It has been about a month since the US killed Iranian leader Qasem Soleimani. This was a controversial move at the time and led to speculation about the beginning of World War III. In fact, so many Americans were worried about imminent war that they crashed the selective service site that registers for the military draft. However, several days later Iran launched a counterattack that was so impotent that it was virtually meaningless. They fired rockets at a US base, but warned Iraqi forces (and hence the entire base) that it was coming beforehand. A few American troops reportedly received concussion-like symptoms but US President Donald Trump rightly declared victory in the standoff and moved on.

Policy Experts: Trump’s Hit On Soleimani Was The Right Call

Policy experts have reluctantly agreed that Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani was a success. But the same elites seem incapable of acknowledging a Trump victory and have spent a great deal of time trying to explain it away.

Henry Kissinger said that Trump might be a figure that forces people to “give up old pretenses, [but] “it doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.” Even in bashing Trump the elites can’t help themselves and use too many words. Put simply, Kissinger said that Trump has success but is too dumb to know why or how he is succeeding in any case.

‘Trumportunities’

Another analyst called them, “Trumportunities.” This term describes a belief that Trump can sometimes solve problems but does so incredibly poorly or by mistake. Others said that Trump has the advantage of raw military power and not necessarily any foreign policy insight whatsoever.

These repsonses all have a common theme that I noticed years ago. In 2018 the National Interest published an interesting article that discussed how Trump is forcing China to reassess its geopolitical and economic strategy. The article was fascinating because I’ve never seen a piece that spent so much time undermining its own thesis statement. The result was a hilarious article that praised Trump’s China strategy while spending most of its time attacking him.

The Partisan’s Media’s Ignorant View Of Trump

In a multitude of areas ranging from Iran to China Trump is often criticized by elites for his capriciousness and unstable foreign policy. The partisan media hyper obsess over his tweets and label him an idiot. Analysts write verbose columns using fancy words and obscure phrases that describe the dangers Trump supposedly makes worse or ignores. They can’t understand how somebody who they claim is such an idiot succeeds in areas they’ve spent years researching and politely offering delicate plans to solve.  But the is reality is that a factory worker with a high school education could plainly see in a single word what elites fail to realize.  Trump is winning.

Trump Is Winning

Trump’s forceful and even obnoxious prodding of European allies has produced real changes. All the major naval powers, for example, such as Australia, Japan, Britain, France and South Korea have stepped up freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea. NATO allies snicker about Trump’s egotistical press conferences on a hot mic, but they have also increased their military spending as he has repeatedly demanded they do. This is something that numerous presidents have tried to do and failed.

All of the above observations also apply to the situation with Iran. The media and partisan foreign policy elites are good at talking and worrying. On a private email chained I read that this strike would cause an uprising like Muqtada Al Sadr’s in 2003 and essentially lose Iraq for the United States. Foreign policy thinkers in the e-mail chain worried Trump would ruin efforts against ISIS, start a regional war, encourage more attacks, and generally set the region on fire.

Elitist Worries Vs. Ground Realities

But the reality was far different. Trump offered restrained countermeasures during months of Iranian provocation ranging from attacks on oil tankers, oil fields, and the American embassy. Finally Trump had enough and ordered the stunning attack on Soleimani. Despite the concerns of the elites his instincts to kill a top Iranian leader properly cowed Iran. Generals like David Petraeus even praised this action for reestablishing America’s deterrence strategy in the region. The region is fraught with danger and there may be further negative consequences due to Trump’s strike. But his gut impulse and decisions regarding Iran, like the South China Sea and NATO have produced results that often eluded past presidents.

The elites have trouble accepting the idea that somebody as boorish as Donald Trump—and seemingly unschooled in foreign affairs—could produce tangible foreign policy results that have beguiled other, more “cerebral” presidents. But when it comes to Iranian relations, NATO, or restraining Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, Trump’s instincts to take decisive action are often better than the foreign policy elites and they must try and deny it any way they can to try to stay credible.

L'articolo Are Trump’s Foreign Policy Successes Just An Accident? proviene da InsideOver.

Pakistan, by way of its location, has found itself involved in major conflicts more than once. Starting from its role as an American satellite to counter Soviet influence to then participating in the US war on terror, the country has enjoyed an outsized role in the regional geopolitics. But that has come at a huge cost: the economy has suffered immensely and thousands of citizens have lost their lives while the international reputation has been dealt blow after blow due to Islamabad’s association with terrorism. 

So when the news of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani’s assassination by the United States came in, it immediately sent Pakistan into panic, be it those in power or the average citizen who barely knew anything about the regional geopolitics. 

On the same day as the US conducted those strikes, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted about his calls with regional leaders including Mohammed Bin Salman, Ashraf Ghani and Pakistan’s Army Chief – not the prime minister – General Qamar Bajwa. It read: “#Pakistan‘s Chief of Staff General Bajwa and I spoke today about U.S. defensive action to kill Qassem Soleimani. The #Iran regime’s actions in the region are destabilizing and our resolve in protecting American interests, personnel, facilities, and partners will not waver.”

https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1213122193204432896

The domestic challenge to set a foreign policy on Iran

This raised fears that Islamabad would yet again get itself entangled as a mercenary in another war, as the military establishment profits off it. However, the army’s public relations wing soon gave out a statement, calling for “maximum restraint and constructive engagement by all concerned to de-escalate the situation in broader interest of peace and stability.”

