China is not a democracy; at least not in the sense to which our western sensibility is acclimated. Starting in the 1980s (the period of opening up and reform), the government organized village elections in which several candidates would run. They labelled this “the New Democracy” or “Democracy with Chinese characteristics”.
Nevertheless, in practice each of the candidates was chosen or in the least “approved” by the single dominant Communist Party of China. Higher levels within the echelons of government are indirectly elected; with candidates, in essence, being vetted by high-rankers within government. Only the former British and Portuguese colonies of Hong Kong and Macau have been given the vote. But, as in the village elections, those who run for election are strictly and closely selected by the leadership of the Communist Party. It is for these reasons, and not unfairly, that China is deemed undemocratic. And there is little effort by the Party to deny this allegation. Quick to express scepticism over democracy in China, critics of this notion nominally tout the idea that China is better off because positions are assumed by people who are qualified by due merit as opposed to popularity, not to mention that traditional Chinese values are often said to be not in line with the idea and practice of liberal democracy (though in fairness, liberal democratic Taiwan, whom they claim is a part of China may serve as a rebuttal to this claim).
Following the death of Mao, Deng Xiaoping who was much less economically (not so much politically) conservative and much more pragmatic than Chairman Mao and his comrades, rolled out a number of reforms that were calculated to stimulate and modernise the Chinese economy. A privatisation scheme was unfolded and people were paid in differentiated amounts and according to how much they produced for the first time in the 1970s and special economic zones were created in some coastal cities where government involvement was not as pronounced as it had been under Chairman Mao. Soon a middle class (claimed to be the nominal force behind democratisation in the other wealthy countries in the region such as South Korea and Taiwan) began to take form – and this was greatly encouraged as it was a signpost that China was growing. But these reforms only went so far where political life was concerned – here there was to be no free market of values and ideas; the Communist Party was still in charge. It is indeed true that, unlike before, the people could disagree with the leader and could (though in a decidedly Chinese and respectful manner in which one could not go “too far”), criticise the government’s policies. This was a long way since the Hundred Flowers campaign in which dissenters were baited into voicing their opinions and then purged for doing so. But it still had its limits wedded into it. And there is no stauncher reminder of this than the infamous Tiananmen Square Massacre of June 1986 and subsequent demotion of reformist elements in the Party, most notably Hu Yaobang. The subsequent declaration of martial law and crackdown on people who seemingly were only guilty of wanting their state to politically open up and be more democratic was only more proof that the Chinese state, just three years before the Soviet Union and much of communist Eastern Europe would undergo their own largely successful conversions to democracy, was not willing to transform itself overnight into a democracy.
And in fact one could argue that the reforms necessitated an even less democratic China in that they reverted, in rhetoric and in ends at least, to the China of the Great Leap Forward. Consider the extent to which the planning is done from above and, necessarily, popular participation is seen as potentially opening a window for dissent and therefore a path towards distraction from the task at hand. So much of what China has achieved and hopes to achieve in the wake of the reforms and opening up is pinned to a particularly anti-democratic, anti-populist notion of the state and its constituent citizens.
This speaks to another reason as to why China will not democratise anytime soon. That of the outside world which China has been increasingly trading with since Deng took to opening up the republic and made it the ‘world’s factory’. While it would appear that in rhetoric at least, the United States and other ‘standard-bearers’ of liberal democracy are at odds with China over the country’s anti-democratic stance and its poor human rights record, in actual fact the outside world benefits greatly from a non-democratic China. These outside forces have been able to harness the fact that China’s citizens have tenuous standing and codified human rights and have used this to optimise their own costs of production. Knowing that the government wants more and more of the world to outsource manufacturing to it so that it may grow its economy by the close to 10% figure it desires and that it is willing and able to clampdown significant protests by the workers, many western multinational corporations have greatly outsourced their production to China in full confidence that the regime will remain stable and that the labour will remain cheap to compensate and with very few requirements to provide (air-conditioning, working hours cut off and even age restrictions). This essentially means then that outside “pressure” for China to democratise will be limited to Nobel Prize giving to the country’s would-be reformers, speeches at the United Nations, Amnesty International reports and little else. Indeed, many cower to even allow an aged religious leader a visa into its borders in fears that it might offend the hardliners in the Chinese government and therefore compromise its investments and manufacturing.
