The difference between “de jure” and “de facto” legislation is not one of semantics – if a law is discriminatory on its face, it is called “de jure.” However if an enacted law has the effect of being discriminatory, it is called “de facto.” Most de jure laws are thankfully illegal in the United States, however de facto discriminatory legislation is rampant throughout this country, with the effects often not seen for years, if not decades, on the populace.
This means that if a President or sitting Legislature passes a bad discriminatory law, the damages usually aren’t seen until a long time in the future, long after that leader has left office, usually after he has made millions if not billions in the private sector, using his past laurels as an American politician.
This is the ultimate mark of a true scoundrel – and unfortunately characterizes the vast majority of our political leaders.
The combined effect of this morass of discriminatory laws, regulations and ordinances, coupled with the actual encouragement of police departments to recruit low IQ racist applicants while rejecting higher scoring ones, or the awarding of complete and total immunity for unethical, dishonest, or politically motivated prosecutors and judges who selectively prosecute and punish based on racial/ethnic/political grounds, whether federal or state, ensures a Josef Stalin-style police state more reminiscent of the days of the SS/Gestapo NAZI political dragnet targeting political dissidents and minorities, than what the Founding Fathers probably envisioned. As famed criminal defense lawyer Harvey Silverglate aptly stated, “The average US Citizen now commits at least 3 felonies per day unknowingly.” And as Lavrenty Beria, Stalin’s Secret Police Chief said, “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.” Adding to this mix are recent admissions by FBI Chief James Comey that racist organizations have been infiltrating police departments for decades. Or that FBI Agents have been lying for decades in order to falsely convict people who may be innocent.
Because of this de facto American-style of segregation, not open and state-sanctioned, it has outlived the openly de jure segregationist state of South Africa which had an official governmental policy of apartheid, and because of its open and explicit state action, made it vulnerable to local and global anti-segregationist forces.
For example, when past Housing and Urban Development Commissioner Andrew Cuomo passed sweeping legislation reducing the credit requirements for people to buy or mortgage a home, this allowed tens of millions of minorities and poor people, who could not afford to buy a home, to buy into a financial albatross trap around their neck, and when the economy started to sputter in mid 2008, the vast majority of those people who couldn’t afford a house anyway, began to default, and then a huge avalanche of defaults ensued, causing the housing bubble to burst. Investment banks like Goldman Sachs actually betted against the people, and set up “credit swap derivatives” based solely on the cynical prediction that this housing mortgage bubble crisis would occur, and then they sickeningly made money off of this.
Adding insult to injury, then President Bill Clinton, bowing to pressure from ex-Goldman Sachs big-wigs Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Gene Sperling, who were in his Cabinet at the time in “government service,” repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, thus dissolving the wall between private checking/savings accounts of the people, and the wild and crazy gambling antics of the investment banks. This allowed these big banks to place high-stake, high-risk global investments using the American taxpayers’ hard-earned money. But of course, even though Bill Clinton dissolved Glass-Steagall in 1999, the American people of course did not feel its after effects until December 2008. And Andrew Cuomo was involved with HUD from 1993 to 2001, a full 7 years before his housing bubble mortgage crisis hit the fan.
Similarly, the Violence Against Womens’ Act (“VAWA”), written by then Senator Joe Biden and passed by then President Bill Clinton in 1994 seemed harmless, if not helpful, to battered women at that time, but the Trojan Horse of this very bad legislation allowed corrupt and racist local law enforcement, con-artist women, activist corrupt judges, money and power-hungry feminist womens’ groups, and others with a political agenda in the district attorneys office, to use the federal law’s ability to summarily suspend anyone’s 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th and 14th Amendment Rights whenever a complaint was made that someone engaged in some type of domestic dispute, even if no violence or evidence was found, arrest and charge that person, and then throw them into the abyss of the criminal justice system, where dishonest and unethical prosecutors, or activist judges “on the take” from various special interests and lobbying groups, could selectively prosecute or dismiss the case at their whim, with little to no recourse, or remedy for the accused. This means that after 20 years, marriage is at an all time low, more domestic violence has taken place, more children are growing up without parents, the Child Protective Services have grossly enlarged and are now being accused of being vehicles for child abduction/abuse/sexual trafficking, and other horrific crimes. Furthermore, the very fabric of the American family has been broken down into damaged components, while the “state machinery” operates to keep couples apart, even if they want to reconcile, thus further breaking down families and exposing innocent children to the wolves of providence and predators.
