If we look at the statistics, there are today more jihadi terrorist fighting in more countries than there were before the September 11, 2001. According to a report of Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as of January 31, 2018, 43.7 per cent of the afghan territory is still under the control of Taliban. What we have done is quite simple. We have applied the formula of exporting Extremism and importing Terrorism. By tracing the history, without going in detail, we find that the United Stated and the Kingdom Saudi Arabia have been the larger exporters of Extremism in the Muslim World during the Afghan War (1979-1989). Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, in March 2018, himself admitted that Wahhabism was spread at behest of West during the Cold War. The fact is, in the eve of 9/11, USA turned aggressive, radical and racial. The country ultimately changed her way to see and perceive the world particularly the Muslim. Taking her allies on a side, United States, under the leadership of late and ex-President George W. Bush started bloodiest military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and then the entire region of Middle East which resulted in millions of innocent casualties, worst humanitarian crisis, and gave birth to century’s most radical terrorist organisations like Al-Qaida, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and so on. Afghan Taliban, instead of eighteen years of armed engagement, have grown rapidly. If we critically analyse the origin of Talibanism in Afghanistan, the finger rises against the USA itself and her so-called allies in the Muslim World. Unlike Francis Fukuyama, I also feel incomplete without discussing History. During the Cold war, in 1979, when the USSR launched the communist campaign of territorial expansion in Afghanistan that United Stated couldn’t digest and felt it against her interest. So, to fight against communism in Afghanistan, USA with the assistance of her Muslim allies started producing Jihadis. And the USA won the ground, but wait, wait. Soon after the fall of communism when USA left the reigns of Mujahidin (Jihadi Fighters), they turned more radical and aggressive, but with a little difference. The former Jihadi were against the communism, and the later are against...
Articolo pubblicato su YOUNG DIPLOMATS Let’s face it: There is no peace process taking place at the moment, as much as some leaders want to say there is to be politically correct and to maintain some salaries revolving around conflict resolution experts, ministries and other positions related to a possible re-birth of two nations at peace with each other. The hope for the most popular possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict of a two state ending has vanished. The end of a Two State Solution? The two state solution faces several obstacles. When The UN Security Council recently voted to condemn Israeli settlements, Jerusalem’s municipality responded by intending to approve the construction of 600 more houses in the East of the city. At the moment, there are more than half a million Israelis living in what’s supposed to be a future Palestinian state. We are not talking about moving a few families to the western side of the green line: we are talking about entire cities built as settlements. In a hypothetical case of an agreed two state solution, a possible scenario, depending on the incumbent administration at the time of the negotiation, would force the Israeli Arab population to relocate to the Palestinian state, and very understandably, the majority of them would oppose the idea – Cities on which they have been living for generations would be left on the western side of the partition, possibly with better life quality and work opportunities than in the Palestinian side. In a two state solution, as seen through the eyes of some opponents of the idea of keeping Israeli Arabs within Israel, there is little demographic sustainability to maintain a Jewish State, specially since birth rate of the Arab population can easily increase. At the moment, Arabs comprise 20% of the Israeli population, and according to a study made in 2006 presented in the Sixth Herzliya Conference (Zimmerman, Seid and Wise) the population forecast for 2025 predicted that Arabs would comprise 25% of the Israeli population. Not a very accelerated rate, but then again, this is only a prediction. Settler companies play a fundamental role in Palestinian economy Furthermore, not only the Israeli civilians living in the occupied territories would represent a challenge, but the Israeli companies located there as well. Though not denying the unlawful nature of settlements, we should admit that removing settler companies that provide jobs to Palestinians would harshly harm Palestinian economy. Over 60% of the employees in Aluminum Construction corporations, for example, are Palestinian. With plenty of these companies giving Palestinians a far better salary than Palestinian businesses, having them removed from the West Bank can potentially harm both sides. This isn’t hard to imagine, since something similar happened back when SodaStream was forced to leave the West Bank, succumbing to BDS pressure, laying off approximately 500 Palestinians. More than 20,000 Palestinians are employed in the settlements, with thousands more working without permits. That would mean leaving more than 20,000 Palestinians unemployed, and some of their families without another income, possibly drowning the West Bank in poverty. Moreover,...
Articolo originale: http://www.young-diplomats.com/frances-projection-military-force-west-africa-sahel/ Le prospettive future dello sviluppo dell’area saharo-saheliana richiedono una cooperazione politica ed economica più profonda tra la regione e il Nord Africa; tuttora realizzazione di questo potenziale si fonda sulla stabilità politica della regione e sulla sicurezza. La Francia è stata un elemento essenziale nello sviluppo della architettura di sicurezza e nella costruzione del rapporto tra la vasta regione che copre la parte occidentale e settentrionale dell’Africa e le aree Saharo-Sahel. Uno studio sulle cause, i modelli e le tendenze nella proiezione della forza militare francese in Africa occidentale e nel Sahel, scritto da Marcel Kitissou e Beniam Awash che scrive per il Consorzio Sahel, partner di Young Diplomats. Riassunto delle idee chiave Dal 1960, momento in cui è venuto meno l’ambizioso progetto di Charles De Gaulle per un “Grande Sahara francese”, la proiezione della forza militare francese ha portato a più di 100 operazioni militari. La logica che sottostava a queste era una combinazione di recidività – mantenere per mantenere il suo status di potenza globale insieme alla presenza egemonica nell’Africa francofona – e deterrenza – mantenere le minacce fuori da quest’area. I più recenti interventi militari francesi in Costa d’Avorio, Libia, Mali e dimostrano entrambe le qualità, si stabilizzazione e di destabilizzazione, e mostrano le intenzioni di deterrenza – nel dissuadere gli estremisti violenti dagli intenti di destabilizzare la regione – e il ricorso all’intervento ai fini del mantenimento dell’influenza francese e, così, proteggere i suoi privilegi storici. La creazione di un’architettura di sicurezza in grado di facilitare la cooperazione saharo-saheliana e del Nord Africa richiede, in parte, la valutazione delle motivazioni e delle conseguenze della proiezione militari francese sulla sicurezza e la stabilità politica di questa vasta zona incline al conflitto. Inoltre, l’identificazione delle fonti del malcontento delle popolazioni locali, vale a dire l’emarginazione economica e politica, che generano la violenza politica, è il meccanismo principale per garantire una duratura stabilità politica e la sicurezza di questa zona. Nel 2002, l’Operazione Licorne, il recidivo intervento francese in Costa d’Avorio, ha portato all’arresto e la destituzione di Laurent Gbagbo dal potere, stabilizzando la situazione politica in Costa d’Avorio. Al contrario, nel 2011, l’intervento della NATO ma guidato da Parigi in Libia, Opération Harmattan (Operazione Odissea all’alba per gli Stati Uniti), che porta alla morte di Gheddafi ha due sfortunate conseguenze regionali non intenzionali: (i) la proliferazione delle milizie armate e dei jihadisti in Libia; (Ii) la destabilizzazione degli stati dell’area Saharo-Sahel attraverso il traffico di armi e gli attacchi opportunistici da parte di gruppi estremisti jihadisti. Il crollo della Giamahiria Araba Libica e la proliferazione di milizie armate e gruppi jihadisti impegnati nel traffico di armi hanno avuto un effetto profondamente destabilizzante per la sicurezza regionale. Un afflusso di combattenti tuareg induriti nel nord del Mali e dotato di armi pesanti provenienti dai depositi di armi libici e i sequestri delle forze ribelli tuareg da parte di gruppi jihadisti algerini e mauritani è il contesto per il più recente intervento francese. Operando nel vasto spazio saheliano vagamente pattugliato,...