In any case, the Communist Party has very little actual opposition. The strongest challenge it has faced in way of democratisation may be said to be the Democracy Party of China which was established by former Tiananmen Square student protestors. In just 24 hours after the founders tried to unsuccessfully register the party, the central government cracked down on the organisation’s leaders. C Wong Donghai was quickly sentenced on December 21, 1998 to 11 years of imprisonment and three years of deprivation of political rights “for subversion of the tranquillity of the republic.” And on the very same day, another prominent member, Xu Wenli was sentenced to 13 years “for attempting to overthrow the Communist Party.” Many more were to suffer similar or close to similar fates. The only legally permitted pro-democracy party in China is the meagre, powerless 250,000-member China Democratic League which was founded in 1941 and quickly became absorbed into the United Front coalition led by the CCP.
The 2014 Yellow Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong, the most recent episode in attempts by the citizens of that region to achieve concessions from Beijing achieved very little and in fact caused even more reaction on the part of the CCP – there were no changes in the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress which the 100,000 protestors were calling for and the grip over entertainment, media and the press was tightened even more. The timing could not have been worse, for this movement coincided with President Xi Jinping’s policy of a crackdown on dissenters and factionalists. The incumbent President and Paramount Leader, touted by British leftist news magazine The NewStatesman as ‘Mini-Mao’ for supposedly being the most consolidated and powerful President of China since Mao, has launched a campaign under the banner of anti-corruption with the aim of purging elements that show themselves poised to threaten the status quo.
Furthermore, there is also the controversial notion that the people of China would not benefit from transparency. The Chinese practice of ‘guangxi’ which is characterised by usage of one’s connections for self-advancement in dealings is widely used by hundreds of millions of Chinese people from social settings to business and government transactions; from small villages to megacities. Instilling democracy with its appendage of total transparency would uproot the way of life for a vast majority of China’s population and would likely meet opposition no matter how minimal. And while it is difficult to generalise, China is after all home to over a billion people, it has been suggested that a large number of citizens are abject to revolutions which tend to be costly and bring their lives to a grinding halt. For not only would democracy be a change in the way of government, but also the character of social life to which the people of China have become acclimated.
When the officials of China look at the democratic world, there is not much that indicates to them that democracy breeds national unity – much the opposite. In England there is the Scottish question, in Spain there is Catalonia, in Belgium there is Wallonia, in Canada there is Quebec, and close to home in India there is Kashmir (over whom in any case, the Chinese seek to assert their claim). To them, therefore, and not at all without reason, the creation of a democratic system would only serve to stoke and fuel the flames of secessionism. Already, they are constantly having to show a firm hand and cold prison cells for those who wish to carve out of China a series of separate, independent states. Not only are there disputes with neighbours over island territories, and Taiwan over its sovereignty, but China is already having to deal with these elements in its mainland provinces. There is, most famously, the issue of Tibet and then there is that of the province of Xinjiang. The province is mostly populated by a Muslim Uygur population which sees itself as more Turkic than (Han) Chinese and who seek independence along the lines of Mongolia or even a union with one of the adjoining majority Muslim, Turkic states of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan. And this has been in spite of constant intimidation and express firmness by the Chinese state. How much more of the likelihood that they would seek independence if China becomes a democracy? How much more so when the instrument of the referendum is at the disposal? Would they attempt to use it for the purposes of breaking away from the government of Beijing which, it is at least alleged, mistreats and violates their rights on account of their linguistic idiosyncrasies, ethnicity and Muslim faith which they stridently cling on to despite incentives to the contrary by the overwhelmingly atheist, Marxist government? Handing them the referendum would only be a blank cheque for them to rip from China the one-and-a-half-million square-kilometre, oil-laden and natural gas haven (the province being the largest producer of the substance in China). Democracy would stand to be a setback therefore to not only China’s territorial integrity but, ultimately, to its economic prospects and explicit aims. An article by Horowitz in Quartz in 2016 detailed the extent to which China may have actually been further less incentivised towards democracy by the recent results of Brexit for the removal of Britain from the European Union.
The manner in which China’s government is run also makes it unlikely that the state will, voluntarily at least, become democratic. First of all, the Paramount leader wears the three hats of President of the People’s Republic of China, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Committee. This makes dissent from either structures very unlikely – and this is by design. In addition to this, the Politburo is garnered from a selection process by the current Politburo membership who closely vet and select their successors and colleagues accordingly those whom they deem to be most likely continue the party’s line of tight control over the Chinese society. In addition to this, the party has well over 80 million card-carrying members (making it the largest political party in the world) – and has a tight grip over China’s other “major” political force, the eight-party coalition, the United Front (allowed to exist, in any case, for the lack of political threat it poses).