Bill Clinton also passed the newly amended federal Child Support Enforcement Act in 1994 which also summarily tossed good men into jail without a trial or inquest, suspending their drivers and professional licenses, even if they missed a few child support payments due to disability, loss of a job, bankruptcy, personal tragedy, or other unforseen event. The effects of these two above laws re-instituted the Debtors’ Prison in America, and many would argue that Slavery was in fact re-instituted as well, in violation of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest triumph, the 13th Amendment prohibiting Indentured Servitude and Slavery. Many a con-artist in American society has taken advantage of these two laws with the full force and brute power of the state against that targeted individual. The same story applies to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, sponsored by U.S. Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, which bill was also originally written by then Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, passed by Congress, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. And again, these laws target racial minorities much harder than their white counterparts.
Bill Clinton recently admitted in April 2015, more than 15 years after he left office, that mass incarceration on his watch “put too many people in prison.” He went on to further state that poor whites and minorities in America were victimized as a result of America’s unparalleled rate of imprisonment due to the horrific laws that he enacted. Ibid. More than 2 million people are still held in captivity in prisons and jails, giving the country 25% of the world’s prison numbers despite having only 5% of its overall population. Id. Bill Clinton’s drug enforcement laws of 1994 created a crime bill that laid down several of the foundations of the country’s current mass incarceration trends vowing to be “tough on crime” with his “triangulation” policy of creating incentives to individual states to build more prisons, put more people behind bars and to keep them there for longer, introducing a federal three-strikes law that brought in long sentences for habitual offenders, creating “truth in sentencing” states which sentenced people to long terms in prison with no chance of parole being rewarded with increased federal funds, and the Clinton COPS program, ie, the “Community Oriented Policing Services,” where federal money was provided to states to allow them vastly to increase the number of police officers on the streets and consequently resulting in more arrests and convictions of poor whites and minorities. Id.
In terms of real estate, buying homes and leases of property, the real estate market is notorious for working with local, city, state and federal “urban planners” to literally, under the color of law and authority, “zone entire areas” to create the de facto result of segregating whites and other minorities from living, working, or going to school together.
According to the seminal study “Spatial Segregation and Neighborhoods” by Carl Nightingale, “during the 1890s, the word segregation became the preferred term for the practice of coercing different groups of people, especially those designated by race, to live in separate and unequal urban residential neighborhoods. In the southern states of the United States, segregationists imported the word originally used in the British colonies of Asia—to describe Jim Crow laws, and, in 1910, whites in Baltimore passed a “segregation ordinance” mandating separate black and white urban neighborhoods. Copy-cat legislation sprang up in cities across the South and the Midwest. But in 1917, a multiracial team of lawyers from the fledgling National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) mounted a successful legal challenge to these ordinances in the U.S. Supreme Court—even as urban segregation laws were adopted in other places in the world, most notably in South Africa. The collapse of the movement for legislated racial segregation in the United States occurred just as African Americans began migrating in large numbers into cities in all regions of the United States, resulting in waves of anti-black mob violence. Segregationists were forced to rely on non-statutory or formally nonracial techniques. In Chicago, an alliance of urban reformers and real estate professionals invented alternatives to explicitly racist segregation laws. The practices they promoted nationwide created one of the most successful forms of urban racial segregation in world history, rivaling and finally outliving South African apartheid. Understanding how this system came into being and how it persists today requires understanding both how the Chicago segregationists were connected to counterparts elsewhere in the world and how they adapted practices of city-splitting to suit the peculiarities of racial politics in the United States.”
These neo-segregationists escaped allegations of housing discrimination due to the relative lack of interest and enforcement of civil rights laws by the local, state, and federal government. Some claim that organizations like the NYS Division of Human Rights often do nothing more than provide an illusion of enforcement, while simply notifying or tipping off the offender so that they can cover themselves, and then retaliate against the complainer. In 2008 by a bipartisan federal commission on housing equity found that in the United States only about twenty thousand out of an estimated four million acts of housing discrimination receive any official attention in any given year.
As was described above, when in 1999 Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act dissolving the wall between investment banks and the peoples’ hard-earned money, three de facto racially discriminatory and apartheid-causing results occurred: predatory “subprime” loans to poor minorities; mortgage-backed securities consisting of predatory loans bundled with other loans and re-sliced into highly lucrative “tranches,” and “credit default swaps” meant to insure the mortgage-backed securities.
These three apartheid-spawning spiderwebs trapped huge numbers of minorities and poor people into bad mortgages using grossly fraudulent practices with guaranteed defaults.