The possibility of getting sandwiched between a global and regional power in a potential war next door rang alarm bells, bringing flashbacks of how that policy has historically backfired. What made matters even more complicated was that the slain general enjoyed great popularity amongst Pakistan’s Shiite community, which makes up around 20% of the total population and is the second-largest in the world after Iran. 

Like their fellow brethren across the Middle East, Pakistani Shiites were devastated by the “martyrdom” of Soleimani and took processions to mourn his killing and condemn the US. The late IRGC commander was crucial in garnering support for Iran among the Shiite minorities of Sunni majority countries and while influence in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria is well-known, he was no less popular in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

The gravitational pull Iran has for Afghan and Pakistani Shiites has to be seen from three angles; firstly, they enjoy close cultural ties thanks to historic Persian influence; second, the presence of holy sites and centres of religious learning, especially in the city of Qom, has naturally made the Islamic republic a spiritual leader, aided by the presence of an Ayatollah; and lastly, the minority Shiites have increasingly come under attack by extremist Sunni factions such as the Taliban, and Tehran’s anti-Salafi ideology makes it a natural ally and defender. 

Tehran, for its part, has been extremely smart to leverage that, creating militias exclusively of foreign fighters and offering them monetary benefits and sometimes the promise of Iranian citizenship as well. Two such brigades are Liwa Fatemiyoun and Liwa Zainebiyoun, whose official purposes are to defend the mosque of Sayyida Zainab. The former comprises of Afghans, mostly those living in Iran or from the persecuted Hazara community while the latter mostly draws Pakistani students in Qom and other cities or the residents of Parachinar in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, who have specifically targeted by the Taliban. These forces are trained in combat and then sent to Syria, often to fight on the frontlines, as evidenced by the extremely high casualty rate of Afghans. But beyond these pockets too, 

Given the popularity of Iranian administration among Pakistani Shiites as well as learning the costs of fighting someone else’s war the hard way, Islamabad has justifiably shown its dislike for any escalation which could draw it in any further complications. Khan, who is a long-time critic of both Soviet and the US wars in Afghanistan and has repeatedly shown his lofty ambitions of service as a possible deal broker between Tehran and Riyadh, directed his foreign minister to embark on a tour of both the regional countries plus the US to help diffuse tensions. 

“I have asked FM Qureshi to visit Iran, KSA & USA to meet with respective foreign ministers, Secretary of State; & COAS Gen Bajwa to contact relevant military leaders to convey a clear message: Pakistan is ready to play its role for peace but it can never again be part of any war,” he tweeted on Jan 8. 

I have asked FM Qureshi to visit Iran, KSA & USA to meet with respective foreign ministers, Secretary of State; & COAS Gen Bajwa to contact relevant military leaders to convey a clear message: Pakistan is ready to play it's role for peace but it can never again be part of any war

— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) January 8, 2020

Stressing the message of peace and neutrality

Beginning with the Islamic Republic, Qureshi arrived in Mashhad, the second-most populous city in the country, on Jan 12 and paid his respects at the shrine of Imam Reza, one of the holiest sites especially for Shiite Muslims. He also called upon President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in separate meetings and reiterated that “Pakistan would not allow its territory to be used against anyone; nor would Pakistan be a part of any war or conflict in the region.”

The next stop was Saudi Arabia where the Pakistani foreign minister met his Saudi counterpart and stressed Islamabad’s role as a “partner for peace” that would support all efforts for constructive engagement. 

Finally, in the US, Qureshi met key leaders including Pompeo, Under Secretary of Defense John Rood, Congress’s Pakistan Caucus and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Just a couple of days later, American diplomat Alice Wells touched down upon Islamabad for an official visit to discuss bilateral and regional issues.  

The two sides have had a few other calls since then and the foreign minister has strongly iterated that the country and the region cannot afford another war, while saying that Islamabad will make its efforts to diffuse the situation. 

Since the past one year or so, there seems to have been a rapprochement between Washington and Islamabad, beginning from Trump’s meeting with Khan and last month, the revival of International Military Education and Training programs for Pakistan army. On the issue of Afghan peace process too, the two countries look to be on the same page, or at least the antagonism of the past decade has subsided. 

Will history repeat itself or is it a new dawn?

The question, then, is if there’s a possibility of Islamabad joining the Washington camp against its neighbour. Would the promise of a close partnership with the US and the monetary and defence-related benefits that come with it would be enough to woo the powerful Pakistan army? Or after years of taking explicitly partisan sides, Imran Khan will finally steer his country towards the path of neutrality? In the past he has been largely able to set the narrative for foreign policy so if that is to serve any indicator, it might just be the beginning of a new era.