So, will China become a democracy? It depends. As historians and Communist Party leadership alike will recall (and they most certainly do recall) the simultaneous coalition of factors, and little else, was the deciding force which made it possible to answer to the affirmative, for the most part in any case, when the question was posed on whether “could China become a one-party, communist people’s republic?” We should not anticipate a democratic overhaul in China anytime soon, but likewise we should not be too surprised if it occurs.
China is doing. Are you?
It is certain now that the COVID-19 pandemic has winded the whole globe. What started from just one city, has now shadowed the whole world. As the words penned down the cases increase in the world. However, there is a country whose defiance against the Covid-19 pandemic has been successful.
Despite the fact that the virus’s epicenter was Wuhan, China still managed to control it while the rest of the world still crippling to get hold of the loosen cords of the Covid-19.Thoughthe rest of the world is still in a quarrel with the pandemic, life in China is cautiously returning to normalcy. Even in Wuhan, the city worst hit by the pandemic, infection-free zones are feeling the resurgence of life. All of this has not been achieved overnight for this whole of the country faced excruciating measures including a major blow to its economy. Whole country unified against the pandemic. Purchasing managers index (PMI) which measures the economic activity based on orders company place to suppliers in a country. For the Chinese industry, the index reported 35.7 for the month of February which is the lowest since the index was created. To clarify further, the figures below 50 imply a recession.
China is not only combating Covid-19at home but abroad as well in the form of sending aid even though it has faced a fall in its economy. Italy, Iran, Serbia, Pakistan and many more are on the list that is getting direct assistance from Beijing.
While China is playing a responsible global role in the fight against this pandemic, Washington seems to be gambling with the lives of people of its own. Lately, Washington post revealed that intel reports from January and February clearly warned about the pandemic. While deaths in the US are nearing to 500, Trump administration seems to be engaged in playing its political cards on the deck of the corona. Blaming China and tightening the sanctions seems to the top priority rather than engaging resources on fighting the pandemic. Recently CNN reported that Trump rolled out 33 false claims in the first two weeks of the month of March regarding the corona crisis. It reported that overall trump made 71 false claims in past two weeks. Out of these 71, 33 were related to coronavirus. This clearly shows the gravity regarding the situation of the pandemic, in the Oval.
World is face to face with global non-traditional threat while Donald Trump seems to be solidifying his election campaign as cost of blaming China. Trump calling Covid-19 as China’s virus seems to be true because what the evolving scenario depicts seems that Washington has withdrawn from its global role and China is the only one concerned globally with this pandemic. Despite taking global initiatives for cure, Oval seems to be doing parochial politics over the global pandemic which clearly shows how ignorant is the Trump administration towards the global health crisis. Furthermore, Trump even tried to buy exclusive rights from a medical company in Germany on the antidote of Covid-19 in order to capitalize on the remedy. By tightening sanctions on Tehran and not letting It to do the due course to save lives what oval seems to be doing is bringing more agony to global misery.
As the xenophobic and racist attitude of Washington continues globe is being driven into more dark realms. Furthermore, Oval’s mouthpieces at Fox News and other media outlets have adopted the same manner as their masters are doing and repeatedly have claimed that China should apologize. On the other hand, the world is all praise for China, including the President of European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, on how has China fought the novel virus and has successfully reduced the number of new cases of the disease to zero.
It is high time to appreciate China by putting political difference aside and learn from their experiences as they are the one with most experienced and have successfully battled. Whatever has caused this pandemic China has been successful in curtailing it and countries which are finding themselves paralyzed by this disease shall use assistance from China to overcome this global malady.
The Thucydides’ Trap: the Avoidable Destiny Between the US and China
The controversial “Thucydides trap” argument has sparked a heated debate since 2013, when President Xi Jinping of China told a cluster of western guests: “We must all work together to avoid Thucydides’ trap.” Later, this concept was elucidated by Professor Graham Allison in his articles, talks and famous book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap. So, what exactly is this Thucydides ’trap?
