There were so many controversial statements made by Donald Trump during the United States Presidential Election, which makes many parties underestimated Trump’s chance to victory towards the White House. One of Trump’s controversial statements was during an exclusive interview with the New York Times on Sunday, 20 March 2016. Trump said if he is elected as US President, he would be open to Japan and South Korea producing their nuclear deterrent.
They should not always be depending on the US military to protect themselves from North Korea and China. The US military would not be able to protect Japan and South Korea for a long period of time. He argued that the US cannot always be the policemen of the world.
Trump also asserted that there will be a point where the US could not be able to do all that anymore. North Korea probably has their nuclear arsenal, so he would rather have Japan and South Korea having a nuclear capability too, as we are living in a nuclear world right now.
This controversial statement alarmed the world and received a strong reaction from various sides. President Obama, during the sidelines of Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on Friday, 1 April 2016, among others stated that all this time the US involvement in the Asia-Pacific region has been important. Because it is also the safeguard key that maintain the peace between the US and countries in that region up until now. Having US presence is very important to withstand any conflicts between each other. Therefore, Obama continued, the person (Donald Trump) who made such comments does not know much about policies, as well as nuclear policy, or the Korean peninsula, or even about the world in general. Japan and South Korea has been considered important as the pillars of US presence in Asia Pacific, as it advantaged the US quite substantially on the trade side, and prevent nuclear escalation and conflict.
Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida as quoted by CNN, also reacted by expressing his disagreement with Trump’s proposal, saying it is impossible for Japan to build a nuclear capability. Japan is the only country that has experienced a nuclear attack, and if they follow Trump’s proposal, there will be a chance that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy can happen again.
Jonathan Cristal, a professor and observer from a think-thank agency, the World Policy Institute in New York, also commented by saying that Trump’s proposal is contrary to the government’s commitment to strengthen the alliance with various countries like Japan and South Korea, the two strongest allies in Southeast Asia. Cristal stated that Japan and South Korea will consider various options if true that the US is no longer protecting them. First option, Japan and South Korea will pay a protection fee to the US, similar to the way Estonia contributed 2% of their GDP to NATO for protection. Second option, Japan and South Korea will develop their own nuclear weapon. Cristal concluded his statement by saying if Trump ignored the US alliance in Asia and triggered Japan and South Korea to produce nuclear weapon, there will be a domino effect following to happen to other countries.
Trump’s statements is in fact denying international convention, which regulated in the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) set by the United Nations on 12 June 1968 in New York, and effective from 5 March 1950, and which the US ratified. Basically, the NPT consists of three pillars, namely: first, non-proliferation, i.e. nuclear-weapon states pledge not to add and must reduce as well as revoke/separate their nuclear warheads; second, disarmament, i.e. nuclear weapons eradication which non-nuclear-weapon states pledge not to acquire and manufacture nuclear weapons; third, peaceful use, that is nuclear energy serve only for peaceful purposes. As a matter of fact, the NPT was inspired by President Eisenhower, one of Donald Trump’s predecessors (also from the Republic Party), from his speech in the UN General Assembly session, 18 December 1953, entitled “Atom for Peace”.
Almost all states ratified the NPT except India, Pakistan, and Israel. North Korea ratified the NPT on 20 December 1985 and withdrawn from the treaty on 10 April 2003. On the other hand, after the NPT signing, there are only five states recognized as nuclear-weapon states, namely US, Russia, UK, France, and China.
We can have a different opinion with the above statement from Trump. But as the new US leader, Trump will do his best for the people of the US, to make US great again as promised in his campaign. Trump’s statement is probably due to some of the following. First, US reducing the burden as a country that has been a guarantor of the security of Japan and South Korea if attacked by other countries, and the focus right now came from China and North Korea; Second, renegotiating the terms of payment to be received by the US from having their troops on the ground, as many as 54.000 in Japan and 28.500 in South Korea, in which Japan paid USD 1.6 billion and South Korea USD 866 million annually; Third, creating a balance of power among nuclear-weapon states in East Asia, which is currently being monopolized by China and followed by North Korea; Fourth, if there is a nuclear race, triggered by Japan and South Korea, the US will be very much advantaged as the main supplier, although it would violate the NPT, which the US is one of the signatories. The US weapon industry is allegedly influenced by sympathizers of the Republican Party and many prominent figures from the Party are known to be belligerent. For example when President Nixon, the Vietnam War happened, President Reagan with his Star Wars concept and the bombing of Muammar Kaddafi’s residence, the leader of Libya, President Bush (senior and junior) the Afghanistan War and Iraq War broke out.
