Where does Europe end? The question of boundary has been discussed for quite some time. It is an old one indeed, going back to the destruction of the Jewish temple, the disintegration of the Greek city-states, and the collapse of the Roman Empire. This is what provides historical material for the narrative of what it means to be a European today. The idea of uniting various European lands is also an old one and has seen many different incarnations.
One of them was captured well by Charlemagne’s motto: Renovatio Imperii Romani or Reconstruction of the Roman Empire. After his kingdom disintegrated, numerous fiefdoms sprung up in its wake. Then, Napoleon conquered large parts of the European continent and made some serious overtures toward what the European Union of today is: the common European Arts and Sciences Academy, the common measures, the common currency, the common Court of Appeals, etc.
Nevertheless, all attempts to build a United Europe were predicated on a perceived difference: us versus them. “Us” stood for the civilized conqueror, whereas “them” referred to the conquered barbarians. It is not just the Roman limes that can be used as a symbolic demarcation between civilization and barbarianism. The European Union continues to emphasize the difference between “us” and “them”. It would be nice to be able to talk about a tower of Babel in which everybody is freely mixing with people from different lands, speaking different languages, and practicing different cultures. As we know, that is not the case. However, in a particular sense we are all in the same boat. We are members of the same community if not the same polity. We are all human. Alas, this claim that has often been repeated but very seldom heeded we tend to either dismiss as banal, or attribute it an absolute mandate to change our perspective so as to line it up with the philosophy of German critical theologian Hans Jonas who said: “Live your life so that it will be compatible with sustained human life on Earth”.
It is the Earth that represents the ultimate border, the final limes. There is no “them” from this particular perspective, except for the extraterrestrials, of course. This is the entity that falls outside of the terms of contemporary monotheistic pseudo-religion that have been imposed on the globe since the 16th century. I am talking about the capitalist system and its terms under which everything is for sale. We are all buyers and sellers, and we subscribe to the philosophy “I shop, therefore I am”. The Earth, though, is emphatically not for sale.
This insight is part and parcel of advanced Western mind. But what exactly is Western mind or, more precisely, Western civilization? Haven’t we heard enough of the “West” and the “rest”? Shouldn’t we reach for our anti-colonial guns when we hear that? Allow me a quick explanation: I distinguish between the modern Western civilization on the one hand and the Westernistic civilization on the other. I do so by drawing a parallel between the ancient Greek civilization and the Hellenistic civilization. The latter came to the fore after the 4th century BC when the ancient Greek city states collapsed. This led to the emergence of an empire that covered a territory on three continents and spread over the whole known world. Hellenistic civilization was spread over this vast territory by the soldiers of Alexander the Great and was the first example of a global civilization.
In what sense did Hellenistic civilization differ from its original source? The ancient Greek civilization was ultimately territorial. It was anchored in the system of city states in southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean islands and stayed within the limits of this narrowly defined realm. It was the Hellenistic civilization, which emerged after its collapse, that took the ancient Greek legacy and heritage, or, better: its package of ideas and technologies, and turned them into the backbone of its external expansion.
To put it in a simpler way, Hellenistic civilization is a continuation of Greek civilization but is not synonymous with it. It absorbed new ideas and technologies from various localities that had become parts of the Hellenistic empire. Alexander the Great actively encouraged mixed marriages between Greek colonists and the local populace. But he also encouraged laboratory experiments in which ancient Greek ideas and technologies entered into a fruitful collaboration with local ideas and technologies, innovatively producing something new. These new products were neither local nor ancient Greek. Instead, they were amalgamations.
What we see is a cross-fertilization between modern Western ideas and technologies on the one hand and local cultural artifacts on the other
I am now going to continue with an analysis of the current conditions. It is very tempting to fall for the siren song of the frequently repeated statement that the contemporary world is divided into two opposed entities: the “West” and the “rest”. This Manichean black and white division of the world appeals to radical left-wingers because it gives ample opportunity for moralizing and wagging a pedagogical finger at the despicable appetites of the West. On the other hand, it turns everybody else into an amorphous and powerless mess.