The phrase originates from the ancient Greek historian Thucydides who had observed that the Peloponnesian war (431BC-404BC) was caused by the growth of Athens, the rising power, and the corresponding fear of Sparta, the ruling power. Currently, this historical scenario is applied to discuss the relations between China, the emerging power, and the United States (US), the established power. The rise of China and the relative decline of the US allude that a gradual power imbalance may repeat history and lead to war. In fact, 12 of the 16 historical power shifts have resulted in catastrophe. More importantly, this narrative, to some extent, suggests the current dominant power is taking preemptive measures against the rising one. In reality, the US-initiated Sino-American trade war reflects this precautionary attitude.
The world may argue that although China has become more assertive than before, this war is the consequence of President Donald Trump’s radical foreign policy. Consequently, Trump started this war even though it may harm the Sino-American economic ties, leading to a negative economic impact on both sides. As a matter of fact, the Sinophobic turn in Washington is essentially a bipartisan consensus that realistically considers the economic facts thanks to strategic thinking. Based on the research of Alyssa Leng and Roland Rajah, the US had been at the helm of world trade until 2000, trading with over 80% of countries worldwide. However, in 2018, this number has plummeted to just 30%, as China has replaced the position of the US in 128 of 190 countries. Thus, “this bipartisan shift may have coincided with Trump’s arrival but the very fact that it is bipartisan demonstrates that it was not Trump who created it. Like a rooster at dawn, his crowing simply called forth the inevitably rising sun”. This situation raises the following questions: which side suffers the least? If the US achieves its goal of putting down China, who will win? According to Bruno Macaes, “in the end, the question of whether a new world order will be born, or the status quo preserved is less important than the question of whether the outcome will be determined peacefully or whether China and America are destined for war”.
This does look like the inevitable Thucydides’ trap, but where is the solution? It is conceivable that the trade war is just a sign that might follow more fierce disputes militarily. As historical determinists, Professor Graham Allison and Professor Jonathan Holslag both believe that the strategic transformation of structural forces between China and the US are doomed to conflict that has already emerged and will transpire more dramatically, ineluctably reshaping the global geopolitical landscape. Currently, China is not strong enough to compete with the US in general and “the balance of power could continue to be in America’s favor for quite a long time into the future.” It is then justifiable for the US to want to suppress China’s growth right now. However, I argue that the reality is far more complex than the aforementioned circumstance and there indeed exists some way to avoid this “inevitable” trap.
First, diplomacy and leadership in the US and China play pivotal roles in avoiding this dilemma. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd argues that political leaders and elites are not “simply some kind of puppet of anonymous structural forces”, but can change the historical tendency, to some extent. He proposes “constructive realism” as a solution by saying, “agency—what leaders decide, and those elites who advise them shape— actually determines the future course of history”. By suggesting that based on reality, the leaders of both sides should differentiate between the non-negotiable and negotiable national interests, thus managing the Sino-American strategic competition. In this context, the China-represented authoritarian capitalism versus the US-led liberal capitalism, is able to compete without one devastating the other and finally let the winner prevail.
Similarly, Chinese prominent scholar Jin Canrong suggests that when drawing on the wisdom of the Chinese and American leaders and diplomats, the two countries should neither have a “Hot War” nor a “Cold War”. The first may result in total planetary destruction with the example of the two World Wars during which great losses were suffered due to militaristic action worldwide. The later might bring about a deconstruction of the entire international trade system. Because of today’s economic globalization, a “Cold War” would devastate our internationally integrated economy, specifically, the existing Sino-American interdependent economic connections.
Nevertheless, Professor Jin proposes that the two sides should have a “Chess War”, as a metaphor of playing chess, which denotes that the two sides should be more transparent, reveal their strategic capabilities and intentions and reasonably bargain with each other. This is analogous to Rudd’s approach of distinguishing clearly between the non-negotiable and negotiable national interests of both parties. Furthermore, Jin argues that when China develops to a certain level, it will comprehensively compete with the US in all aspects. The US, as a commercial and pragmatism-centered empire, will compromise and accept China’s position, thus forming the global bi-core leadership and co-governing the world. He argues that the new global system is akin to the Concert of Europe/Age of Metternich, the balance of European powers between the Napoleonic War and World War One. The notion is to forgive France, the war initiator, and invite it to be part of European leadership, maintaining peace in Europe for a whole century.