Furthermore according to Nightingale, black people were more than 2-3 times as likely as white people of the same income to be steered into subprime loans even though 2/3 were eligible for standard mortgages that on average cost $100,000 less over the life of the loan. The resulting racial disparities in housing foreclosures widened the large inequalities in wealth on either side of the American color line. Ibid. Furthermore, according to Nightingale, “in 2008, as the American mortgage bubble burst, bringing on a global recession, U.S. whites possessed a staggering ten times more wealth on average than blacks of equal income, largely because of segregation in the American housing market. Four years later, as Obama finished his first term, the black-white wealth gap had doubled to twenty to one.” Id.
Reflecting on the above, it is no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the United States of America, through the de facto manipulation of its laws, especially in the last 20 years, in the laboratory-like settings of the family, criminal, and civil courts, both federal and local, as well as in its House of Representatives and Senate, and capped off by the Executive Branch, has devolved into a fully functional Apartheid State. Not on its surface, but in its practice. And this is the essential difference between a de jure apartheid state, and a de facto one.
And as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe so eloquently stated, “None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Roads and Rails for the U.S.
For those who expect the newly announced $2 trillion Biden infrastructure program to be a goodbye to potholes and hello to smooth-as-glass expressways, a disappointment is in store. The largest expenditure by far ($400 billion) is on home/community care, impacting the elderly or disabled. The $115 billion apportioned to roads and bridges is #4 on the list.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) keeps tabs on our infrastructure and their latest report (2020) gave it an overall grade of C-. Although bridges worsened, this is a modest improvement on the previous report (2017) when the overall grade was D+. If $115 billion in spending sounds adequate, one has to remember it costs $27 billion annually for upkeep.
Astounding it might be the backlog in spending for roads and bridges runs at $12 billion annually. Go back 20 years and we have a quarter trillion shortfall. Add all the other areas of infrastructure and the ASCE comes up with a $5 trillion total. It is the gap between what we have been spending and what we need to. Also one has to bear in mind that neglect worsens condition and increases repair costs.
One notable example of maintenance is the Forth rail bridge in Scotland. A crisscross of beams forming three superstructures linked together, it was a sensation when opened in 1890 and now is a UN World Heritage Site. Spanning 1.5 miles, its upkeep requires a regular coat of paint. And that it gets. Rumor has it that when the unobtrusive painters reach the end of their task, it is time to start painting again the end where they began — a permanent job to be sure though new paints might have diminished such prospects.
Biden also proposes $80 billion for railways. Anyone who has travelled or lived in Europe knows the stark contrast between railroads there and in the U.S. European high-speed rail networks are growing from the established TGV in France to the new Spanish trains. Run by RENFE, the national railway, Alta Velocidad Española (AVE) trains run at speeds up to 310 km/h (193 mph) — a speed that amounts to a convenient overnight trip between Los Angeles and Chicago.
The hugely expensive new tracks needed can be considered a long-term investment in our children’s future. But it will take courage to contest the well-heeled lobbies of the airplane manufacturers, the airlines and big oil.
If Spain can have high-speed rail and if China already has some 24,000 miles of such track, surely the US too can opt for a system that is convenient for its lack of airport hassle and the hour wasted each way in the journey to or from the city center. Rail travel not only avoids both but is significantly less polluting.
Particularly bad, airplane pollution high above (26 to 43 thousand feet) results in greater ozone formation in the troposphere. In fact airplanes are the principal human cause of ozone formation.
Imagine a comfortable train with space to walk around, a dining car serving freshly cooked food, a lounge car and other conveniences, including a bed for overnight travel; all for a significantly less environmental cost. When we begin to ask why we in the US do not have the public services taken for granted in other developed countries, perhaps then the politicians might take note.
Congress and the Biden administration should end FBI immunity overseas
The FBI notably has an extended international presence running 63 offices in select countries overseas. The offices are called “legats” and are situated at the US Embassy in the host country. One of the major reasons for FBI’s international presence is fighting international terrorism.
The FBI legat personnel at the US embassies are fully accredited diplomats enjoying full diplomatic immunity but that poses several questions that are worth asking, such as: how is it possible for law enforcement to be diplomats and is that a good idea, legally speaking?
