The stalemate on the negotiation for the formation of a government in Northern Ireland, the resignation of the Scottish government of Nicola Sturgeon after the harsh confrontations between London and Edinburgh in recent months and the turn hypothesized by Rishi Sunak on a possible British withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) point convergently in the same direction: the rekindling of British nationalism after the completion of Brexit. At the root of which there is precisely the British desire to consolidate, in the name of the Global Britain project and the exit from the EU, the internal empire of England on the Celtic nations that make up the United Kingdom.

The disruptive force of British nationalism is out of time in several respects, first of all the attempt to separate the fate of decline of London from that of the rest of Europe, and engine of the future vision of the United Kingdom at the same time. It is written Global Britain, it reads Global England: the England that with the vote of the deindustrialized areas of the North, of the areas just below Hadrian’s Wall, of the lands of miners and workers who have become unemployed pushes Brexit and the dream of the Conservative Party leadership to make it the take-off point for a country increasingly centered on London. Financial capital, “pirate ship” moving in the rough sea of globalization, “Singapore on the Thames” of financial deregulation.

Gavin Esler, author of How Britain Ends and chancellor of the University of Kent, has long pointed to British nationalism as a threat to the very unity of the British state, especially if frustrated post-Brexit hopes fuel wall-to-wall attitudes with Belfast, Edinburgh and, to a lesser extent, Wales’ capital Cardiff. In 2015, calling for the 2016 Brexit referendum, “David Cameron acknowledged that 3.8 million people voted for Ukip, which was the British nationalist party, and that something had to be done about it,” Esler said in an interview with GQ. Cameron has tried unsuccessfully to ride the tiger and Esler acknowledges, looking back at the referendum vote that “British voters have every right to feel irritated. And instead of doing something for them, what has happened is that, particularly under Boris Johnson, the Conservatives have co-opted British nationalism.”

The Tories have long ridden the idea of a new exceptionalism. And in Johnson’s narrative first and then Sunak the idea returns that Brexit, conceived by the British and voted for by the British, is the first stage of a return of the imperial narrative. Therefore, of a global projection of a United Kingdom no longer a satellite of the European Empire of the United States but capable of autonomous projection as a world power. Hence the financial protagonism of London after Brexit, the constant tug-of-war with Brussels, the hard fist against local nationalisms, moved to the progressive camp and on the economic Left in response to the Tories, and their demands, the alliance in Ulster with the Protestant and reactionary Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and crutch of the May government in 2017-2019, the missionary vocation in foreign policy. This last point is very verifiable in the narrative followed by Johnson, Liz Truss and Sunak in the year of war in Ukraine, in which the reference to the nineteenth-century “Great Game” has dusted off what on these columns we have called the “ghost of the empire“.

The consequence of all this? The multiplication of centrifugal thrusts in all fields. The end of “Britishness” in favor of the dynamism of localisms in the Celtic nations and the increasingly hypertrophied English nationalism, well verifiable in the concentration of offices in the thirteen years of Tory governments. In perspective, thanks to the disappearance of the unitary figure of Queen Elizabeth II and the dilemmas on the future of the Monarchy, the very disunity of the British nation no longer appears only a chimera, but a perspective that cannot be excluded in average historical terms, perhaps already in a generation. And if so, English nationalism, neo-imperial in its narrative, would appear as the first proponent of the detachment of His Majesty’s domains.

L'articolo “How Britain Ends”: is nationalism threatening the future of the United Kingdom? proviene da InsideOver.

It was rather a bumpy ride. Even if there was never a war between Poland and the United Kingdom the bilateral relations between two countries over the last century were rather sinusoidal. Recently, Brexit complicated Polish-British relations even more, but the Russian aggression on Ukraine in 2022 lifted them up and took them to a whole new level: strategic cooperation. As long as the security issues will be a priority, British-Polish relations remain strong.

Land and sea powers

Nobel Prize winner and poet, Czesław Miłosz wrote in his book „Family Europe” some words about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, an electoral monarchy established as such in 1569. The common Polish-Lithuanian state connected communities, nations, and lands between the Baltic and the Black Sea, being at the time the greatest land power of Europe and the gate for the continental connections with Asia. In the same historical moment, in the other part of Europe, another great power emerged the United Kingdom. One was by land power, the other by sea power.

The word Commonwealth used by Czesław Miłosz to describe the Polish-Lithuanian state is nothing more than a calque of the British solution, the beginning of which was the union of England and Scotland in 1707 — historically a bit later, but much better known in the world. In his book the Lithuanian-born poet also wrote about the kind of worldview, at the time when Queen Elizabeth I ruled in London; an imagination in which „the masts of the fast ships chasing Spanish galleons off Jamaica and Barbados were mostly from my country”. This „my country” for the poet was exactly the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth — for the world of those times, rich in forests, wood, and crops, which it traded with practically the entire world at that time, especially the Brits and Dutch. If the early „globalization” of the 17th century was based on the invention of modern ships — caravels — it could not have happened without Central European Commonwealth, which provided all the necessary raw materials for their construction.