The second plausible approach to this dilemma can be taken from the angle of a third party. Facing the increasingly Sino-American tension and the potential outbreak of a proxy war, Professor T. V. Paul advocates for “Soft Balancing”, meaning small-scale countries relying on “international institutions, limited ententes” to unite and enhance their strength. Uniting smaller countries thwarts the threatening behavior of the rising or ruling powers through economic instruments or moral and legal condemnation, thereby avoiding the Thucydides’ Trap. By comparison, the military capabilities or “Hard Balancing” of a country, remain important, but are clearly not as cost-effective as the institutionally driven “soft” method. Taking the ASEAN states’ soft balancing strategy toward China as an example, in addition to aligning with the American navy as hard balancing tactics, the ASEAN has involved diverse institutional engagements such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, the ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan, and South Korea), the Chiang Mai Initiative and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. These measures not only benefit the ASEAN countries from the economic rise of China, but simultaneously limit China’s territorial claim in the South China Sea by the united voice of ASEAN. To some extent, this strategy alleviates the Sino-American hostility and competition for leadership in this area, allowing the countries involved to have a fighting chance in the race for power.
To summarize, both approaches are aimed at constructing the scarce asset through frequent diplomatic communication: trust. In the anarchical international system, due to the fact there is no central authority to enforce laws, international actors, in the course of interactions, are always suspicious of each other’s real intentions. Indeed, human beings are distrustful and forgetful, repeating 12 identical mistakes throughout history. As the Western philosopher George Santayana said, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Similarly, the Chinese poet Du Mu wrote about how a destroyed dynasty vanished before it could reflect on its mistakes. Du details that the later generations of the dynasty felt the impact of this failure, yet did not learn from the past, continuing the cycle of collapse. While Graham Allison believes that the US and China may be destined to a violent collision, his relevant Ted Talk leads one to believe that the last two power shifts of the world were peaceful. Between the US and Soviet Union power shift from the 1940s to the 1980s, and the UK, France and Germany power shift from the 1990s until now, demonstrated how we are able to break the cycle of destruction. Especially, the European power shift proved the importance of diplomatic leadership. Hopefully, as time progresses, mankind may learn to draw lessons from a series of historical tragedies. When the political leaders of the world face irreconcilable conflicts of interest, they will look into the dark and bottomless chasm in front of them and say, “that is indeed a very deep hole which we should not fall into.”
From our partner RIAC
A story of resilience: China’s revival against Covid-19
A nation that embraces resilience in catastrophic times can retaliate and cope with any calamity that comes their way. A resilient nation is able to gather their abilities in the face of adversity and utilize their resources and strengths to cope and recover from unprecedented hardships and challenges. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, China has curbed the deadly pathogen, after a formidable fight, with courage and conviction. The joint, and globally lauded, efforts of Chinese officials and health professionals along with its unprecedented organized and proactive dynamics of disaster management has provided an abundance of assistance in restraining the pandemic.
The epicenter of Covid-19, Hubei province of China, has recorded zero new cases for the consecutive four days, 19th to 22nd March, contrary to the 15,000 cases reported on 13th February 2020. From the recovery and discharge of 70 percent out of 80,000 patients in the overflowing hospitals of China to the completion of world’s first lung transplant of a Covid-19 patient by ingenious and committed doctors; and the construction of two 1000-beds hospitals, Huoshenshan and Leishenshan, in two weeks, China’s efforts to intercept the pandemic have proven to be extraordinary, heroic and unforeseen.
The strategic trajectory China has adopted to curtail the outbreak is threefold. During the first phase, the approach was to block the transmission and contain the source of the virus, therefore abating the further spread of the infection; the main strategy was to prevent importation and exportation of the virus in and from the Hubei province, respectively. On that account, about 50 million people were put under lockdown in Wuhan and other cities of Hubei, consequently diminishing the number of cases. For the diagnosis, The National Medical Products Administration of China, in collaboration with biotech companies, developed sufficient and reliable diagnostic kits for all fever clinics and hospitals in the country within two weeks. The testing was, publicly made free and easily accessible.
Fever clinics – especially designed clinics used in 2002-03 for containing SARS epidemic – were re-established to isolate, triage and test the patients; the health professionals and workers in PPE were/are employed to treat the affected patients. Additionally, laboratory testing and epidemiological researches were conducted accompanying the initial management of contact tracing. The use of contact tracing to track every potential individual infected by the virus has been a critical tool for China. For instance, in Shenzhen city as of 17th February 2842 contacts were traced, out of which 2240 completed the medical testing and among those, 88 were found to be infected. This technique was used in every part of China with officials militantly and steadfastly tracing every single individual that had come to contact with Covid-19 patient. In an interview, Dr. Bruce Aylward of World Health Organization (WHO) has said that he was impressed by the speed of carrying out the procedures and the key to containing the virus from proliferating depends on your ability to “swiftly detect and isolate the infected patients and trace their close contacts.”