Police work should not enjoy diplomatic immunity because that opens the door to abuse. Does the FBI’s immunity overseas mean that the FBI attaches can do no wrong in the host country? How do we tackle potential rights infringements and instances of abuse of power by the FBI towards locals in the host country? The DOJ Inspector General and the State Department Inspector General would not accept complaints by foreigners directed at the FBI, so what recourse then could a local citizen have vis-a-vis the FBI legat if local courts are not an option and the Inspector Generals would not look into those cases?
This presents a real legal lacuna and a glitch in US diplomatic immunity that should not exist and should be addressed by Congress and the new Biden administration.
While FBI offices overseas conduct some far from controversial activities, such as training and educational exchanges with local law enforcement, which generally no one would object to, the real question as usual is about surveillance: who calls the shots and who assumes responsibility for potentially abusive surveillance of locals that may infringe upon their rights. It’s an issue that most people in countries with FBI presence around the world are not aware of. The FBI could be running “counter-terrorism” surveillance on you in your own country instead of the local police. And that’s not nothing.
When we hear “cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism”, as recent decades show, there is a great likelihood that the US government is abusing powers and rights, without batting an eyelash. That exposes local citizens around the world to unlawful surveillance without legal recourse. Most people are not even aware that the FBI holds local offices. Why would the FBI be operating instead of the local law enforcement on another country’s territory? That’s not a good look on the whole for the US government.
The legal lacuna is by design. This brings us to the nuts and bolts of the FBI legats’ diplomatic immunity.
Diplomatic immunity is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, under Chapter III on privileges and immunities. The US is also a state party to the Convention, along with most states around the world. While there could be some variations and disagreements on bilateral basis (including on weather for example one state could be hosted and represented through the embassy of another state in a third state), on the whole there is a universal consensus that the Vienna Convention sets the rules establishing diplomatic immunities and privileges.
Under the Vienna Convention, only top diplomats are given the highest degree of immunity from the law. This means they cannot be handcuffed, arrested, detained, or prosecuted by law enforcement officials of the country in which they’re stationed. Diplomatic immunities and privileges also include things like diplomatic “bags” (with very peculiar cases of what that could entail) and notably, protection and diplomatic immunity for the family of diplomats.
It is a universal consensus that not everyone who works at an Embassy has or should have diplomatic immunity. Immunity is saved for diplomats whose role has to be protected from the local jurisdiction of the country for a reason. Not all embassy staff should enjoy diplomatic immunity. Granting law enforcement such as the FBI full legal immunity for their actions is bad news.
Only the top officials at an embassy are diplomats with an actual full immunity — and that’s for a reason.
It makes sense why a diplomat negotiating an agreement should not be subjected to local courts’ jurisdiction. But the same doesn’t go for a law enforcement official who acts as a law enforcement official by, for example, requesting unlawful surveillance on a local citizen, in his law enforcement capacity, while thinking of himself as a diplomat and being recognized as such by the law.
Law enforcement personnel are not diplomats. Dealing with extraterritorial jurisdiction cases or international cases is not the same thing as the need for diplomatic immunity. If that was the case, everyone at the export division at the Department if Commerce would have diplomatic immunity for protection from foreign courts, just in case. Some inherent risk in dealing with international cases does not merit diplomatic immunity – otherwise, this would lead to absurdities such as any government official of any country being granted diplomatic immunity for anything internationally related.
The bar for diplomatic immunity is very high and that’s by design based on an international consensus resting upon international law. Simply dealing with international cases does not make a policeman at a foreign embassy a diplomat. If that was the case every policeman investigating an international case would have to become a diplomat, just in case, for protection from the jurisdiction of the involved country in order to avoid legal push-back. That’s clearly unnecessary and legally illogical. Being a staff member at an embassy in a foreign country does not in and of itself necessitate diplomatic immunity, as many embassy staff do not enjoy diplomatic protection. It is neither legally justified nor necessary for the FBI abroad to enjoy diplomatic immunity; this could only open up the function to potential abuse. The FBI’s arbitrary surveillance on locals can have a very real potential for violating the rights of local people. This is a difference in comparison to actual diplomats. Diplomats do not investigate or run surveillance on locals; they can’t threaten or abuse the rights of local citizens directly, the way that law enforcement can. Lack of legal recourse is a really bad look for the Biden administration and for the US government.