Let this connection, legendary on one hand, and very concrete on the other, serve as a proper description of Polish-British relations. When the Battle of Hastings in 1066 took place on England’s southeast coast, Bolesław II the Bold, third King of Poland from the Piast dynasty, ruled in the first Polish capital, Gniezno; when the English Magna Carta was presented in 1215, the first Polish immunity privilege for the Church was granted by the Piast dynasty dukes: the clergy gained considerable independence from the state authority. Developed later different kinds of charters of liberties, e.g. Statue of Kalisz or Statutes of Nieszawa — the signature mark of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth law order — had the very same core value, as the British Habeas Corpus Act from 1679: ensuring the freedom of the individual.

It seems that Czesław Miłosz’s intuition — although not explicitly expressed — works to the conclusion that up to a certain point, the history over the Vistula River can be seen as a mirror image of that of the River Thames. The link between those two is the value dearest to both nations: freedom.

Shadows Over the Channel

Even if the British-Polish relations are long and rich in history, the last 100 years were crucial. After the partition of Poland in the 18th century, because of which the country disappeared from the maps for 123 years, Britain was along with its allies France and later the United States, crucial in securing Polish independence at the end of World War I. But during the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I, the British delegation under David Lloyd George opposed France and the United States’ territorial concessions towards Poland as excessive and potentially provocative. Lloyd George was influential in making the city of Gdańsk an autonomous city-state rather than a Polish territory. Another major point of disagreement was the point of the Polish eastern borders. During the Polish-Soviet War (the 1920s), the support of the British government was with Poland, but peace was by far the preferred option resulting in Lord Curzon’s drawing of the artificial Curzon Line as part of an attempted mediated peace. The agreement was not adopted, and the so-called Curzon Line became one of the most crucial disagreements between the Polish leader Józef Piłsudski and his counterparts, not only in the UK.

With the rise of the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s, the British and the Poles began to see more of a point in friendly relations. On 31 March 1939, the British Empire made even a guarantee of independence to Poland, and 25th of August, an Anglo-Polish military alliance was signed but it didn’t work to defend Poland from Germany.

Exactly that event was one of two phenomena, which weigh heavily on the assessment of Polish-British relations during World War II. The lack of aid for Poland adequate to earlier declarations in the face of the aggression of Nazi Germany in September 1939 overshadowed the bilateral relations for many years. The second was related to the transfer of Poland to the Soviet sphere of influence and the taking away from Poland of part of the eastern lands located outside the mentioned above Curzon Line after World War II. Some other controversies were caused by the fact that the Polish forces were not invited to the Victory Parade, which took place in London on June 8, 1946, after the defeat of the Third Reich. Representatives of dozens of countries from around the world paraded through the streets of the British capital but there were no Poles among them even if The Polish Armed Forces in the West were the fourth largest Allied army in the fight against Hitler’s troops. From the Polish side, bilateral relations were also overshadowed by the issue of diminishing the merits of Polish cryptologists who managed to break the Enigma machine cipher just before the war. The British cryptographer Sir Alan Turing was based on the achievements of Polish mathematicians, for which he himself thanked those interested.

Freedom Fighters

Even if the Polish-British relations can be considered sinusoidal over the last century, one thing is clear: the history of the world goes on at its own pace, regardless of personal dissensions or even specific interests. One event can change everything.  An example of such would be any attempt at an imperial takeover of Europe. Historically speaking, it always made the two countries fight side by side against this danger. Such a breakthrough moment was undoubtedly the moment of Russian aggression against Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

It is difficult to say that this was the beginning of a new opening between London and Warsaw, as this date back much earlier, when Poland entered the European Union in 2004 or even when Margaret Thatcher strongly support the Polish fight against communism in the 1980s. However, the Russian aggression against Ukraine made the relations between London and Warsaw stronger, than anytime before. Such strategic cooperation nowadays has been based on common values (freedom), economy, military cooperation, and the Polish diaspora, which is one of the largest national minorities in the UK. Politically speaking, the Polish community in Great Britain is very important: 800 000 Polish citizens live almost in every corner of the UK. In Poland, almost everybody knows someone who has gone there.

But even that, the British-Polish alliance stems primarily from a common — and centuries-old — sense of the Russian threat, knowledge of Russian imperialism, and ideological attachment to freedom. Poland, like no other country in the world, has learned what Russian colonialism and imperialism are, which are widely reported today by the media, to take Bucza or Irpień as examples.

On the other hand, after leaving the EU, the United Kingdom wanted to demonstrate many times that, yes, it left the EU political structures, but it is still involved in European affairs, it wants to build relations with its allies, but in a different way. The war in Ukraine gave the UK the opportunity to demonstrate this commitment. Great Britain has to prove that it has not become close to the world’s „little England” and through its involvement in Ukraine, it proves just that. For Poland, the attractiveness of Great Britain stems also from the fact that it is a credible and at the same time a significant partner in terms of security. There are many countries that have a similar view of Russia, that understand that what is happening in Ukraine is not an episode, but another element in a chain of events that began in Georgia in 2008, or even in Chechnya — such as the Baltic states — but unfortunately, they are of little military importance. United Kingdom is still one of the most important NATO members.

The permanence of interests and things, compared to the impermanence of people, is astonishing.