Fifth, diverting or creating East Asia as the new crisis region beside the Middle East, whereas the US will be benefited economically, politically, and militarily; sixth, balancing the military/arms advancement of China as well as to counter the aggressiveness of North Korea.
After the statement and announcement of Donald Trump as the winner of the US Presidential election, there is an interesting development that can be analyzed further. The development is the signing of a nuclear agreement/treaty between PM Shinzo Abe from Japan and PM Narendra Modi from India on 11 November 2016, in Tokyo. The content of the agreement/treaty is that for Japan companies to be able to export nuclear technologies to India. We know that the India and China relation has been hostile for a long time, and just recently the dispute and tension over Senkaku Island is also escalated. The Japan-India nuclear agreement gave a strong indication that both countries are on their way to creating an alliance, in parallel with strengthening the longstanding strategic alliances between the US, Japan and South Korea, to counter the expansive behavior of China and the aggressiveness North Korea. To neutralize the agreement and as not to arouse any suspicions based from Trump’s statement, PM Shinzo Abe stated that the agreement constitutes a legal framework to ensure that India is using its nuclear energy responsibly.
After the Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration as the President of the US in 20 January 2017, it is hoped that Trump’s statement will not become his policy. The role of the UN to reassure Trump to comply with the NPT is very much needed, similarly to Japan and South Korea as member states of the Treaty, to adhere with the NPT and not to produce a nuclear weapon. As we know that Japan and South Korea are very advanced and have their grip on nuclear technology, so it will not be hard for both countries to produce a nuclear weapon.
If Trump remains on his stance and Japan and South Korea implement the idea, it will create a domino effect where other states in the Asia region will not stay idle. They will definitely take measures to keep and defend their sovereignty. There may be an ASEAN state that will extricate itself from the joint commitment of SEANWFZ (South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone) Treaty, putting its national interest above all else. On the other hand, China and North Korea will keep on competing to enhance their nuclear capabilities. As a result, the East Asia region, including ASEAN, will be a hot zone and it is not impossible that a Nuclear War may well be started from East Asia.
Reducing Dependence on China
Ties between UK-China have witnessed a steady deterioration ever since the outbreak of covid19. UK like many other countries has been seriously working towards reducing its dependence upon China, for imports of essential commodities, as well as Chinese technology (UK’s intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6 had warned the Boris Johnson administration, that UK needs a serious rethink vis-à-vis China in the context of economic ties, and needs to be especially watchful with regard to Chinese investments in sensitive sectors) .
The Boris Johnson administration is laying emphasis on shifting pharmaceutical production to UK, and focusing on reducing its dependence on China, not just for medical supplies, but for all other essential commodities. An initiative codenamed ‘Project Defend’ will focus on the above tasks.
UK’s proposal for a D10 and its efforts to strengthen ties with countries in the Asia Pacific region
In May 2020, UK had also proposed a group of democracies D10 (G7+ South Korea, India and Australia) to work jointly for developing alternatives to Chinese technologies – especially Huawei’s 5G network.
It would be pertinent to point out, that UK has also hardened its stance vis-à-vis Huawei, while in January 2020, UK had given a go ahead to Huawei’s participation in its 5G network — with security restrictions a market cap in January 2020 — post the pandemic it had stated, that it will reduce participation of Huawei to zero by 2023,. More recently, Boris Johnson stated that Huawei will be viewed as a ‘hostile state vendor’ (after tensions between both countries over China’s decision to impose the national security law in Hong Kong).
Given the changing geo-political and economic environment, in the aftermath of the pandemic, Britain which is focusing on strengthening ties with the Asia-Pacific region is also likely to sign an Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Japan to bolster bilateral economic ties, and to become part of the 11 member CPTPP (Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership). If Britain were to join the grouping, CPTPP’s global share of GDP would be an impressive 16%. Both these steps will enable Britain to be less dependent upon China.