But the West-versus-the-rest dichotomy also appeals to radical conservatives, like the late professor Samuel Huntington, who saw an impending clash of civilizations. These people pose as defenders of the West as a region with special values that needs to be protected from those who are on the wrong side of Hadrian’s Wall – the barbarians, the Third World people or whatever you prefer to call the “Other”.
It would be better to consider an alternative interpretation of the current human condition. We could use the analogy between the Hellenistic and the Westernistic civilization. The latter must not be mistaken for modern Western civilization. Western civilization was decoupled from its base after Columbus’s voyage in 1492 and spread after the collapse of the Aztec empire. That was the beginning of globalization. There was a new impetus in the 19th century – a period of colonialism – after which globalization was reshaped into a corporate phenomenon in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The ideas of the ancient Greeks migrated to other places and provided fertile soil for the cross-pollination that produced many new inventions. Likewise, contemporary Westernistic civilization rests on the accomplishments of the modern West but incorporates many elements from various other places that enhance power, prestige, and wealth. But what exactly defines today’s global civilization as Westernistic? For a start, the understanding of time and space. Today, an international transaction is inconceivable without it as it rests on mechanical division of time into discrete units (a clock) and larger historical periods (antiquity, Middle Ages, modernity) as well as the arbitrary, yet mandatory, division of time continuum with a zero point that separated the flow of time into “common era” and “before common era”. Despite the fact that the Anno Domini was as a designation recently replaced by a more secular and neutral-sounding “Common Era”, the Latin Christian division of time is unerringly present in the modern Western chronology. Regardless of the specific collective ways of counting time (the Muslims start in early 7th century, the Jews locate the zero point at the time of creation, etc.), everybody today has to accept and apply this chronology.
Further: think of Gerhard Mercator who produced the modern geographic map of the world. It is biased in favor of the region his creator was from; nevertheless it is today universally adopted. Even the Ottoman Empire, the greatest Muslim rival of the West, ultimately accepted its world maps even though it meant to overrun ther specific Islamic counting of time. Likewise, the delineation of territories into states with clearly marked borders was a European invention. One must of course not forget the ideologies and collective narratives that were invented by the modern West yet are today globally spread such as the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, communism and nationalism, Nazism and fascism, liberalism and human rights, etc. We are talking about modern Western ideologies or narratives that various peoples in various corners of the planet are using to advance their particular interests.
Japan is a very good example of what it means to live under the aegis of Westernistic civilization yet not be Western. Back in the 19th century, Japan’s elites decided to accept the main elements of the modern Western paradigm, particularly in the area of governance, science, and military matters. It successfully avoided the role of a colony and even became a regional colonial power itself. Although Japan’s elites and the population at large have accepted some aspects of Western aspects of economic and business management, they have not given up their local culture. Consider karaoke and sushi, anima and manga. Not only are they still popular in Japan, but they have also been packaged and sold around the globe.
What we see is a cross-fertilization between modern Western ideas and technologies on the one hand and local cultural artifacts on the other. As you see, I keep emphasizing the role of ideas and technologies. This I do the better to emphasize the tunnel-vision of clash of civilizations that has been given much public currency. The underlying theme in Huntington’s notorious thesis is that civilizations act as singular actors and that they are very much akin to states. But that is not the case. Civilizations are not bound by a common territory. It is a mistake to see a civilization as something that is territorially bound. The best way to conceive of civilizations, instead, is to see them as a package of ideas and technologies. These packages or elements thereof do travel and spread as they have the capacity to appeal to peoples across various time and across the globe.
Suffice is to stress that, for example, the Byzantine civilization did not collapse entirely after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 when its seat at the Bosporus was occupied by the Muslim army. Its modes of thinking and doing things lived on in an altered form in the emerging structure of Ottoman public governance. The institutions that had been devised by the Byzantine Empire survived even though the polity that had given birth to them had ceased to exist. The ideas and the technologies of the Byzantines were given a second life under the banner of the Ottoman Empire.