L'articolo United Kingdom and Poland: a new “special relationship”? proviene da InsideOver.

On Saturday, Turkey rebuked Iran for “offensive language” aimed at Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from Iran. The reaction from Iran came in connection with a controversial poem read by Erdoğan suggests Iran’s northwestern provinces belong to Azerbaijan.

What Did Erdoğan Say?

A couple of days before the incident, Erdoğan paid a visit to close ally Azerbaijan for a military parade marking Baku’s victory over Armenia after six weeks of fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh.

During his visit, the Turkish President recited a poem that Tehran said could fan separatism among Iran’s Azeri minority. Iran is home to a substantial Azeri community, mostly in northwestern provinces next to Azerbaijan and Armenia, where the Aras river defines the national borders.

The poem sparked particular fury from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Iran’s ISNA news agency.

Turkey-Iran Fight Sparked by Poem

It has also triggered a diplomatic row between Iran and Turkey. According to Arab News, the Iranian Government summoned the Turkish ambassador to Tehran to complain about Erdoğan’s “interventionist” comments.

However, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told his Iranian counterpart in a phone call on Saturday that Iran’s “baseless and heavy statements” are “unacceptable.”

Regardless of the outcome of this situation, it proves how delicate the relationship between Ankara and Tehran is. In recent years, both countries have strengthened their cooperation in many ways. For example, although Turkey and Iran continue to rival each other in Syria, they both condemn Washington’s continued presence in the country.

Both nations also resent the growing threat by the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and its regional offshoots.

Iran is an Unreliable Partner for Turkey

When picking a fight with Turkey, Iran has to be careful about how far it is willing to go to provoke their Turkish counterparts, especially when US sanctions continue to cripple the Iranian economy. Ankara views Tehran as a strategic source for natural gas and crude oil resources that is crucial for its energy security and diversification efforts. For Iran, Turkey is the biggest importer of its natural gas and a key importer of its crude oil. Therefore, it is likely that Erdoğan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will continue to need each other from an economic perspective in the future.

Despite this, Turkey’s latest move to withdraw from more military strongholds in Syria’s north-west province of Idlib, for the purpose of eliminating potential risks and strategic vulnerabilities that Turkish forces could face in the event of a renewed offensive by the Assad regime and Iranian militias, suggests that Syria will remain a thorn in the side for both Erdoğan and Rouhani.

The arrival of a Biden administration in the US will also leave the Turkish President increasingly isolated on the international stage. Turkey expert Ömer Taşpınar wrote for the Asia Times that Joe Biden will not be afraid to speak out against Turkish autocracy in the same way Donald Trump was. The Turkish regime will be left with fewer allies by the time January arrives.

Turkey Should Strengthen its Relationship With Saudi Arabia

Mithat Rende, former Turkish Ambassador to Qatar, said Biden will make Turkey and Saudi Arabia realize that their sustained rivalry cannot continue. This is because the incoming US president will be equally critical of the Saudi regime.

Also, the Turkish economy is deteriorating at the moment and Saudi money can bring new money into the country.

Ankara’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood will remain a stumbling block for Riyadh. The 2011 Arab Spring badly damaged the relationship between Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but the 2020s could usher in a new era of Turkish-Saudi cooperation.

It is in Turkey’s best interests to start rebuilding its relations with Saudi Arabia. Its dispute with Iran over the poem Erdoğan recited recently may result in nothing, but it also highlights how tense the Turkish-Iranian relationship is. The Turkish President must tread carefully.

L'articolo What’s Next for Turkish-Iranian Relations After Diplomatic Flare-Up? proviene da InsideOver.

Chinese strategy can be hard to grasp, with wildly different views from politicians and analysts, lots of scary headlines — lots of letters and numbers like the J20, THAAD or the F35 — as well as a certain mysterious quality and lack of knowledge about Chinese history.

But it isn’t as intimidating when you keep in mind a few key concepts.

China’s History Holds Crucial Clues

China boasts a history dating back thousands of years and has arguably the longest continual cultural tradition on the globe. But you don’t have to memorize the names of dozens of dynasties. (Perhaps if you really want to impress the ladies you could). The most important summation of thousands of years of history is to realize that they were the dominant power in Asia for much of their history and the government references this frequently in modern policy discussions.

The most important parts of modern Chinese history include two specific periods. From 1843 to 1949 China entered a period of weakness and civil war that only ended with the Communists taking power under Mao Zedong. During this time, the dynasty was largely helpless to stop Western intrusions. Chinese textbooks still cite the Opium War fought by the British. Various Western powers carved up spheres of influence. The US was the least offensive of these powers, but they still demanded and received open trading ports.

Matters became worse after the last leader of the dynasty fell in 1911 and the result was a general perception of weakness in contravention to much of Chinese history and an earned, but overused complaint of being victims. (See point #3.)

China’s Geography

That weakness made the second period, from 1949 to the present, much more pressing for China.  When they finally had a strong government and unified country for the first time in 100 years they set about reasserting their dominance. China has fought offensive preemptive wars with every one of their neighbors to settle territorial disputes or (re)assert their primacy. Many of these events tried to change the terms of what they call, unequal treaties, made with imperialist powers during their period of weakness.