Further deterioration of ties between China and Britain
In the aftermath of the covid19 epidemic, ties between London and Beijing had already soured. China’s decision to impose the national security law in Hong Kong, which according to Britain is a violation of the Sino-British joint declaration signed in 1984 (which guaranteed Hong Kong’s sovereignty through its unequivocal thrust on a ‘one country two systems’ agreement) has exacerbated tensions between Britain and China.
Hong Kong is governed by a mini-constitution titled ‘Basic Law’ which apart from the thrust on the ‘one country two systems’ principle, also upholds Hong Kong’s ‘liberal policies, system of governance, independent judiciary, and individual freedoms for a period of 50 years from 1997’. Britain has argued, that the imposition of the National Security Law is in violation of the above principles.
The British government has announced, that it will offer 3 million residents of Hong Kong (much to the chagrin of China) the option to come to the UK for a period of 5 years. 3,50,000 British passport holders and 2.6 million others who are eligible will be provided this option.
China’s Ambassador in UK, Liu Xiaoming warned that UK’s offer of citizenship to Hong Kong residents, and a boycott of Huawei’s 5G network would significantly dent the bilateral relationship. He went to the extent of stating, that Britain should avoid treating China as an enemy. Britain and China share close economic ties, and Chinese students are the largest group within international students pursuing higher education in the UK. It would be pertinent to point out, that China has taken strong economic measures vis-à-vis Australia, due to Canberra’s demand for an inquiry into the origins of covid19, and it remains to be seen if it will take similar steps vis-à-vis Britain.
With the US, Australia, Britain, Canada and India adopting a strong posture vis-à-vis Beijing, China is certainly on the backfoot . The tone of publications like the Global Times, a mouthpiece of the Chinese government, clearly indicates, that China is carefully watching policy measures being taken by countries in Europe and Asia to reduce economic dependence on China in the aftermath of covid19. Beijing has also got unsettled by the resistance to its hegemonic designs and aggressive actions by not just the US, but Britain as well.
What is also evident is that Britain is seeking to revive its importance in the geo-political context by strengthening economic ties with Asia Pacific countries, and promoting groupings like D10. Britain’s firm stance vis-à-vis China after the imposition of the National Security Law in Hong Kong has also reiterated the point that in the aftermath of covid19, it is unlikely to kowtow to China in spite of close economic linkages.
India and China in the clash for Ladakh
On June 15, 2020 the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)shot some Indian soldiers dead – approximately 20 – in Galwan, a valley and a river of the Ladakh region.
The territorial issue in that region is still very difficult to settle: the 1993 Line of Actual Control (LAC) has included 60 square kilometres of ancient Indian territory into the China-controlled area. The control of the DSDBO – Darbuk, Shyak, Daulat Beg and Oldi, the 225 kilometre road that connects the Ladakh region and the Galwan Valley with the outside world – is still to be defined.
For India, in the north of Ladakh, there is also the possibility of a simultaneous war on two fronts, with Pakistan in the Siachen glacier and with China in the rest of the North.
China has also shown it is not interested in five different peace agreements – in 1993, 1996, 2005, 2012 and 2013 – defined as early as the 1962 war between India and China.
The “forgotten conflict” that John Fitzgerald Kennedy did not use in the global confrontation with Communism, later choosing – and ill became of it – the confrontation with the Vietminh in South Vietnam.
In 1993 China asked India to stop the extension of the DSDBO and also the return of the Indian troops into the northern area of Ladakh. India, however, is blocked by considerable internal terrorism and by the strong tensions in Jammu-e-Kashmir, as well as by the traditional policy of opposition to Pakistan and finally, by the new maritime trends in the South and the ever more difficult coexistence between Hindus and Islamists.
Certainly, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can fight three modern wars simultaneously: the cyber-warfare, the space and finally the electromagnetic wars.
In conventional terms, China can currently fight a limited regional war and a larger global war, again simultaneously.
Hence what does China really want from India? Firstly, hands free on a border, like Ladakh’s, which is vital to the already started New Silk Road.
Many Indian leaders have long been asking China to make the BRI corridor cross Kunming in Southwest China up to the port of Kolkata, where it could reconnect to the maritime “Silk Road” through the Bay of Bengal.