The rationale for diplomatic immunity is that it should not be permitted to arrest top diplomats, who by definition have to be good at representing their own country’s interests in relation to the host state, for being too good at their job once the host state is unhappy with a push back, for example. The Ambassador should not be exposed to or threatened by the risk of an arrest and trial for being in contradiction with the interests of the host state under some local law on treason, for example, because Ambassadors could be running against the interests of the host state, by definition. And that’s contained within the rules of diplomatic relations. It’s contained in the nature of diplomatic work that such contradictions may arise, as each side represents their own country’s interests. Diplomats should not be punished for doing their job. The same doesn’t apply to the FBI legats. Issuing surveillance on local citizens is not the same as representing the US in negotiations. The FBI legats’ functions don’t merit diplomatic immunity and their actions have to be open to challenge in the host country’s jurisdiction.
The FBI immunity legal lacunae is in some ways reminiscent of similar historic parallels, such as the George W. Bush executive order that US military contractors in Iraq would enjoy full legal immunity from Iraqi courts’ jurisdiction, when they shouldn’t have. At the time, Iraq was a war-torn country without a functioning government, legal system or police forces. But the same principle of unreasonable legal immunity that runs counter international laws is seen even today, across European Union countries hosting legally immune FBI attaches.
Congress and the Biden administration should end FBI immunity overseas. It can be argued that for any local rights infringements, it is the local law enforcement cooperating with the US Embassy that should be held accountable – but that would ignore that the actual request for unlawful surveillance on locals could be coming from the FBI at the Embassy. The crime has to be tackled at the source of request.
When I reached out to the US Embassy in Bulgaria they did not respond to a request to clarify the justification for the FBI diplomatic immunity in EU countries.
To prevent abuse, Congress and the Biden Administration should remove the diplomatic immunity of the FBI serving overseas.
Competition and cooperation between China and the United States and the eighth priority
In mid-March U.S. President Biden held his first press conference since taking office. Speaking about Sino-U.S. relations, Biden said: “I will prevent China from surpassing the United States of America during my term of office”. At the same time, he also stressed that he would not seek to confront China, but to keep up fierce competition between the two countries.
Focusing on competition between major powers is one of the important changes in U.S. foreign policy in recent years. As the strengths of China and the United States draw closer together, the United States increasingly feels that its own ‘hegemony’ is threatened. During Trump’s tenure, the United States has caused a trade war, a technology war, and even a complete disagreement with China in an attempt to curb China’s development momentum and erode Chinese positions.
The expansion of the competitive field and the escalation of the competitive situation have become the hallmarks of Sino-U.S. relations during this period. Although Biden’s policy line has made substantial changes to ‘Trumpism’, it still has much of its predecessor’s legacy with regard to its policy towards China.
The first foreign policy speech made by U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken listed China Challenge as the eighth priority, preceded by:
1) ending the COVID-19 pandemic;
2) overcoming the economic crisis, reviving the economy at home and abroad, as well as and building a more stable and inclusive global economy;
3) renewing democracy;
4) reforming immigration and creating a humane and effective immigration system;
5) rebuilding alliances, revitalising U.S. ties with allies and partners with the system that the military calls force multiplier;
6) tackling climate change and leading a green energy revolution;
7) securing U.S. leadership in technology; and
8) confronting China and managing the greatest geopolitical test of the 21st century, i.e. relations with China, which is the only country with economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to seriously challenge the international system and equilibria.
The eighth medium-term guideline for the national security strategy sees China as an important competitor. These guidelines clearly show that competition still sets the tone in the way President Biden’s Administration’s manages relations with China, as was the case in the previous four-year period.
At a press conference on March 26, 2021, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said the above statements were not surprising. It is clear that China and the United States are competing on different interest levels.
The key factor, however, is to compete fairly and justly and to improve oneself. The appeal to the other side is moderation and restraint, not life or death, or a zero-sum game. These words are along the same lines as Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s statement when he spoke about Sino-U.S. relations at a session of the National Congress of People’s Representatives of the People’s Republic of China (the Chinese Parliament). It is not only a response to the U.S. strategy of competition with China, but it also provides a model for the future way in which superpowers should proceed together.
The reality of Sino-U.S. competition is unavoidable, but competition can be divided into benign and vicious. The former is a winning model for “improving oneself and understanding the needs of the other side”.
Since Deng Xiaping’s reforms and opening up to international trade, China has begun its own reconstruction. It has continuously widened the scope for benign competition and has changed its mindset by actively embracing the world’s different political parties and participating in international competition. It has also inspired enthusiasm for innovation and creativity and made progress in various fields.
At the same time, development has also provided ample opportunities for countries around the world and injected growth momentum into the global economy: this is a typical example of China’s good interaction and common development with all countries around the globe.