To sum it up: it seems impossible to think outside the binary dichotomy of “us” against “them” as we perceive ourselves as members of a particular community. Only if we see the planet as the ultimate border will we be capable (though not necessarily willing to do so) of seeing ourselves as members of the very abstract concept, the community of human beings. I understand very well that collective identities in the past 200 years have been based on nations. This is what grabbed the attention and commanded the total loyalty of their citizens. The idea of the European Union is to transcend this parochialism. It is nice but does not go far enough. If the European Union is defined on a cultural basis, we will have the problem of boundaries and will ask questions such as where the European Union ends. Do the countries that carry the legacy of Eastern Orthodox Christianity fit within the framework of secular Europe? Do Islamic civilizations belong in Europe? If we conceive of Europe as of a cultural union, questions of this kind become vexing and divisive. But if we perceive the European Union as a political union, there should be no borders except those that have a political and economic foundation, such as the Maastricht criteria.
This should lead to a disregard for cultural parochialism and an attempt to integrate the entire world in the European Union. That would enable us to keep monotheistic capitalism at bay. I call it monotheistic because it behaves very much like Christianity and Islam and Judaism. It recognizes only one God – Mammon. It is a proselytizing philosophy in the sense that it seeks to convert everybody. It also engages in existential cleansing. Whatever cannot be transferred onto a datasheet and cannot be calculated in terms of the bottom line must perish. But if we treat the planet as something that is not for sale, we might stand some hope of learning from the historical divisions that have wrecked communities, split them and kept them asunder and subjugated them to the global order of modern corporate capitalism. On the other hand, sustainable development should take into consideration the ultimate limits of the planet where nobody is a barbarian and everybody is a member of one, all-encompassing civilization that is striving to achieve a common goal. This is a utopian pursuit that is however worth pursuing. It is, after all, a longing for the unattainable that, regardless of place of residence, animates the human soul.
The role of social media in authoritarian leaders’ nation branding and public diplomacy strategies
How can Erdogan’s Facebook posts of him holding a baby or shaking hands enhance Turkey diplomatic relations? Why Chechnya strongman Ramzan Kadyrov constantly share photos on Instagram while cuddling animals or working out? Scholarly literature has thoroughly addressed the democratic potential of digital diplomacy as a tool both for citizens to streamline social protest and for national diplomatic services to mediate and multiply the messages to reach the wider masses. Nonetheless, a vacuum still exists on the examination of how digital diplomacy – as Aronczyk suggests – can provide authoritarian leaders with a new tool for engaging foreign public in a “communication strategy […that] allows governments to better manage and control the image they project to the world.”(‘Nation branding’)
We will see – complementing the debate on how social media may serve as a tool of autocratic stability- how digital diplomacy may be an important tool in furthering a nation’s foreign policy”especially for non-democratic regimes by enabling direct interaction and engagement with foreign publics.
As Hanson argued, the technologic changes involving public diplomacy gave politicians and national diplomatic services (NDS) “the opportunity to influence and speak directly and more frequently to large audiences”.Nevertheless, such ability, alongside the capability to segment audiences may be a double-edged sword since it could boost ‘Digital Bonapartism’– a populist rhetoric aimed at marginalizing the opposition and manipulate public opinion in a subtler manner – of authoritarian leaders.Hence, resorting also to empirical data provided by social media analytics, we will provide a snapshot of authoritarian governments’ engagement and assertiveness in digital diplomacy.
Finally, it is worth recalling that the size and emotional preference of international online public determines to a good share the digital diplomatic strategies of non-democratic regimes.
Digital Diplomacy and Nation Branding
As Hocking and Melissen emphasized in their seminal work, “the propensity towards ‘hype’ in responding to technological change” alongside the tendency to resort to vague and amorphous conceptualizations provides little help in analysing ‘diplomacy in the digital age’.