Or China and its Silk Road could enter Uttakharand, via Kailash Manasarovar in Tibet to later reach the port of Mumbai. This is one of the real issues of contention.
Hence China, with its BRI, should not cross the valleys of Kashmir, but the Indian areas.
India has also quickly pulled out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the large free trade area established in 2012. An implicit favour to China.
Hence what does China really want? Firstly, to use the Ladakh region and Kashmir as bases and criteria to control Tibet.
The area below, where the Indian army is stationed, south of the Brahmaputra river, is still an easy target for the Chinese missile launches.
If we consider the Chinese troops in Ladakh and those already present in the Tibetan autonomous region, currently the People’s Liberation Army is actually master of the scene.
However, if the Indian President, Narendra Modi, shows clear signs of India’s realignment on the U.S. strategy in the region, its strategic closure to the North will become inextricable. And very dangerous, not for a war, but for the strategic and geo-economic effects of the closure in the North.
The Indian troops on the Ladakh border, however, are not a target for China.
Apart from the Galwan Valley, China is ready to negotiate hard on everything else.
This means that China wants full security of the lines around the Tibetan Autonomous Territory and the discontinuity-control of the Pakistani forces on the Indian-Chinese border, as well as the maximum mobility of its forces, and finally the guarantee that there will be no military dangers hosted on the Indian territory.
Jihadist dangers or not. Therefore, China does not need to wage war on India insofar as it can force the Indian government to do what China wants.
China also wants to reaffirm mutual neutrality between China and India, while it thinks that Narendra Modi has above all nationalistic aims in the Himalayan region and in the arc of the Three Borders.
Moreover, China did not like the strengthening of relations between India and Australia, as well as the Indian repeal of Article 370 of the Jammu-e-Kashmir Statute, i.e. the “special administrative status” of the Indian State with a Muslim majority.
This has led to the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh in the Indian legal system. Currently some Chinese maps already draw the territory of Aksai Chin – where China, India and Pakistan meet – with borders that, according to China, show that India is expanding illegally.
In essence, Modi’s India has chosen on which side to stand in the next andin any case – already started “cold war”. The U.S. side and the side of strategic contrast with China.
The Sino-Indian territorial tension currently stretches from Lake Pangong and the Galwan River valley, as well as from the Gogra region, to Naku La in Sikkim.
Neither side, however, recognizes the extent of their respective claims in the LAC area and around Lake Pangong.
The Chinese soldiers in the region come from the 362nd Border Regiment and are quartered in Fort Khurnak, north of Lake Pangong and Lake Spanggur.
Moreover, there is a Chinese base in Gongra and a squadron of boats on Lake Pagong.
Approximately 600+1500 units. To the northwest, there are other Chinese troops from the 6th Mechanized Division.
The base is in the Taklamakan Desert, but they are mainly reserves from Xinjiang.
An important Chinese strategic goal is to avoid porosity of a border that directly affects Xinjiang.
Therefore, for the Indian Leader, Narendra Modi, there are two choices to make, an economic and a strategic one: to launch India as a global competitor of China, by absorbing the many future “third” processing activities- hence an active control of borders and a regional war even with China becomes rational – or India could join China via the “New Silk Road” and the Sino-centred globalization.
It is a choice still in fieri, despite the old talk about Chindia a few years ago.
In terms of economic and trade wars, the issue becomes even more complex.
In the first quarter of 2020 the People’s Republic of China recorded a GDP of 20.65 trillion yuan, equivalent to 2.91 trillion U.S. dollars.
A 6.9% reduction compared to the GDP of the previous year. A significant reduction, but certainly lower than in many Western countries.
China’s imports fell by 8.5%. A situation that does not enable anyone to start a war, not even a regional or local war.
In the first half of 2019 alone, China’s tariff war with the United States cost as much as 35 billion to China.
For China, fighting with India would mean losing 74.72 billion dollars from the rich and wide Indian market.
Pakistan, a sure ally of China, is in the midst of an economic crisis and cannot afford a war. Therefore, only the tiny Nepal remains, on which you cannot certainly rely for a “long lasting war”.
On a strictly military level, China is far more efficient than India.