The border with India was established when the British ruled there, and China tried to change the terms of the Sino Soviet Treaty of Friendship made when China was the much weaker partner. Regions like Mongolia, the Taiwan Straight, and Korea and Vietnam also represent historically important areas to China they considered part of their strategic interests.

The Difference Between Rhetoric and Reality

Points 1 and 2 combine to form this point. While China seems to be acting in a manner that recalls the traditional vigorous and expansionist early stages of dynasties, they do so under the old Confucian rhetoric which claims China is beset by foreigners and simply asserting their national rights against bullying imperialists. Knowing the simple difference between the rhetoric of being a victim, and their assertive and even aggressive actions explains their defense of those actions.

For example, the last time the US affirmed international law by sailing in international waters the Chinese claimed they fired two missiles as a defense against US aggression. The difference between true defensive measures and aggressive claims such as those in the South China Sea is that China violate maritime law to expand territory, while the US affirms international law to make sure territorial claims aren’t settled by force — which would naturally favor Beijing since it is the biggest power in the region.

China’s Mastery of Technology

Rhetoric verses reality also applies to weapon systems. The most common way Americans learn about China is some fearmongering article that promises to be a game changer, make the carrier obsolete, or expose a fundamental flaw in US strategy. The Chinese are fielding numerous impressive planes and plan to swarm US forces with overwhelming amounts of missiles.  But missiles are not a new technology. They might be faster, and harder to track, but the US defenses are also upgrading their tracking technology, adding numerous, low cost defensive layers like lasers, and obtaining better interceptors.

This is a response and counter response between China and America, not innovative game changing technology from one or the other. But newspapers are much like politicians, and find that scary, breathless articles get more clicks than nuanced analysis.

As far back as Santa Anna’s Mexican army invading Texas and as recently as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, there have been supposedly large and advanced armies promising the mother of all battles only to evaporate upon contact with the US military.

Challenges to Chinese Power

That leads to the final point: any potential conflict between the United States and China won’t be fought by weapon systems. Thousands of years ago the classical Confucian scholar Guanzi advocated for a “broad knowledge” of history instead of simply focusing on weapons. Even the robots of the future such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and subs often have a human driver.

China faces similar problems to many of those in Western countries plus a few that are unique to them. Recruits from a sedentary and urban society on average are larger and have more breathing problems. Because of the one child policy many Chinese adolescents have also been spoiled and have what is called little emperor syndrome. One a larger scale, the one child policy is creating a demographic time bomb.

Like other Western countries, China relies on immigrant labor to fill key gaps in the economy, though unlike the West China puts many of them in forced labor camps. Thus, even if it has the best weapons Beijing may not have the best economic foundation or skilled soldiers to fight an actual hot war.

Conclusions

This basic primer on history, geography, rhetoric, technology, and broader knowledge should prepare you for the next breathless article about a mysterious Chinese weapon system, their supposed victimhood, or another flare up in the South China Sea.

L'articolo Five Keys to Understanding Chinese Strategy proviene da InsideOver.

Beijing is attempting to utilize the ongoing pandemic to celebrate its most significant victory over the United States to date. It reportedly managed COVID-19 better than Washington and now aims to deliver the world’s first meaningful vaccine.

With America never having had the virus under control and Europe currently stumbling into the second wave, the country responsible for the virus is steadily climbing up the ladder to its previous status quo and beyond.

China’s Strong Position

As of now, China is the world’s only major economy that has grown. The public does not fear the virus and has somewhat resumed its everyday life, even regarding travel. Compared to October 2019, the month of China’s national day, national travel decreased by only 20 percent.

It is thus no surprise that China is currently exuding confidence. The virus appears to be an issue of the past. While occasional local outbreaks continue to occur, the government has set up a gigantic test apparatus that has helped contain the virus. As a result, the situation in China has largely normalized. The success translates into marketable self-confidence, particularly in light of the mediocre crisis management Washington has delivered.

Beijing is Devoting Enormous Resources for Creating a Vaccine

But China’s magnum opus is yet to come. Beijing has put all its resources behind the development of a vaccine. Those who have paid attention to China over those past four decades will know that if China needs to get something done, it will get it done – and generally in record time.

Naturally, the sought-after acceleration in finding vaccines takes a level of creativity. Beijing has hence outsourced its testing. As a result, Chinese vaccines are currently being tested in more than a dozen countries. It is a quid pro quo in which the participating countries will receive priority access to a vaccine in return. It is the often mentioned and controversial “corona diplomacy”.

With Beijing throwing the kitchen sink at the vaccine, the New Yorker even recently reported a vaccine is set to be released in October. Four Chinese companies are currently conducting Phase III testing: the critical phase of vaccine clinical testing.

Vaccination is Already Taking Place in China

However, although none of the Chinese companies have concluded the clinical tests yet, vaccination is already taking place in China. The National Health Commission announced this in September and justified its decision with the emergency rules of the WHO. The commission left open how many Chinese receive a vaccine.