Accordingly, to shed light on the concept,we will define ‘digital diplomacy’ as “solving foreign policy problems using the internet”, id est, as “conventional diplomacy through a different medium”.On the one hand, some critics held that ‘digital diplomacy’ is not diplomacy but ‘listening and dissemination’.Digital diplomacy is indeed a pivotal element of public diplomacy and traditional diplomacy latusensu, sharing with the latter mechanisms, networks and, most importantly, the task of promoting the States’ interests at the international level.
Firstly, the growing usage of social media is instrumental for countries to achieve foreign policy goals while proactively managing their image and reputation abroad. Furthermore – enlarging Szondi’s analysis of the relationship between public diplomacy and nation branding – we emphasize how digital diplomacy may also prove a useful tool in nation-branding without necessarily accounting for the full range of State’s activities to further its image abroad. Nation branding activities through social media involve an effort to develop and spread “a national discourse for global context”.Therefore, digital diplomacy may be deeply interweaved with ‘public diplomacy’: social media may be serve as the medium to convey messages to international audience, enhance a country’s international image in a broader public diplomacy discourse.In fact, as Fouts argued, “for social media, virtual world and physical interactions […] are part of a broader tapestry of interactions that a country should employ to manage its brand”.
Despite the capability of social media to disrupt the top-down political communication and their potential in harnessing countries’ exposure to nation brand-damaging event,their use in diplomacy could bolster the legitimacy of authoritarian regime by framing the discourse and winning credibility among foreign public.
Authoritarian digital narratives: Liars and Outliers?
Unlike the Juan Linz’s authoritarianism Idealtypus, modern ‘competitive authoritarian regimes’ resort to more subtle mechanisms of repression than their counterparts in authoritarian regimes: the engagement of foreign public through social media fits in a broader strategy aimed at winning credibility on the international stage, mainstreaming ‘digital bonapartism’.
Therefore, framing the foreign policy discourse may help authoritarian regimes’ credibility and boost relationships with third countries in the long run.Whereas several studies have underscored that leaders in democratic countries are more likely to adopt social media, nonetheless no further research has been carried out on the features of autocrats’ use of social media to attain foreign policy purposes.
Moreover,the increasing involvement of Head of States’ in digital diplomacy further shrinks the role of foreign ministries as gatekeepers for other government actors.
This phenomenon is particularly evident when contrasting the digital audiences of the most followed authoritarian leaders with that of the respective MFAs. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)While MFAs are more prolific in delivering messages, their effectiveness in achieving visibility is limited. The claim that the “stimulus to centralization in foreign policy making […] is not evident in the case of digitization” may be revaluated when tackling authoritarian regimes. In this form of government strong leaders may rely on their pivotal position to convey narratives aimed at offering the international public partisan explanation of complex events.
Twitter, thanks to its brevity and its intuitive interface quickly imposed has the most widely communication tool for diplomacy, allowing world leaders to broadcast short, poignant messages to millions of followers.These inherent features of social medias give leaders an edge: being the digital realm an ‘emotional space’, the rising prominence of emotional expression may clash with the diplomatic tradition with an international public increasing demand for emotional and visual connections.
Furthermore, as clearly shown in Table 1, the ‘digital audience’ of most-followed authoritarian leaders in every region is mainly located abroad, thus increasingly the value of Twitter as a tool for convey foreign policy messages and signals.
The data gathered clearly display a massive divide in terms of the number of followers among leaders –communicating through personal accounts – and their respective MFAs.
Furthermore, through social platforms leaders may tailor messages matching contrasting narratives to target different foreign constituencies: the sheer size of messages delivered by MFA accounts -acting as simple sounding boards – may be instrumental in amplifying the leaders’ messages spreading the ‘official’ narrative set up by the Head of State/Government. Faced with the need for addressing different audiences at different levels, authoritarian leaders are enhancing their effectiveness in delivering through different social platform, resulting more effective where the message is framed in an epigrammatic or visual manner (Twitter and Instagram, respectively) than the more ‘discursive’ Facebook posts.