Conversely, fierce competition means breaking rules and systems and even breaking the demarcation line to prevent or contain the opponent, and this is usually followed by fierce conflicts.
The two World Wars of the last century were extreme examples of violent competition between great powers: the first as a clash between capitalist imperialisms in search of new markets; the second as a result of mistakes made in the peace treaties that ended the Great War, plundering the losers and causing misery, resentment and chauvinistic desires.
In today’s world, competition without respect for the other side has not disappeared from the scene of history. Trump Administration’s frantic anti-China activity over the last four years has not only failed to make the United States ‘great again’, but has caused a linear decline in its national competitiveness, at least according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2020 published by the Lausanne-based International Institute for Management Development, which sees the United States dropping from third to tenth place. Besides the fact that its international image has seriously plummeted and Sino-U.S. relations have hit the lowest ebb since the establishment of diplomatic relations. It can clearly be seen that fierce competition will only restrain its promoters and ultimately harm the others, themselves and the international community.
In December 2020 General Mark Alexander Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (a body that brings together the Chiefs of Staff of each branch of the U.S. military and the Head of the National Guard Bureau), said in an interview that ‘great powers must compete. This is the essence of the world’.
There is no problem with this statement: it is not wrong, but it is important to maintain a state of competition and contact between major powers, precisely to ensure that it does not turn into conflicts or wars that are fatal to mankind and the planet as a whole.
The gist of the speech shows that some U.S. elites also believe that China and the United States should adhere to the principle of ‘fighting without breaking each other’. The importance and the overall and strategic nature of Sino-U.S. relations determine that no one can afford the zero-sum game, which is a lose-lose as opposed to a win-win game – hence we need to ensure that competition between the two countries stays on the right track.
Competition between China and the United States can only be fair and based on rules and laws. This is the basic rule of international relations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations as its point of reference.
Regardless of the common interests of China, the United States or peoples in the world, both countries should make this system promote healthy and fair competition, thus turning it into the greatest value of sharing and cooperation.
China’s goal has never been to surpass the United States, but to advance steadily and become better and no longer a prey to imperialism and colonialism as it has been the case since the 19th century, when Great Britain waged the two Opium Wars (1839-1842 – 1856-1860) to have not only the opportunity, but also the right to export drugs to the Middle Empire – hence Great Britain was the first pusher empowered and authorized by the force of its weapons.
Although – by its own good fortune -the United States has never been England, it should not always be thinking of surpassing the others or fearing being overtaken by the others, but should particularly focus on Secretary of State Blinken’s first seven priorities and raise its expectations.
China should show its traditional political wisdom and manage Sino-U.S. relations in accordance with the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, so that Sino-U.S. relations can develop in a healthy and stable way for the good of the whole planet.
Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation
Pakistan has varied history of relationship and cooperation with other countries in international arena. Despite of proactive foreign policy Pakistan...
Disability policies must be based on what the disabled need
Diversity policies, especially when it comes to disabled people, are often created and implemented by decision makers with very different...
Preparing (Mega)Cities for the 2020s: An Inmovative Image and Investment Diplomacy
Globalized megacities will definitely dominate the future, in the same way as colonial empires dominated the 19th century and nation-states...
The Galwan Conflict: Beginning of a new Relationship Dynamics
The 15th June, 2020 may very well mark a new chapter in the Indo-Chinese relationship and pave the way for...
Aviation Sector Calls for Unified Cybersecurity Practices to Mitigate Growing Risks
The aviation industry needs to unify its approach to prevent cybersecurity shocks, according to a new study released today by...
7 Driving Habits That Are Secretly Damaging Your Diesel Engine
When it comes to driving, no one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. But could these habits be costing you...
Ммm is a new trend in the interaction between the EU and Turkey:”Silence is golden” or Musical chair?
On April 6, a protocol collapse occurred during a meeting between President of Turkey R. Erdogan, President of the European...
Economy3 days ago
Future of Work: Next Election Agenda 2022
Economy3 days ago
North Macedonia’s Journey to the EU
Middle East3 days ago
Israel and Turkey in search of solutions
Southeast Asia2 days ago
New Leadership Takes Charge in Vietnam: Challenges and Prospects
Intelligence3 days ago
COVID-19 As an Agent of Change in World Order
Economy3 days ago
How to incorporate the environment in economic ventures for a sustainable future?
Africa3 days ago
Scaling Up Development Could Help Southern African leaders to Defeat Frequent Miltant Attacks
Economy2 days ago
Connectivity now. Boosting flows of people, information, energy, goods and services