104 Chinese missiles could hit every part of the Indian territory.
12 DF-21s missiles are targeting New Delhi directly. The DF-31s missiles are deployed in Beidao, Gansu Province. Some DF 21 and 31 missiles are deployed in Xining, while other DF-21 ones are deployed in Korla, Xinjiang and others in Yunnan.
For India, ten “Agni” missiles can reach the entire Chinese territory.
Eight additional Agni II missiles can reach the centre of China. But there are 51 aircrafts – the real key to India’s nuclear defence – that can fly over targets in Chinese territory.
But, above all, Tibetan and Xinjiang targets.
Only the Indian missions in Tibet could exploit a strategic surprise effect. In other regions the Mirage 2000, Jaguar IS and F-35s missiles would not be particularly successful, considering the level of Chinese anti-aircraft fire.
Currently the Indian forces available for a clash with China in the North are approximately 225,000.
This also includes the T-72 tank base in Ladakh and a series of Bramhos cruise missiles, stationed in Arunachal Pradesh.
The three Indian Armed Forces commands that oppose the respective three Chinese commands have 270 aircrafts and other equipment at their disposal.
China also have high altitude air bases in Tibet, Xinjiang and the Northern Ladakh region.
This means that the Chinese aircrafts have to leave with only part of their cargo.
Hence the Chinese decision-makers immediately think of a missile attack on Indian positions, without an initial air “passage”.
Obviously it must also be noted that India is strongly opposed to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which crosses Kashmir and the Gilgit-Baltistan area, a project that India has tried to stop with the U.S. help.
On the other side, India has built a lot of infrastructure in its part of Kashmir.
As already noted, there was the economic closure of India, a real gift for China.
Meanwhile, India has asked Russia to quickly send the S-400 and Sukhoi SU 30 MKI missiles quickly, but Russia has no interest in mediating between China and India.
In the background there is also a hardening of bilateral relations between Russia and China, which could leave room for manoeuvre to Russia, not for mediation between the two countries, but for rebuilding the old link between the USSR and India, which was also one of the reasons for tension between Maoist China and Soviet Russia.
China’s reputation in the West is crumbling
During the past two decades China’s steep economic growth and investments in Europe and the United States have failed to produce an image of the country that would at least correlate with that growing influence. With projects ranging from airport and seaport investments to infrastructure construction, China claimed its rightful place as a global player in world economy. We should, however, point out the two major reasons behind China’s weakness to cultivate a positive appearance on western world.
First and most important factor is China herself. Despite admirable efforts such as the Confucius Institute, the increasingly generous scholarships given to foreign students to study in China’s top universities and collaborations on fields of arts and culture; despite the rich history and the influence it will forever exert upon the minds of intellectuals, ranging from military tradition to philosophy and religion; and despite the rapidly growing influence through modern works that become worldwide success in the fields of literature and cinema, the Asian giant hinders its own efforts to create a positive image by failing in the most important field. The field of politics and political influence.
Reading some of the most prominent news outlets in Europe or the United States, one would think that China has infiltrated the political scene so much that simply pulling some strings would turn the world around. I have most recently read opinions of almost conspiratorial magnitude hosted on some of the most respected news platforms, that present China’s ability to politically influence entire countries as an underground infiltration doctrine. A doctrine that has even recruited apps of the most insignificant and immature content such as “Tik Tok” to spy and control! However, truth and diplomatic reality show something entirely different. The unparalleled ability of the United States to determine the foreign affairs of dozens of states (either by presenting themselves as their most trusted ally or by intervening in bilateral relations and by dictating their foreign policies, often enough even through direct threats and by imposing sanctions and penalties to countries that do not want to go along the American guidelines), has yet to meet a significant resistance from China.
Admittedly, the United States have shown great skill in political meddling even before the second world war and had the time to perfect its strategies and determine its goals. On the other hand, China is not only new to this kind of game but even when it does involve herself with it, she does so in defense and usually in a crude fashion. We have recently witnessed it again and again during the Hong Kong crisis, where regardless anyone’s stance and views on political matters, the United States have involved themselves with the internal affairs of a foreign state and managed to establish themselves as the morally superior nation against the weak responses from China that nonetheless appealed to reason. This type of defensive approach, response tactics and reasonable compromising may have a fair value in the interior of the country but falls easy prey to foreign diplomatic moves and in the end damages China’s image in the exterior.