Conclusion: Emotional Digital Diplomacy?
Digital modes of communication provide a new dimension and challenge to ‘framing’ issues”. As Manor emphasizes, narratives may be particularly important in digital diplomacy since they offer a clear explanation of complex events.
We argued that the very issue of authoritarian leaders’ engagement in social media concerns digital diplomacy’s values as a powerful tool to expand soft power reach in public diplomacy”.
Moreover, digital diplomacy offer a whole new device to convey narratives. The centralization trend allows leaders to play a crucial role in nation branding, in which the authoritarian structure enabling– as Surowiec has illustrated in his case-study – a “commitment to unification and synergy of collective identity projection [that] is hardly viable in any democratic political field”.
Finally, the narrative storytelling framework of social media – characterised by ‘the predominance of emotional content’ – enables non-democratic leaders to resort to a full range of emotional solutions offered, exploiting the tailoring and timing of the communication.
In a radical overturn of social media promise of a more enlightened politics, as accurate information and effortless communication,digital tools represent nowadays a powerful device for spreading biased narratives and influencing the foreign public appealing to the emotional sphere. Therefore, digitally-empowered autocrats are increasingly carving themselves a niche in the ‘attention economy’ of international arena imitating and learning from digital diplomacy strategies of their democratic peers.
How national diplomatic missions are adapting to a fast-changing environment
Diplomacy at a crossroads
The impact of technology in diplomacy cannot be overstated. If “twenty years ago, telegrams from embassies would arrive in paper form”, in the past years an avalanche of technological breakthroughs forced diplomatic representations to adapt. Embassies are increasingly making use of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, even if that embrace is still made with reluctance by practitioners. Moreover, the phenomenon of big data suggests that the role of diplomatic missions as ‘gatherers’ of information will be enhanced, provided national diplomatic systems make good use of the ever increasing amount of data available.
Even if it is still looked with suspicion by diplomats, the role of digital diplomacy paves the way for another important shift in diplomacy, which is the rise of non-state actors that “present a formidable challenge to state primacy in the diplomatic world”. These new digital platforms give non-state actors a much easier way to reach and influence bothlocal and global audiences. Indeed, as Shaun Riordan puts it, “the sheer range of new actors – governmental and non-governmental – in international relations is truly staggering, as is their exponential growth”.
All this comes at a time when domestic circumstances are also undergoing deep change. MFAs are increasinglypressuredto cut expenditure as many countries, particularly across Europe, seek to balance their public budgets. This has led to a rationalisation of costs where possible, often with allied countries deciding to pool their resources together. This has in turn set the scene for the rise of commercial diplomacy. Increasingly “governments encourage home firms to trade, as well as seeking to make their countries an attractive destination for foreign direct investment (FDI), research and development (R&D) and knowledge”.
One example that seems to have attempted to meet all these new challenges was the period that Tom Fletcher spent as British Ambassador to Lebanon. The Ambassador chose to adopt a direct and informal communication style to reach out to his host country that included tweeting and blogging frequently. During his tenure, Mr Fletcher actively promoted trade between the United Kingdom and Lebanon by sponsoring several trade fairs and showcases of British products, while facilitating defence trade deals between the UK and Lebanon.
The impact seems to be have been highly positive. UK-Lebanon business doubled in the space of three years and the “Lebanese Armed Forces are now using British-supplied vehicles and a string of British-built watchtowers”. The period of Mr Fletcher as UK Ambassador seems to suggest a new way of diplomacy-making, with added roles for the Ambassador: perhaps more informal in style, but undoubtedly with greater public exposure and a vocal promoter of the country on cultural and commercial terms.
“The news of my death have been greatly exaggerated”: Diplomacy lives on
Despite all the changes and the lively discussion around the changes-in-waiting in the diplomatic world, it is worth pondering whether the excitement over the future of diplomatic missions is not without some hyperbole. After all, many of the novelties discussed are but means to the primary goals diplomatic missions have since time immemorial served: the advancement of a country’s interests and the protection of its citizens abroad.