The fact that the risk of infection in China is practically zero is positive for the people, but it is detrimental for vaccine development. It is impossible to find out whether a vaccine protects against infection. Therefore, the Chinese vaccine developers test their vaccines in more than a dozen other countries, including Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

China’s Attempt to Wield Increased Global Influence With a Vaccine

The Chinese “corona diplomacy” even led to new alliances. The UAE, a historical partner of the United States, recently introduced a Chinese vaccine for emergency use. Beijing has also promised preferential access to a vaccine to several countries in Africa and Asia.

However, the “corona diplomacy” undermines China’s pledge, namely to make a vaccine available to the world as a “global public good”, as President Xi Jinping announced at a WHO meeting in May.

Moreover, China has utilized the opportunity to extend its influence globally by joining the Covax initiative. Under the leadership of the WHO, Covax aims to promote the development and dissemination of affordable vaccines. China’s engagement continuous the trend of filling the vacuum the US isolationism under President Trump has occurred.

If China were to become the first nation to produce an effective vaccine on a large scale, the symbolic weight would further exacerbate its rise and the US’s decline on the global stage, and so far, the country where the pandemic had its origin appears to be in great shape to deliver.

L'articolo Signs of Sino Ambition: China and its Quest for a COVID-19 Vaccine proviene da InsideOver.

Over the weekend, right-wing nationalist Ersin Tatar won the presidential election in Turkish-controlled northern Cyprus. Tatar, who won 52 percent of the vote on Sunday, has made it clear that he wants to ensure that Cyprus remains divided.

His rival and predecessor, Mustafa Akinci, sought reunification with the Greek part of the island. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who supported Tatar during his election campaign, congratulated him on his victory.

Sunday was the second round of the presidential election, after Tatar secured 32 percent of the vote in the first round on October 11, while Akinci won almost 30 percent.

Tatar’s Victory is a Blow to the Cypriot Peace Process

UN Secretary General António Guterres had wanted to resume peace talks in the coming months, but these upcoming discussions might not even happen now that reunification no longer seems like an option.

Turkey was instrumental in ensuring that Tatar won both rounds of northern Cyprus’s election. For example, they helped Tatar orchestrate the opening of the once fabled beachfront of Varosha last week. Part of the sealed-off area of Famagusta deserted by Greek Cypriots when Turkish forces invaded in 1974, it has been off-limits ever since and is a component of negotiations.

Critics decried what they viewed as a political stunt intended to improve Tatar’s poll ratings, and Akinci described the move as a stain on democracy. But the move also demonstrates that Erdoğan has no interest in reunifying Cyprus either.

Turkey has Continuously Thwarted the Cyprus Peace Process

The current northern Cypriot President was also able to depend upon the support of Ankara and Turkish settlers who arrived in the northern part of the island from the Turkish mainland. The influx has transformed the north’s demographic makeup and contributed toward a growing sense of Islamization in northern Cyprus. If Tatar were to betray his base of support in the future, this would have devastating electoral consequences for him, which is why he will remain firm in his determination to keep Cyprus divided during his term of office.

The last time Cyprus came close to peace was in 2017 when a peace process was led by the President of the island’s internationally recognized and Greek-administered south Nicos Anastasiades and Akinci. It had been viewed as the most promising process in decades to end the conflict. However, talks collapsed in Crans Montana, Switzerland, in July 2017.

Anastasiades declared that the 2017 talks failed because of Turkey’s “inflexible stance and insistence” on maintaining the Treaty of Guarantee (which the UK, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus signed in 1960 to guarantee the island’s status as a republic), as well as a permanent presence of troops.

It’s Time for the US to Intervene in the Peace Process

Even though both Anastasiades and Guterres declared last month that they hoped that the negotiations would start again this year, both of them claimed that Turkey intended to preserve the two-state solution before talks even started. Thanks to Tatar’s victory, Erdoğan will no doubt interpret this event as justification for his stance toward the island.

Either way, it is time for the US to become more involved in Cyprus’s peace process. They could help modernize Cyprus’s military forces and participate in its energy sector. Washington’s presence would be able to counter Moscow and Ankara in the island. In 2021, the US should make it its priority to ensure that both Turkish and Greek Cypriots receive the same rights, and that both the Turkish and Greek governments uphold them. This would help ensure that the division of Cyprus ends in the long-term.

Northern Cyprus’s recent election is a short-term blow to the Cypriot peace process, but hope is not lost if the US starts to intervene in the island’s affairs more. It is the only option the UN and the EU have left considering they have both failed miserably to secure a long lasting agreement all this time.

L'articolo What Impact Will Northern Cyprus Election Results Have on the Peace Process? proviene da InsideOver.

Mass protests in Belarus against the reelection of Alexander Lukashenko have now entered their fifty-second consecutive day. The former Soviet state has now fallen deeply into the post-Cold War proxy war involving Russia and the West.

The European Union (EU) stated that Lukashenko – who has been in power for 26 years – must resign. Brussels refuses to acknowledge the election result due to alleged election fraud. Russia, meanwhile, is ready to intervene in the Belarus crisis as a last resort. 

Russian leader Vladimir Putin added that Lukashenko asked him to form a  law-enforcement reserve force, but said that Russia will not deploy the special unit unless the situation becomes uncontrollable.

Why do Russia and the West care so much about Belarus? To answer that a brief overview is necessary.