In the second phase, the foremost approach was to lessen and limit the intensity of the pandemic. The active treatment of the patients was conducted in Wuhan and other provinces; the aim was to reduce the number of deaths and further enhance the prevention of exportation of the infection, therefore redlining mass gatherings and other public transport activities.
The guidelines to educate people of the basic precautions and updates regarding the Covid-19 was enhanced nationally. In six weeks, the national knowledge on how to take care of an infected person was expanded by six times. To tackle the spread of disinformation, Chinese social media outlets such as WeChat, ten-cent, and Weibo shared centralized, accurate and reliable information and blocked the misleading keywords on the internet. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) has issued a statement that if a website or an individual would misinform the public, they would have to face legal consequences. Moreover, food delivery services were, efficiently, activated by the country to facilitate the citizens and the non-urgent medical cases were consulted online by doctors and medical consultants.
The third phase of the outbreak bring out new technologies such as big data and artificial intelligence to thoroughly control the pandemic; contact tracing was strengthened. The deployment of facial recognition cameras and phone tracking technologies in public places helped Chinese officials to detect elevated temperatures and track close contacts. In Zhejiang province, health QR codes were established: the red code is for 14-days self-quarantine; the yellow code requires 7-days self-quarantine; the green code authorizes you to travel freely. Additionally, scientific and medical research was conducted to develop relative vaccines and medicines.
Furthermore, other provinces have also sent help to assist Wuhan’s administration, for example, 42,000 doctors and other related staff were sent from other provinces to Hubei. Even at the individual level, the people of China have adhered to the measures given by the government, whether it is the lockdown or travel restrictions; the Chinese populace came out as a resilient and dedicated nation. They endorsed the sense that the duty is ours to help the country in catastrophic times.
Where the exemplary response by China is being commended and deliberately studied globally, China is dedicated to helping other infected countries as well to surpass this pandemic. It is nearly impossible for the developing and resource-less countries to deal with an unprecedented pandemic. Hence, China is continuously sending millions of masks, medical supplies and other related and much-needed items to Italy, Serbia, Spain, Belgium, Iraq, Iran, United States, France, and Pakistan; It is also sending doctors and medical teams to these countries with the constant help and funding of Jack Ma, co-founder of Alibaba.
Concisely, Chinese people’s dedication and its visionary leaders’ untiring and zealous efforts have helped China revive its stability inside and outside the borders.
Reasons Behind Women Inequality in Pakistan
There is much availability of literature that portrays the issues of women inequality along with explaining the suffering of women...
Covid-19 Might not be the End
The world seems to be oblivious when it comes to the non-traditional security paradigms hence certain natural cycles repeat overtime....
Peru Will Receive US$ 50M from the World Bank to Strengthen Key Social Protection
The World Bank Board of Directors today approved a US$ 50 million loan to strengthen key policies and strategies to...
AIIB To Scale Up Public Health Infrastructure in Wake of COVID-19
Recognizing that countries with fragile infrastructure have less capacity to handle health crises, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is...
Pakistan is striving enthusiastically to quell the COVID-19
International cooperation has become necessary for the nations across the globe, to defeat the Coronavirus pandemic -an invisible enemy. For...
Coronavirus is Trump’s most important electoral rival
The Earth is intertwined with space in various group, ethnic, religious, national, and other forms. National spaces within countries are...
Calling on Innovators and Entrepreneurs to Accelerate Tourism Recovery
In the face of an unprecedented challenge, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), with the support of the World Health Organization...
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Russia aids Italy in fight against COVID-19: Why we should be aware
Energy News3 days ago
Battery Storage Paves Way for a Renewable-powered Future
Green Planet3 days ago
Covid-19 crisis and Earth Hour: An opportunity to reflect on the deteriorating health of the planet
East Asia3 days ago
The Thucydides’ Trap: the Avoidable Destiny Between the US and China
Middle East3 days ago
The rapport between Iran and Turkey over Syria: Liaisons or tussle?
Newsdesk3 days ago
Somalia to Receive Debt Relief under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative
Environment2 days ago
China: Developing Green Finance in Agriculture
Economy2 days ago
The reforms and the current situation of the State budget and accounts