L'articolo Caught in the Wrong Neighbourhood: Pakistan in the US-Iran Confrontation proviene da InsideOver.

Foreign policy has traditionally been determining whether or not a president’s tenure can be considered successful. Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been in the spotlight since he won the presidency but has moved even more into focus with the current Iran crisis. While the president will ultimately make the final decision, the vision, the grand strategies, are often shaped by people close to the president. Quincy Adams or George Shultz, only to name a few, were more than just Secretary of State. They were architects of foreign policy doctrines. The same applies to Mike Pompeo, who has become the main driver behind Trump’s foreign policy.

Pompeo, who succeeded Rex Tillerson in March 2018 indicated his political vision for America abroad immediately, yet very few people expected him to reach the influence he now has. Most importantly, European diplomats in Washington knew that Pompeo’s arrival would not only result in an end of the Iran nuclear deal but a significantly different stance on Teheran.

Already during his first speech as the new Secretary of State, Pompeo made it very clear that Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran and also laid down his doctrine for future dealings with Tehran.

The deal that Obama signed with Iran was weak, he criticized, and while it might have delayed Iran’s nuclear program for a few years at most, it did not permanently prevent Tehran from building an atomic bomb. Above all, according to Pompeo, the lifting of economic sanctions associated with the agreement brought “new wealth” to the Iranian regime, which immediately invested the money in the financing of various Shiite militias working in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq for Tehran Waged war. During his first speech, Pompeo also mentioned the name of the man who was responsible for the militia activities: Qassim Soleimani.

Pompeo is cognizant that Tehran is the driving force behind the chaos in the region. Thus, the appeasement politics under the Obama administration was substituted for maximum pressure on the regime to protect the US, its allies, and geopolitical interests in the region. The killing of Soleimani was thus not only imperative from Pompeo’s point of view but in the planning for a more extended period, as the Washington Post had recently reported.

However, it is not merely Pompeo’s stance on Iran that has made him Trump’s most trusted cabinet member. After three years of leaks within the White House, Trump has displayed a reluctance to trust many of his advisors – and often rightfully so. With Pompeo, however, he found a loyal individual, with whom he also appears to connect on a human level. A mix that cannot be overestimated in the current position.

This relationship was cultivated even before Pompeo became a cabinet member. When he had still been the head of the CIA, Pompeo would brief the president personally on all relevant security matters. Usually, a CIA representative would conduct these briefings. However, Pompeo appears to have been cognizant of how beneficial an amicable relationship with this president can be. Moreover, it was CIA Director Pompeo who meeting with the North Koreans first and establishing a line of communication.

Now, as the Secretary of State, Pompeo has continued to build on the foundation the two men had established. Thus one can regularly witness Pompeo’s TV appearances, in which he displays his loyalty by not merely repeating the president’s agenda, but by reaffirming that the president’s agenda is indeed the correct one. In return, Pompeo has been granted the leeway to create the administration’s foreign policy.

With this leeway and power, Pompeo has become more than just Trump’s Secretary of State. It is apparent that Pompeo is significantly more present inside and outside the government than Secretary of Defense Esper, a role that used to carry significantly more responsibility. John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, was not sharing the same visions as Pompeo and was let go as a result – though the official reason given were differences of opinion with Trump himself. Since Bolton was replaced, however, another formerly highly influential and essential position was filled by a comparable profile-less Robert O’Brien in September 2019 – which will have only increased Pompeo’s influence further.

However, the most critical element that connects Pompeo and Trump is that he shares the President’s America First doctrine. Similar to Bolton, Pompeo has always been hawkish on foreign and security issues with a hardliner stance on Iran. This stance is not an opportunist move by Pompeo, however, but a continuation of a policy he has been conducting dating back to his CIA days. After all, Pompeo, in one of his first acts as CIA Director, was to increase operations against Iran massively.

Further attempts to bring Iran to its knees are thus not only conceivable but almost a certainty.

L'articolo Mike Pompeo: President Trump’s Foreign Policy Architect proviene da InsideOver.

Donald Trump has been a consistent critic of NATO since his presidency began. At one point he even questioned whether the US should be a member of this alliance. During his first meeting with former British Prime Minister Theresa May, she managed to persuade the president that NATO still has many advantages and she left Washington in January 2017 claiming that Trump is ‘100 percent’ behind the alliance.

Though he may now support the principle behind NATO’s existence, before this week’s summit commemorating 70 years since the alliance was founded, Trump’s vision for the organisation has become clearer since his first meeting with May. He does not oppose US membership of NATO, but he believes that for too long, America has been carrying the burden of increasing its defence spending whilst its allies have failed to do so. This is a point both George W. Bush and Barack Obama once made, but Trump has drilled this point into NATO leaders more so than any of his predecessors.