How Did the Belarus Crisis Begin?

The current political turmoil in Belarus began when a state-sponsored poll showed that Lukashenko had been reelected, securing his sixth term in office. He beat reform-minded politician Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, whose husband was jailed by the Lukashenko regime.

Lukashenko’s triumph triggered a nationwide protest, with widespread accusations that the election was neither free nor fair. The 66-year-old also arrested several opposition figures such as Viktor Babaryko and Maxim Znak, with the latter being detained by a masked man.

More than 100 have been arrested for protesting against the election result. Demonstrations and scores of arrests have also spread to numerous other cities in Belarus.

On Wednesday night, September 23, thousands of Belarusians took to the street protesting Lukashenko’s secret inauguration. Protesters formed a human chain that blocked several roads and caused congestion. Similarly large protests are still ongoing.

Belarus-Russia Ties: a Rocky Road

After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Belarus and Russia maintained close ties. Even though Lukashenko sometimes annoys Putin – like accusing Russian mercenaries of planning a terror act ahead of the poll and refusing to host a Russian airbase – Belarus needs Russia to support its economy, given that Russia supplies 80 percent of Belarus’ energy needs.

Belarus and Russia signed a Union State Treaty in 1997, aimed at boosting both countries’ cooperation, especially in socioeconomic, international relations and defense. It is expected that the treaty will also lead to a similar currency and legal system.

However, the relationship strained after Russia was not ready to continue subsidizing Belarus’ energy without a deeper economic integration. Lukashenko refused a deeper economic integration, leading to Russia’s decision to suspend oil shipments to its traditional ally temporarily.

Even though Lukashenko is trying to balance his policy by cooperating with the West, he is turning to Russia for help in facing these prolonged protests.

The West vs. Russia in Belarus

What is happening in Belarus may not be overly surprising in terms of the Western response. Indeed it has become common for the West to oppose any leaders endorsed by Russia. Venezuela is one example of how the West is trying to oust a legitimate president using the rigged election allegation.

The West is using the strained Belarus-Russia ties to exert its influence. Carnegie Moscow stated that Belarus has tried to boost its national identity instead of being under Russia’s shadow for the past few years. This represents a potential point of entry for Western influence and involvement. 

Crimea’s annexation by Russia from Ukraine in 2014 triggered sharp condemnation from the West, given Crimea’s strategic location surrounded by the oil-rich Black Sea.  Even though Russia may refrain itself from intervening militarily in Belarus and Putin has urged the conflicting sides in Belarus to seek peaceful solutions, the West is concerned and doesn’t want to lose even more ground in the post-Soviet sphere. 

As long as Europe and Russia continue trying to exert greater influence on Belarus, it is likely that Belarus’s internal conflict will only continue and intensify.

L'articolo Why Does Belarus Matter to Russia and the West? proviene da InsideOver.

Most of Saudi Arabia’s history has been dominated by authoritarian systems of government, from caliphs to tribal leaders and kings. Democratic institutions such as a parliamentary body have never had a chance in the Arab kingdom. That history notwithstanding, a group of Saudis now residing in a slew of states across the globe have created a political party aimed at reforming Riyadh’s political system.

Introducing the National Assembly Party

According to Reuters, notable members of the recently formed National Assembly Party (NAAS) include Yahya Assiri, who leads UK-based Saudi rights group ALQST, Abdullah al-Awdah, the son of jailed Islamist preacher; esteemed Islamic scholar Saeed bin Nasser al-Ghamdi and Shi’ite activist Ahmed al-Mshikhs. 

Many of these individuals have been exiled by the Saudi government and now hold residence in the UK, US, and Canada. The budding group of politicians are therefore operating NAAS in absentia, making it even more unlikely that they will find success in their far-fetched goals, which include Riyadh establishing a parliament and introducing Constitutional separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

As difficult as it is to imagine the Saudi monarchy relinquishing any sliver of power, it’s worth noting that Saudis are expressly forbid from even forming political parties such as NAAS. Other Saudis have previously attempted to do so from within the kingdom, but he monarchy stifled their plans in their infancy, arresting political party organizers on two occasions – first in 2007, then in 2011.

Given the astronomical odds of success, why even bother forming NAAS?

Planting Seeds For Future Change

“We are announcing the launch of this party at a critical moment to try to save our country… to institute a democratic future and to respond to our people’s aspirations,” Assiri, the party’s general-secretary, told Agence France-Presse.

Fellow party member Madawi al-Rasheed explained, “The timing is very important… the climate of repression is only increasing.” NAAS will not, however, call for protests in Saudi Arabia, she emphasized. That decision is likely a practical one as much as it is political.

Protest movements aimed at democratizing Middle Eastern governments have a lackluster track record that inspires little confidence. Following the Arab Spring that involved nearly 20 states including Saudi Arabia, only a handful actually emerged with sustained democratic reforms. For the most part, one of two outcomes happened: monarchies, such as Jordan, remained in power, but offered some economic and political concessions; or governments were overthrown with their states devolving into more conflict, like civil war. 

In short, NAAS organizers understand little will come from inspiring an uprising that will surely be doomed to failure. Instead, NAAS was founded with the intention of planting seeds for slow, long-term changes — ideas that could take generations to become fixtures in the Arab kingdom.