Furthermore the positive image of China cannot be cultivated through political action not only due to lack of experience and clear goal of how to utilize it but also due to actual unwillingness to involve herself with local affairs of other countries. A more active involvement from China’s part would be an outright provocation and would disturb the status quo of international politics where the United States and its ruling elite, are the absolute master. Such direct confrontation is deemed risky and unnecessary from Beijing’s part. Meanwhile a positive thought is prevalent that feeds political inactivity. That alongside economic influence, China will gradually and by default, acquire its rightful share in political affairs.
On the other side, China’s image in the west is crumbling due to a carefully planned propaganda campaign. Half-truths and outright lies have been consistently presented as news. For the past couple or more years an interesting phenomenon is becoming more and more prevalent. News networks that on one page present the great economic deals with Chinese companies and on the next attack China’s immoral behavior towards minorities, Muslims, blacks and more recently Hong Kong. It vividly comes to my mind an article from probably the most circulated and credible newspaper of Greece that claimed that Han Chinese were stationed among Uighur families to make sure they eat their ration of pork as a method to deradicalize their Muslim faith! This type of “news” of course has no traceable or credible source to which one can refer to. In the best case the source is an unverified testimony or a satellite photo of a removed Muslim site. Yet they are tools, acceptable and useful in the political race that has been ongoing after the official recognition of China as a new, independent, and powerful player in the international scene. The more outrageous these news are, the more circulation they enjoy. The more circulation they enjoy the more smear they achieve upon China. A constant attempt to tarnish China’s image is an undoubtful fact; regularly presented as immoral, untrustworthy, and malicious. The recent Covid-19 crisis has been the battlefield upon which China suffered yet another political defeat and a stain on her image among the Western countries. In many cases this smear campaign was unleashed even through governments and officials such as President Trump and Mike Pompeo.
This political game is leading to more and more countries slowly or more rapidly turning against China, and while Chinese money is welcome, China’s influence is diminishing until entirely ousted from any grasp on geopolitical affairs.
Morally right or wrong, it matters not. China achieved once again in her long history to be one of the dominant powers of this world and deserves a share of dominance in the international political affairs as well. But no one will simply hand that share for free. China must earn her place and to earn that place she needs to up her game. Show the West a better image, gain a better reputation and if needed, fight the same way the West fights her.
Dynamics of Current Global Economic Crisis
Global economic architecture is fundamentally weak and fragile and having multiple internal contradictions which emanate in different economic and financial...
World Population Day: ‘No time to waste’ in empowering women
“It is deepening existing inequalities and vulnerabilities, particularly for women and girls”, said Secretary-General António Guterres. “With many countries on...
Rising global temperature shows ‘enormous challenge’ of meeting climate goal
Annual global temperature is likely to be at least 1°C warmer than pre-industrial levels in each of the coming five...
U.S: Extending support and lowering regulatory barriers could energize the recovery from Covid-19
Swift action by the U.S. government has helped shield households and businesses from the immediate economic shock of the Covid-19...
Can Cam Ranh Bay-Port Blair-Djibouti form a strategic Maritime chain hub to tackle China?
The world at present is grappling with the Global Pandemic Coronavirus, but Chinese maritime security aggressiveness in the East China...
New EU rules and guidance for a fairer online economy
The Commission publishes today a set of resources to help traders, online platforms and search engines get the most out...
Enlarge views – Europe is en/large enough
The first July day of 2020 in Vienna sow marking the anniversary of Nuremberg Trials with the conference “From the...
Africa2 days ago
Ethiopian Naval Ambitions
Defense3 days ago
Does Turkey Plan Revenge for Al-Watiya Attack?
Economy3 days ago
Impact of COVID-19 On Somalia’s Economy: Will the virus be a springboard to severe crisis?
Defense2 days ago
Three Turning Points of China’s Military Strategic Thoughts
Defense2 days ago
Erdogan Slapped On The Wrist In Libya -Is More To Follow?
East Asia2 days ago
China’s maritime exercises, ADIZ and strong US response in South China Sea
Africa2 days ago
War is Not An Option, But the Rule of Law in Nigeria
Economy3 days ago
Conversion of Local Business into E-Business by Effective Use of Social Media