In June 2018, Trump wrote sharply worded letters to the German, Norwegian and Canadian leaders taking them to task for spending too little on their defence and warning that the US is losing patience with their failure to meet their own security obligations. He felt that many of the NATO states are not fulfilling their commitments made at the 2014 Wales summit to increase their defence spending by two percent. According to Bloomberg, alliance members have upped their military spending by about $130 billion from 2016 to 2020. Though Trump’s NATO rhetoric may appear hostile, he has still accelerated new commitments of American troops and software to Europe. This is despite his argument that the US is carrying the alliance’s burden.

But this week’s summit proved that the president has become a passionate NATO advocate. He picked a public spat with French President Emmanuel Macron for his ‘dangerous’ and ‘nasty’ demands for NATO reform in front of reporters, disagreeing over Turkey’s membership in the alliance and whether Islamic State has really been defeated. He even celebrated the organisation’s existence with other world leaders on Tuesday.

Trump also clarified what he likes about the alliance. He awarded himself credit for NATO members increasing their military budgets. However, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said that the President has been ‘successful’ in urging other nations to increase their military spending and stated that America cannot share the burden on its own. The President’s enthusiasm for the alliance left German Chancellor Angela Merkel feeling optimistic that the summit will not descend into a row.

Though he has always believed in more positive dialogue with Russia, Trump now realises that NATO is useful in countering both Moscow and Beijing, especially as the US warns against Chinese company Huawei building infrastructure in NATO countries. The French are wary of adopting a strong stance against China. This highlights that the problem with the alliance is that many countries disagree with the President’s unorthodox foreign policy.

Two positives have emerged from this week’s meeting; Trump’s support and vision of the alliance is clear, which should reassure many NATO states. Also, the President can return home knowing that many leaders like Rutte agree that he has made a positive case for alliance members to increase their military spending. Though it is clear not all of NATO’s leaders agree with the US’s outlook on issues like China and Iran, the alliance must be preserved as Russia and China continue to display a threat to the alliance’s vital interests. A disunited NATO will only work to Putin’s or Jinping’s advantage. It is refreshing to see politicians rejoice in celebrating the organisation’s 70th birthday.

L'articolo Is Donald Trump’s Vision of NATO Becoming Clearer? proviene da InsideOver.

After French President Emmanuel Macron called NATO ‘brain dead’, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas is advocating for a European Security Council. 

In the dispute over international security policy, Germany’s Foreign Minister Maas has reiterated his proposal for the introduction of a European Security Council. Maas also emphasized that he would like to see Britain also participating while rejecting Macron’s assessment of a ‘brain dead’ NATO. 

According to Maas, a European Security Council would be a place ‘where Europeans conduct their foreign and security policy work, within the institutional framework of the European Union and beyond’. 

Macron’s criticism of NATO did not divulge Maas. ‘It would be a mistake if we undermined NATO,’ Maas said. Neither Germany nor Europe was able to ‘protect themselves effectively’ without the United States.

‘We will need NATO for many more years. It stands for burden-sharing, for international cooperation, for multilateralism’. It would be crucial to keep NATO intact if Europe sought to emancipate itself.

A strong and sovereign Europe was needed as part of a strong NATO and not as its replacement. A foreign and security policy without Washington was, according to Maas, ‘irresponsible.’ A prime example of the latter was recently made very clear by the Russian violation of the INF Treaty on the Prohibition of Land Use-Priced Medium-Range Weapons. 

Maas opposed a German unilateral foreign policy, for example towards Moscow. ‘Our neighbours in Poland and the Baltics can trust that we take their security needs as seriously as our own,’ he emphasized. 

Before Maas, Chancellor Merkel had already contradicted Macron’s choice of words. She had a different ‘views of cooperation in NATO,’ Merkel commented on Thursday, adding that the transatlantic partnership was ‘indispensable for us’. 

In an interview with The Economist, Macron had criticized that there was ‘no coordination in strategic decisions between the United States and its NATO allies’. Already in March, CDU chair and Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer advocated a Europe concept to decide on common foreign policy positions in a ‘European Security Council involving the United Kingdom’ and to organize joint action in security policy. In the past week, Kramp-Karrenbauer then proposed, inter alia, a National Security Council to prepare Germany for major military tasks. It would allow them to react faster and more effectively to crises.

While the idea of a European Security Council is coherent in spirit, it sounds more than political symbolism in reality. Maas’ comments on NATO and the ‘burden-sharing’ it includes is particularly interesting, as the burden has never been shared, but was carried in a one nation show by the United States. 

For the burden to be shared, Germany must first and foremost adhere to the required two per cent military expenditure on its GDP (currently at 1.2 per cent). The latter is the reason why the Maas’ and Kramp-Karrenbauer’s proposal is unrealistic, as Germany’s military and security capabilities remain inapt. 

This inaptness not only validates Macron’s remark but also why the United States continues to run NATO almost unilaterally. For the Europeans to change this, it would require to increase their respective defence budgets finally. As long as Europe remains dependable on the United States’ military capabilities, a European Security Council would conduct security in name only. 

L'articolo The Aimlessness of European Security proviene da InsideOver.