Moreover, as ‘digital’ as diplomatic representations may eventually become, the role of the embassy as a building is and will remain a potentially key instrument of a country’s foreign policy. Here, the exile of Julius Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012 provides a clear – if unlikely – example. After being accused of crimes of sexual nature in Sweden and declaring himself a political prisoner, Mr Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. As at the time he was in London, he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which he has not left since. Even if this is an admittedly unusual example, it nonetheless shows that embassies remain irreplaceable; indeed, diplomacy can never be fully uploaded onto a ‘cloud’. When Tom Fletcher writes that the model diplomat in 2025 will not “see the embassy as a building, but as an idea”, that idea cannot in any case be disassociated from the building itself.
Embassies will remain essential assets of a country’s national diplomatic system. They retain replaceable function in terms of a country’s power projection worldwide and in protecting its citizens abroad in emergency situations.
However, the tectonic shifts we are witnessing will force the structure of embassies to change radically. There is a multiplication of available information due to issues such as big data and the emergence of new digital platforms and social media networks. Thus, embassies are likely to be, in the words of Tom Fletcher, “managers” instead of “creators” of information when communicating with their national Foreign Offices.
Naturally, this is not a model that will necessarily fit the realities of all states in the world. First of all, there is a high degree of agency in the diplomacy envisioned by Mr Fletcher. Not all diplomats are or will ever be “authentic, flexible, connected and influential”. Moreover, the economic, social and cultural particularities of each country will always define the priorities it sets out for its diplomatic representations to achieve. It thus follows that national diplomatic systems were always highly asymmetric among each other and will undoubtedly remain so – in number, size and scope. For instance, the United Kingdom has 226 diplomatic missions abroad; Estonia, at 45, has far less. Nevertheless, both countries have issues they will want their diplomatic missions to tackle, and both have political, economic and cultural agendas they will seek to project abroad. Those topics will often interact: Portugal’s economy diplomacy agency AICEP’s work in projecting the country as being at the forefront of digital innovation was certainly a key factor in convincing Egypt to buy Portugal’s public administration innovation technologies. In this kind of synergies lies the key to overcoming the challenges diplomatic representation will face in the future.
Kofi Annan: A Humane Diplomat
I was deeply shocked whenever I heard that Kofi Annan is no more. A noble peace laureate, a visionary leader, an intellectual and scholar, a ‘global statesman’who led the United Nations two times as Secretary General will never be forgotten by the world. Especially, I cannot forget him. When I taught the United Nations to my students, his works always motivated me. I was a great fan of him. I regularly followed his write-ups, published in LinkedIn. I deeply admired his thoughts for the voiceless, marginalized people in theworld. Today, tens of thousands voiceless, powerless people in the world lost their ambassador.Its an irreparable loss to the world, particularly to the poor.In fact, there are very few people in the world, who talks, thinks about the poor. Annan is well known as a UN Secretary-General. I will not focus his works as Secretary General. RatherI intend to remember him through his writingsand speeches delivered around the world for a better, peaceful world.
Towards A Fairer, Peaceful World
If one goes through the writings of Kofi Annan, he always wrote and spoke for a fairer, for a more peaceful world. According to him, there are three pillars of a fairer, more peaceful world, i.e. sustainable development, peace and human rights. He contends that ‘these pillars are interconnected and interdependent, for there can be no long-term security without development, and there can be no long-term development without security. And no society can long remain prosperous without the rule of law and respect for human rights’ (Annan, May 13, 2015).He believed that if everyone comes forward in one way or another, then this fairer and peaceful world is possible to establish for everyone. In this regard, in a speech at Columbia University in 2015, Annan urged that ‘I encourage each and every one of you, in your own way, to join our struggle for a fairer and more peaceful world’.He believed in cooperation rather than competition, believed in engagement rather than separation. He writes that ‘My long experience has taught me that, whatever our background, what unites us is far greater than what divides us’.