MbS Gave Hope For Progressive Ideals

One need only look at how long it took the kingdom to reverse bans on women driving and cinemas. From 1957 to 2018, women were forbidden from driving in Saudi Arabia – the only state in the world to enforce such a measure. 

After the prolific rise of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, commonly referred to as MbS, Riyadh started to quickly change. International observers and Saudi nationals alike were drawn to MbS’ openness for change. During a 60 Minutes interview, the Saudi heir even lamented on how he desires a return to pre-1970s Saudi Arabia when women walked freely without wearing abayas. 

Riyadh Has a Long Way To Go

In this new age of progressive reform in Saudi Arabia, NAAS wants to push the envelop further. However, as progressive as MbS can be, he can be equally as brutal clamping down on threats to his power.

“The government constantly practices violence and repression, with mounting numbers of political arrests and assassinations, increasingly aggressive policies against regional states, enforced disappearances and people being driven to flee the country,” NAAS said in a statement.

MbS has targeted high-profile critics of his government, as illustrated the October 2018 murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, an American resident and Saudi national. 

Riyadh has one of the world’s worst records on human rights and an incredibly centralized power structure whereby the crown controls every aspect of government including the media and judiciary branch. Under MbS, freedom of expression has come under attack by the monarchy as Saudi Arabia attempts to curtail any notions of democratic life.

The Time Is Now

Judging by current events the future of Saudi Arabia is bipolar. On the one hand, MbS has breathed modern life and progressively, direly needed reforms into his state. On the other hand, enjoying these reforms requires submitting to the crown prince’s conception of complete and total control of all life within the kingdom. 

NAAS was created as a challenge to that idea and although its members can’t possibly realistically expect it to succeed in forcing constitutional changes, it is taking shape at an interesting point in time. The Saudi monarchy rose to power on the back of oil revenues, which led to a storied alliance with the US. 

But the sun is setting on oil empires, an observation made clearer this year as demand plummeted. MbS has a plan to reshape the Saudi economy, known as Vision 2030, but will the world buy into a state that has no glimmer of democratic institutions? Elsewhere across the globe, authoritarian leaders wield near complete power, but their people still some form of legislative representation. Take China, Russia, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, almost any other state and you will find political parties at the national level.

The goals of NAAS may take generations to achieve, but the time is now, as its members say, to put the wheels in motion. For right now, the party operates from outside the kingdom’s borders, but one day political parties may become a reality in Riyadh.

L'articolo Saudi Dissidents Create Political Party to Oppose Riyadh’s Monarchy proviene da InsideOver.

Two recent articles about China published on the same day are a good example of the difference between facts and analysis, as well as the importance of doing your own critical active reading.

Is China Old News or the Next Big Thing?

The first author provides a model of a failing contender to say that China has reached its apogee and will soon fall behind the US putting them in the same dangerous position as Germany in 1914 and Japan in 1941. The second author says that China is more belligerent due to the insular concerns of its dictator, and that the US will only be able to retain its military balance of power for the next 5 to 10 years against China.

Which is it? Which model provides the best evidence? How can they take the same data and come to different conclusions? What difference does the model make in determining the analysis and conclusion?

Which Article is Right?

They both have flaws. The first article doesn’t explain in detail how any power was considered a faltering contender. Some primary sources like leaders explicitly considering their relative position via other powers is a good start. The raw data concerning population, industrial capacity, would have been the optimal second step.

The article includes a reference to a secondary book that is a good, but the article could have used more. Moreover, the cause of the World War I is the subject of endless debate from the moment the war started. It’s tough to use one secondary source to then say that all the competing and contributing factors – nationalism, the alliance system, German militarism, mobilization timetables, the cult of the offensive – were superseded or directed by that one factor. In short, it’s tough to believe his cause for World War I is correct or compelling.

Yet that single cause becomes the model by which we are supposed to understand Chinese behavior.  The author listed many items that sound persuasive. Yet, as with his historical examples, the author didn’t present any hard data such as relative growth, GDP, or size of the military forces to make the case for a faltering contender. Thus, the author’s analysis relies on his examples doing the heavy analytical lifting.

The readers are supposed to assume that China is like 1914 Germany and 1941 Japan on the precipice of war.  Yet we could just as easily conclude that China will survive its black eye from the COVID-19 crisis, abort Hong Kong’s special rights without long term consequences, end their clash with India, and weather their economic storms to continue massive long term growth. Again, without specific metrics their status as faltering contender is debatable.

The second article’s major flaw was that he said that Chinese leader Xi Jinping was a cipher that nobody knew much about. This is true in most secretive but powerful organizations to the point that discerning their intentions and goals is often called “Kreminlology.” But then author went on to provide a single model for Xi’s decision making. Xi is supposedly scarred by his family being purged in the cultural revolution and then takes 21st century Leninism into the era where state tools are so much more powerful.

The author doesn’t consider a variety of long-term factors such as economic models and population growth that can drive political economic and military decisions. As you’ll notice, Xi’s traumatic childhood doesn’t have much to do with military dominance. I don’t have any indication for the sources the second author used to make that statement. The latest defense report indicates that China will not have a “world class” military until 2049 and though China has achieved superiority in some areas like ship building and land based missiles, “major gaps and shortcomings remain.”