The success of Howdy Modi event in Dallas and personal bonhomie shown by Trump and Modi indicate changing equations in Asia and the willingness of the US to join hands with India to check the growing menace of China in international trade and military might. The unprecedented gesture by a US president to join Modi at Houston is not only a recognition of Narendra Modi as a global leader, but it is also a testimony of the economic and political influence of the Indian American community in the US.

China, which is in a trade war with the US, might feel the heat, as many US companies, such as Apple and others, have expressed their willingness to set up units in India. The US-China trade war might prove a win-win situation for India both in terms of military power and business.

It is a widely acknowledged fact that India remains the only power that can balance China’s economic and military power in the western part of the Indo-Pacific region. For the US, India is one of the fastest-growing economies, and the world’s largest democracy is ideologically similar and strategically central to its interests in the Indo-Pacific region. India serves as a counterbalance against a rising China.

India is fully aware of and enjoying its status of being a valuable strategic “swing state” for both the US and China. The US and India maintain a “broad-based strategic partnership” based on a convergence of vital interests. While the US publicly embraces India as a critical partner in its Indo-Pacific strategy against China, Beijing too is aware that a breakdown in the bilateral relationship with India would drive Delhi closer to the US, thereby hampering President Xi Jinping’s vision of China as the world’s leading power by 2049.

Windfall Gains of the US-China Trade War for India

Countries such as Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Mexico that are more dependent on trade would suffer due to the trade war. But India stands to gain from it.

As per a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ( UNCTAD) report, India’s exports are likely to increase by $11 billion in the long term due to the trade war. The increase will be in items that are currently being imported from China, where the US is not on par with India. Similarly, Indian exports to China will also increase in goods that China today imports from the US.

Further, there could be increased investments from the US and Chinese companies in India, as China and the US seek to separate themselves. Already some Chinese companies have evinced interest to invest in India, especially in the area of telecommunications. Chinese mobile brands like Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, Lenovo, and Oneplus has a huge market in India. The world’s largest telecommunication equipment supplier, the Chinese firm Huawei, which is in the middle of the trade war, has plans to invest $100 million in India over three years starting 2020.

Lei Jun, Founder, Xiaomi, says, “It is getting difficult for Chinese companies to invest in the US due to the tussle between the US and China. We are interested in investing in India, and it will be good for this country”. With a tariff on Apple iPhone to take effect on December 15, 2019, Apple, Foxconn, and Wistron Corp. might shift their business out of trade war-hit China.

Mahindra Group chairman Anand Mahindra feels that even if a full-blown trade war is averted, India would still be a beneficiary. He says, “a Chinese firm with large exports to the US would be wise and invest in a subsidiary in India. Direct exports would become indirect. A sign of Chinese investment in India may be imminent.”

Under Prime Minister Modi, India-US bilateral trade of goods and services already crossed US$126.2 billion in 2017. India Inc feels that the business will give ample opportunities to achieve $500 billion trade by widening the trade basket and resolving impediments.

In a battle between two giants, India appears to be in the best position to reap the gain. As manufacturers seek alternative origination destinations, India could benefit from diversion in investment flows.

L'articolo Strengthening Indo-US Relations: What It Means for India and Global Trade proviene da InsideOver.

African leaders must decline attending “begging meetings” in Japan, China and the rest of the world, a Kenyan professor has said.

Professor Makau Mutua, the board chair of the Kenyan Human Rights Commission, labelled the 7th Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) a disgrace last month.

“TICAD is a disgrace to Africa. When will Africa stop these begging meetings?” he asked in a tweet.

“We should be ashamed of our leaders. Let’s make Africa an attractive destination for investment so we can stop begging. I can’t understand how African leaders can celebrate this atrocity! SHAME!”

Over twenty African leaders were present in 2019’s TICAD event last month. The triennial event is co-hosted by the Japanese government and the African Union.

A month after the 2019 TICAD summit, three new terminal buildings were opened at Malawi’s Kamuzu International Airport. The buildings were completed thirty-seven years after Japan built the original airport. In a PR piece distributed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan claimed that:

“The opening of the three new terminal buildings and the installation of the radar surveillance system are expected to contribute significantly to the airport’s operational efficiency; expanding its passenger handling capacity from 50 to 500 people per hour, as well as greatly improving the safety levels of the aircraft.

“Japanese companies … have played an important role in this project. They actively transferred technology to the Malawian people at the construction site. They have even organized study tours for local students in the neighbouring areas.

“Malawian government officials highly appreciated this project and said they would look forward to seeing more travellers coming to Malawi.”

In the same month, the East Asian nation said that it wanted to “re-orient” its relationship with Africa by focusing more on business.

“Japan wants the public and private sectors [in Africa] to be closely linked and hopes that they can, together, make efforts to develop Africa,” Japan’s ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Hiroshi Karube, said.

“The priority of TICAD 7 is to strengthen relations between Africa and Japan, but also to involve the private sector in Africa’s development.”

In 2016, at TICAD 6, Japan pledged $30 billion for Africa’s development. Most of that money was invested in South Africa, Egypt and Nigeria.