Writings for the Poor, Voiceless People& Their Everyday Challenges
The last article that Annan published in LinkedIn was about Snakebiteon June 28, 2018. Annan urged that snakebites need to be addressed seriously by the world community as a public health crisis which is highly neglected in the world arena. He mentioned that it is poor people who become affected by snakebites and thus it is still neglected by the world community. But in terms of significance, in the piece, he mentions that ‘snakebite kills between 81,000 and 138,000 people globally every year, with many more suffering lasting mental and physical impairments. By comparison, the mosquito-borne Dengue fever claims roughly 20,000 lives annually worldwide. Despite its huge impact, snakebite is the biggest public health crisis you have likely never heard of. To date, it has been largely overlooked’. He concludes his piece by urging that ‘By working together to tackle snakebite, we can save the lives of tens of thousands of our fellow human beings in some of the poorest and most marginalised parts of our world’.
He strongly raised his voice against the genocide of Rohingyas. Notably, if the Myanmar government would follow the suggestions given by the Kofi Annan commission led by him, then, the world would not witness today’s Rohingya genocide. To resolve the global refugee crisis, Annan questioned that why are only poor countries taking refugees? Why not the developed one? He identifies that ‘Yet the sad truth is that for many, especially in the prosperous Global North, refugees have slipped from the minds of citizens. When they do appear, it’s often because of irresponsible political rhetoric designed to stoke fears rather than foster genuine debate. Quasi-populist politicians have all too often exploited these fears — when what is needed is responsible leadership shaped by facts, principles and values’ (Annan, June 27, 2017).
In a speech given on 25 June 2018 at the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva, Switzerland, Annan talks about the water challenge that the world faces and its solutions. Annan points out that ‘Water scarcity currently affects more than 40% of the global population, and this figure is projected to rise. Millions of people, most of them children, die every year from diseases linked to poor hygiene and unsafe water. Climate change is adding to these pressures: in water-scarce regions, the increasing and competing demands for water are leading to instability, forced migration and conflict’. Against this backdrop, he urges the worldto take effective actions immediately. In the speech, he emphasizes that ‘Water is critical for human health, food security, the environment, stability and prosperity; we therefore have to put water at the core of all of our peace and development efforts’ (Annan, June 25, 2018).
Dreaming for poverty, hunger and malnutrition free world
Kofi Annan dreamed for a hunger-free world. Notably, he significantly contributed to the UN Millennium Development Goals, consisting of eight ambitious goals. He writes that ‘[t]he first goal — to cut extreme poverty and hunger in half by 2015 — was especially important to me, because it was crucial to achieving all the others. Talk led to action, and action to results. Between 2000 and 2015, nearly every African country improved childhood nutrition, especially in reducing stunted growth caused by malnutrition’ (Annan, March 20, 2018).
Annan links stability and peace with food security. He writes that ‘we need to recognise that stability and peace are necessary conditions for agricultural development, food security and the long-term sustainability of food systems.In parts of the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, millions of people are at risk of starvation due to violent conflict, radical extremism and insecurity’ (Annan, April 20, 2018). Thus, he reiterates on peace and stability in the world to achieve sustainable food security for all.In addition, Annan focuses on the nutritional aspects of food security which is very often overlooked by the policy world. According to him, ‘Nutrition is one of the best drivers of development: it sparks a virtuous cycle of socio-economic improvements, such as increasing access to education and employment. Eradicating malnutrition is crucial to delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals’ promise of “leaving no one behind” (Annan, March 20, 2018).