Getting to the Truth About China

As I’ve written extensively, including in my book Dragon’s Claws With Feet of Clay: A Primer on Modern Chinese Strategy, I think China has many wonder weapons that make the news and sound scary. Those are the dragon’s claws. But borrowing from the vision of Daniel in the Old Testament, they have feet of clay. Economically their command-driven economy has created a bubble that will dwarf the 2008 housing crisis, a one child policy that creates demographic challenges, no war time experience from the top down to the bottom inducing staff officers and NCOs. (Notice how this is more detail about the Chinese military than either author provided.)

As a result, there is reason to be concerned, but little reason to believe they will outpace the US in 5 to 10 years. The second article seemed a bit more like Australian insider baseball musings.

Using these writings as case studies readers should have a much better grasp of how to assess pieces on their own. This is a good example of how two people can talk about the same subject and reach wildly different conclusions by using different analytical models that drive their thinking.

One relied on some historical examples to provide a modern model, but both sides of the equation lacked clear data and the example did the heavy lifting which is never what you want to have happen. The second author provided even less data to support his analysis, which is even more damning consider he was trying to divine the inner workings of Xi Jinping.

L'articolo Faltering Contender or Military Dominance: a Tale of Two Chinas proviene da InsideOver.

For decades, fostering strong relations with sub-Saharan Africa has been a pillar of France’s foreign policy. Paris has been keen on forging close relations with the countries of this region, arguably making France the most important foreign player south of the Sahara.

France and Turkey Vie for Influence in Sub-Saharan Africa

France maintains a wide range of accords with most sub-Saharan countries in different fields from foreign aid and technical assistance to defense cooperation. This has all helped France to wield considerable power and influence over these countries in the political, economic, social and cultural fields.

This French influence, however, is being challenged by Turkey, an arch rival to Paris. In recent years, Ankara has been seeking to gain a foothold in the former French colonies in sub-Saharan Africa.

An example of this was last month’s visit by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu to Niger, where he signed a host of agreements on economic and defense cooperation. This visit came a few months after the two countries signed an agreement in January of this year to allow Turkey’s General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) to conduct exploration and mining operations in Niger.

Resource Competition

Although Niger is one of the world’s poorest countries with chronic hunger and malnutrition, the African country is rich in natural resources such as uranium. According to the British Geological Survey, Niger is the world’s fourth largest producer of uranium.

Of note, two-thirds of electricity generated by France come from nuclear power. One-third of the uranium used in this power production was mined in Niger by the French company Areva.

Niger is also a next-door neighbor to Libya, where Turkey and France support opposing rivals. While Turkey backs the UN-recognized, Tripoli-based Government of National Accord, France, along with Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Russia, supports eastern strongman Khalifa Haftar, the commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA). The Turkish military assistance has helped repel a year-long assault by Haftar on Tripoli and forced him to retreat to the central city of Sirte.

Erdogan’s African Tour

In the same month of January, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made a three-state African tour that took him to Algeria, Senegal and Gambia – all three were former French colonies.

Ankara sees Algeria as an important gate for its connectivity with the rest of Africa. The country is the largest in Africa, covering an area of 2,381,741 square kilometers, and possesses a sizable amount of natural gas and petroleum deposits, making it the fourth-biggest economy in the region.

Algeria is Turkey’s fourth natural gas supplier after Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan. It also offers attractive investment opportunities for Turkish companies. Turkey is one of the top foreign investors in Algeria, with investments worth $3.5 billion.

“Algeria is one of Turkey’s most important gateways to the Maghreb and Africa,” Erdogan said during his visit to Algeria. The country was an Ottoman vassal state from 1519 to 1830, when the French invaded and colonized the country. The Turkish president also visited Gambia, a former French colony which is home to one of France’s four military bases in Africa. He also visited Senegal, one of the rising economies in West Africa with an annual growth of more than 6% since 2016. Turkey has also gained a strong political and economic clout in Tunisia, a next-door neighbor to Libya and a former French colony, where the Islamist Ennahda party, which is backed by Turkey, maintains a majority in parliament.

The French Response

These Turkish efforts to have a foothold in the former French colonies leave Paris with the possibility of pushing back against Ankara in sub-Saharan Africa.

According to Turkish analyst Michael Tanchum, a senior fellow at the Austrian Institute for European and Security Studies (AIES), France maintains a double ring of hard power around Algeria and Libya – an inner ring of operational facilities in Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad, supported by an outer ring of permanent bases in Senegal, Ivory Coast and Gabon.

In July, unidentified warplanes carried out an airstrike on Turkish air defense systems at al-Watiya airbase in Libya. Although no side has claimed responsibility for the attack, speculations were rife that the planes took off from one of the French military bases in Africa.

Both Paris and Ankara are also engaged in a bitter standoff in the eastern Mediterranean over oil exploration rights in the area, raising fears that this rivalry could escalate into a military confrontation between the two NATO allies.

L'articolo Turkey and France Fighting for Influence in Africa proviene da InsideOver.