“Japan’s slow investment in French-speaking countries can only be justified by language problems,” the ambassador continued.

Although Japan claims that its economic focus in Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa is due to “language problems”, the three nations are Africa’s biggest economies. Ahead of TICAD 7, Japan’s Foreign Ministry refused to release the names and number of African guests due to appear at the three-day summit. Japan Times reported that this was due to fear that China would pressure African guests to cancel their appearance at the summit.

The competition between Japan and China over Africa is akin to the race among European nations for the colonisation of Africa. It is East Asia’s neocolonialism of Africa under the guise of investment. This period of Africa’s neocolonial history with East Asia follows Africa’s history with the West, under the Washington Consensus, when Africa borrowed massively from the World Bank and the IMF. To keep imperial control over Africa, both organisations would force the continent to privatise its institutions, and to allow Western companies to head these now-private markets.

Japan, however, denies imperial strategies. “Japan respects the African population,” Mr Karube stated.

Speaking on the Democratic Republic of Congo, he said: “The DRC defines it politics, and Japan has no rights, no intention to give directions. However, if we are consulted, we are always ready to contribute. Japan will support the economic development of the DRC in the implementation of its own policies. Japan will only start considering assistance when a specific request is made by partner countries.”

Shinichi Takeuchi, head of the African Studies Center at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies said: “Africa is an important region both politically and economically. That perception is now shared by top political and business leaders of the world. A huge market will certainly be formed in Africa.”

But the view of Africa among the international community cannot continue to be one of imperialist domination. The West has already built its wealth on the domination, colonisation and enslavement of Africa. African leaders must find a way to avoid a third era of (neo)colonisation under new colonialist leaders.

Perhaps by making Africa an attractive destination for investment, especially among millennials, Generation Z and people of African descent worldwide, the continent can continue to promote Pan Africanism, offering opportunities to groups of people who have little economic power in a failing, capitalist global system.

L'articolo African Leaders Pressured to Stop “Begging” The West proviene da InsideOver.

International investigative journalists often face a feat that puts themselves in danger, and often it is their intrinsic drive to seek the truth that may land them in sticky situations. Other instances, we see civilians or governments lash out – take Jo Cox a British journalist murdered in cold blood for her defence of the European Union and left-wing stance.

However, the death of one journalist shook the world and exposed the downfall of world command. Almost one year later, his brutal murder on 2 October, 2018 still monopolises aspects of mainstream media and appears to have challenged governmental perspectives. This was, of course, the death of Washington Post correspondent, Jamal Khashoggi.

Recent reports of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) stating he feels responsible for the death of the journalist because it “happened under my watch” are set to air in a PBS documentary on the anniversary of Khashoggi’s death leading to an exploration of the whole case.

Events Surrounding Khashoggi’s Death

The Washington Post columnist had previously reported stories including the rise of Osama Bin Laden and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for Saudi news organisations. He was reported to have served the Saudi government and was a close associate to the royal family. However, the ties became broken and Khashoggi went into self-imposed exile in 2017. He soon joined the Washington Post where he wrote a monthly column in which he criticised policies of MBS.

The journalist was last seen alive on 2 October, 2018 entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul trying to obtain marriage papers for him and his fiancée. Khashoggi was supposedly killed inside the consulate where his body was removed and brutally dismembered, with the remains of his body still missing.

Saudi Arabia strongly denied any involvement in the killing for up to two weeks after its occurrence, whilst Saud al-Qathani, a former royal advisor, allegedly gave orders over Skype to the killers in a report by Reuters.

Many competing narratives clouded the death with blame initially being placed on rogue operatives and then on al-Qahtani as mentioned. The UN also published a report in which they held MBS liable for the death stating he had violated several international laws and “the death was met with few responses – legally, politically or diplomatically.”

Then on the 3^rd January, 11 suspects were put on trial in connection with the murder in undisclosed proceedings where Saudi prosecutors called for the death penalty on five out of the 11 suspects.

Early September, Turkey’s intelligence agency obtained a recording of the journalist moments before his death detailing his last words. Jamal Khashoggi can be heard pleading with his killers to not cover his mouth because he had asthma, stating: “You’ll suffocate me.”

The recording was published in Turkey’s Sabah newspaper where a team of Saudi officials flew from Riyadh to Istanbul to get the 59-year-old journalist. A member of the hit squad is then heard saying: “Help us, so that we can help you. Because in the end, we will take you to Saudi Arabia. And if you don’t help us, you know what will happen in the end.”

He was also instructed to write a message to his son reassuring him that if he had not heard from him, he was okay, to which Khashoggi refused stating: “I write nothing.”

The Aftermath of Khashoggi’s Death

Khashoggi’s death undeniably ignited an international uproar. The brutal killing tarnished the Crown Prince’s image and thus damaged Saudi Arabia’s oil trade alliances with the market dropping rapidly. Many countries and individuals held MBS liable for the murder whilst he continues to claim no part in the killing.