On January 29, 2018 he published an article on malnutrition in Africa in LinkedIn, titled ‘Five Steps to End Malnutrition in Africa’.These steps are: ‘both the public and private sector need to champion nutrition and mobilise more financial commitments on nutrition to deliver socio-economic and health returns; governments have to adopt a nutrition-sensitive lens to new policies; need to create new partnerships and promote solutions that come from all sectors – governments, the private sector, and civil society; need to make sure that we put in place a nutrition accountability mechanism; and finally a focus on data is critical to helping countries reduce malnutrition. Timely, relevant, and reliable data are essential to defining problems, diagnosing root causes, and making informed policy decisions’ (Annan, January 29, 2018).In fact, he is quite optimistic to end malnutrition if ‘sustained and bold leadership from every sector can be ensured’.
Annan emphasized the transformation of our food systems through delivering healthy diets in all communities and countries across the world (November 6, 2017). He warns to the world that ‘Famines are the most visible signs of today’s global nutrition emergency, but child stunting is an even bigger – and hidden – crisis that will stunt entire societies in the long term if not addressed’ (November 6, 2017).
Creating positive changes in the world
Kofi Annan believed that it is possible to bring positive changes in the world though there are complex challenges like climate change, growing inequalities. For a positive change in the world, he makes three recommendations, i.e. to make sure that business does not forget the poorest; to build alliances and partnerships to increase equitable growth and opportunity for all; businesses need to ensure the decisions they make will deliver sustainable and ethical development (Annan, November 10, 2017). In this context, Annan writes: ‘There are many challenges to overcome, but I am confident that through leadership, partnership, and vision, positive change is possible. So let us all start living up to this responsibility today and lay the foundation for a brighter tomorrow’ (Annan, November 10, 2017).
Finally, it can be said that from politicians to practitioners, teachers to students, writers to journalists, businessman to general masses, all need to study Kofi Annan and his philosophy to make a fairer and a more peaceful world.In fact, a humane world is a crying need which needs to be realized by all stakeholders and materialized. And for the materialization, leadership crisis needs to be addressed as Annan has argued ‘the world has a leadership crisis, not a knowledge crisis’. There is in fact, enough food for thought for the world.
New anti-Russian sanctions to hit European energy sector
The US plans to tighten sanctions against Russia, scheduled for November, is causing growing concern from the international business community,...
Raw materials use to double by 2060 with severe environmental consequences
The world’s consumption of raw materials is set to nearly double by 2060 as the global economy expands and living...
Answering the CPEC Challenges
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will help sustain the economic growth of China and will highlight the strategic importance of Pakistan. It...
Erdogan’s multiple goals in Khashoggi case
Disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul created a wave of reactions against Saudi young...
Finland shows how bioenergy and nuclear can drive the energy transition
Thanks to the strong role of nuclear, hydro and bioenergy – which alone accounts for 29% of energy supply –...
Asia and the Pacific grows in importance for Global Tourism
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), in partnership with the Global Tourism Economy Research Centre (GTERC), presented its Asia Tourism Trends...
Fast-tracking a Zero Waste Economy: Business Leaders Commit to Circular Economy Action
Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates have committed to joining a major global initiative to redesign the...
- Queen Rania of Jordan Wears Ralph & Russo Ready-To-Wear
- OMEGA watches land on-screen in Universal Pictures’ new film First Man
- Experience the Prada Parfum’s Way of Travelling at Qatar Duty Free
- ‘Get Carried Away’ With Luxurious Villa Stays and Complimentary Private Jet Flights
- Westin Hotels & Resorts to Debut in Maldives
Africa2 days ago
SADC-Russia’s economic cooperation: Strategies, challenges and future perspectives
Middle East2 days ago
Mohammed bin Salman: For better or for worse?
Defense2 days ago
US Air force : Competing with rivals or creating a new weaponry market?
Defense2 days ago
Future of ISR Capabilities in South Asia
Intelligence2 days ago
Top Afghan commander’s killing raises questions
Middle East1 day ago
Middle East Instability to Overshadow Future Global Nuclear Nonproliferation Efforts
Newsdesk2 days ago
Suzhou Forum Calls for Faster Energy Transformation for Better Lives and Prosperity
Economy1 day ago
Restructuring Libya’s finance and economy