Perhaps it can be argued that MBS’ new statement is simply a moral one in efforts to improve setbacks Saudi Arabia has faced since the incident such as the targeting of their oil facilities and the UAE taking a step back in their role in the Saudi-coalition on the war on Yemen.

The killing was globally denounced destroying some of Saudi Arabia’s alliances with other countries and had a great geopolitical impact in the media remaining in headlines for up to a month after his death.

Many western countries re-evaluated their relationship with Saudi Arabia, with many keeping their distance. The US, Canada, France and the UK levied sanctions against all Saudis associated with the murder bar MBS of course, whilst Germany, Denmark and Finland cancelled arms deals.

Trump notably described the egregious act as the “worst cover-up in history” and maintained a cool relationship with the country for business purposes.

The Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the murder “premeditated” and in “cold blood” urging for the perpetrators to be tried and sentenced in Turkey.

Politico reports Erdogan saw the killing as a chance to propel Turkey’s regional position and rebrand his tainted image, through his great displays of morality.

Overall there is a worsening media climate as number of journalist killings is rising, yet this one garnered the attention of the world in a way that no other has. The killing exposed the amoral nature of politics where such gruesome acts are carried out, but also the commercial aspect where the impact of such a brutal act came down international business, rather than the fight for justice.

One year later and there is no doubt that a global obsession remains of what happened to journalist, Jamal Khashoggi and what it continues to means for the future of Saudi Arabia and international journalists.

L'articolo Jamal Khashoggi: The Killing of a Journalist One Year Later proviene da InsideOver.

Political experts are worried about the increasingly close partnership between Russia and China, which is resisting international pressures and internal issues beyond any forecast. The West could have tried to exploit the existing frictions between the two giants, from Siberia to other geopolitical battlefields, to undermine the efforts made by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to give rise to a world order alternative and an antagonist to the Western-led one, but it did not.

Russia’s vulnerability and weakness concerning China may have been widely overestimated, since it seems that Putin knows very well what he does. After having opened the Arctic, Siberia and the Far East to Chinese investments and workers, now India’s moment has come.

Russian president is offering New Delhi the same opportunities which were made available to Beijing, that is to have access to Siberia’s natural resources, to acquire thousands of square kilometres of uncultivated lands in Eastern Russia, to have the chance of an Arctic’s slice, and more cooperation on trade, energy, security, technology.

The Latest Announcements

New Delhi’s prime minister Narendra Modi was undoubtedly the main protagonist of the latest Eastern Economic Forum, which takes place annually in Vladivostok. The EEF is a government-sponsored initiative which started in 2015 to attract international business in the investment-hungry Russian Far East.

This year the forum was monopolized by India’s outstanding promises and declarations: the opening of a $1 billion line credit for the development of the Far East, the building of the long-discussed Vladivostok-Chennai sea route to halve the time it takes for goods to be shipped from the current period of 40 days to 24 days, the possible introduction of payments in national currencies to boost bilateral trade and de-dollarize the respective economies, and the signing of 15 agreements worth $5 billion to enhance cooperation on energy, mining, wood industry, healthcare, education, and many other sectors with the medium-term goal of tripling bilateral trade by 2025.

The building of Vladivostok-Chennai maritime route must be read in a context much wider than the mere bilateral trade because it intersects the Belt and Road Initiative, New Delhi’s Indo-Pacific project, Japan’s national interests, and is going to go through the disputed South China Sea. By developing this channel, the two countries are sending a clear message to China and they are also offering Japan to play a part in the coming Euriasan order.

It is no coincidence that the Indo-Russian approachment is taking place in the background of Moscow-Tokyo talks to solve the Kuril islands issue. The three countries are led by different views on several international dossiers, but they all agree on one issue: China must not be allowed to rule over Eurasia, which must be multipolar.

India’s Arctic Dreams

In the same week of the EEF, Vladivostok hosted the Russia-India summit. Modi and Putin had the chance to talk about more issues and the Arctic was one of them. Indeed, with the announcement of the likely-coming opening of Vladivostok-Chennai sea route, India was implicitly welcomed in Russian-ruled Northern Asia and have the chance to leave a footprint in the Arctic.

India entered the Arctic Council as an observer member in 2013 and is showing growing willingness to play a more significant role in the polar region utilizing investments in Russian energy-related projects. During the bilateral summit, Indian firms H-Energy and Petronet signed some memorandums of understanding with Russian-owned Novatek, which is actively involved in the exploitation of Arctic’s natural gas and recently built the Yamal LNG plant.

According to the MoUs, Indian firms are expected to invest in Novatek’s future LNG projects and to establish joint ventures. But H-Energy and Petronet are not alone, because another Indian energy firm is looking at the Arctic: the gas company Gail. The entity recently started talks with Novatek to acquire a minority stake in the Arctic LNG-2 plant.

The Potential Outcomes

To date, Russia and India were mostly tied by agreements on security issues and military cooperation, but what was decided at the EEF is ground-breaking since it may open new potentially-revolutionary developments in Eurasia. India is one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies and is currently basing its economic growth on the import of foreign-originated energy, such as oil and gas, mainly from Middle Eastern countries.

But the recent Iranian crisis has made India much more aware about the need of diversifying the suppliers to not experience energy-related issues which may harm both the economic growth and the energy security; Russia was seen as the answer to India’s problem.

Furthermore, this may be the right occasion for India to counter-balance China’s growing influence over the continent employing strategically-thought investments in regions and fields in which Beijing is already present and is expected to be more aggressive in the next future; and Russia is one of these regions.

By opening the Far East and the Arctic to India, Putin is playing the same game. Chinese investments within the sanctioned and money-lacking country were useful and helpful, but allowing them to grow further may be dangerous for national security and the Kremlin’s China-watchers are aware of this.

And yet, there is one important element: India and Russia share a long history of high-quality relations and common visions on many international dossiers, contrarily to China with which the cooperation was started only recently and because of world-level events that made it mandatory to establish a survival-oriented partnership.

This is Russia’s chance to deepen the already-good relations with India to improve the country’s position in the continent and make Putin’s Eurasian dream closer than ever, to counter-balance China’s influence in Eastern Asia and within Russia itself, and to weaken the power of American lobby within India in favour of the Russian one. The latest is as important as the China game, because an India that is more Russian-friendly would be a great hit against Eurasia’s American grand strategy.

L'articolo The Bear, the Dragon and the Elephant: Putin’s Vision for Eurasia proviene da InsideOver.

More than 50 African leaders have been invited to take part in the first Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi.

Co-chaired by Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, President of Egypt (who also chairs the African Union) the event aims to spotlight “the expansion of the political, economic, technical and cultural cooperation” between Africa and Russia.

The Russian government boasts that the October 24 summit “is the first event of this level in the history of Russian-African relations, with the heads of all states of the African continent invited, as well as leaders of major subregional associations and organisations.”

On October 23, Sochi will also host an economic forum attended by major African and Russian leaders, and representatives of major businesses. Trade, economic and investment agreements are “expected to be signed”.

With roughly 3,000 African businesspersons expected to attend this event, the Russian government has not revealed which businesses will be present.

China, Russia and Japan: Cold War II

Unlike Japan’s strategic policy for African investment, which seeks “Africa’s development’ by strengthening relations between Africa and Japan, Russia’s investment policy bluntly states its plans for African exploitation.

“Economies of most African countries develop progressively, and Africa will play an increasing role in the system of Russia’s foreign economic relations in the long term, as the region becomes more and more attractive for trade and investment,” Anton Kobyakov, Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation, reported.

On the contrary, Japan’s investment policies in Africa are simply euphemisms for its exploitative designs on the continent. The end of the Cold War began a new chapter in Africa’s economy as Russia and other developed countries scaled back their economic support of African governments. The Cold War was fought in proxy on African and South American land, as both the West, China and the USA struggled for global power through neocolonialism.

During the 1990s, many African nations were rife with poverty and political instability, a far cry from the economic and developmental growth that the continent is currently experiencing. As developed nations pulled back their investment and support in Africa after the end of the Cold War in 1991, Japan would launch Tokyo’s International Conference on Africa’s Development (TICAD) in 1993. Under TICAD, Japan granted Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Africa for the continent’s economic development and public welfare.

“It’s clear that TICAD has become more and more business-oriented over the past 10 years. Now the No.1 agenda is how to bring Japanese private-sector businesses to Africa,” said Shinichi Takeuchi, professor and head of the African Studies Center at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Following Japan’s euphemistic example, Putin said: “I am glad to note the friendly constructive nature of relations between our countries. I am confident that the Russia–Africa Summit as well as the Economic Forum to be held in Sochi in October will contribute to the sound development of these relations and allow us to outline new forms of fruitful cooperation.”

In China, at the 2018 FOCAC (Forum on China-Africa Cooperation) summit, China and Africa agreed to build an “even stronger community” with a “shared future”.

“We agree to strengthen collective dialogue, enhance traditional friendship, deepen practical cooperation, and work together toward an even stronger China-Africa community with a shared future,” the FOCAC 2018 declaration read.

By the next year, Uganda’s auditor-general released a report declaring that public debt between 2017 and 2018 had increased from $9.1 billion to $11.1 billion. With a loan of $3 billion, and conditions which made loans difficult to repay, Uganda’s sovereign assets were threatened with repossession by China.

“China taking over assets? … in Uganda, I have told you, as long as some of us are still in charge, unless there is a catastrophe, and which I don’t see at all, that will make this economy going behind. So, … I’m not worried about China taking assets. They can do it elsewhere, I don’t know. But here, I don’t think it will come,” the country’s finance minister, Matia Kasaija said.

In December 2017, China took over Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port under a 99-year lease, after Sri Lanka struggled to make repayments. Many other nations, such as Papa New Guinea, Laos, the Maldives, Pakistan, Malaysia and Kenya are, today, struggling to repay China’s multibillion-dollar loans.

L'articolo Sochi Will Host the First Russia-Africa Summit in October proviene da InsideOver.