Foreign interventions in Syria started in March 2011 after the furious people of Dara predominantly Sunni Muslims city in Syria cited as (cradle of revolution) came down to the street to demonstrate against Bashar Assad. Demanding the government to improve fundamental services in the country, soldier reacted the protests by shooting and killed several civilian among them children, young and women.
This fueled the demonstrations and more people came down to the street to participate and the slogan against Bashar Assad was raised, anti- government protests started in all cities in Syria including Damascus the capital of the country. In a short period, most of the Syrian cities rose up against Bashar Al-Assad. In contrast to all other states in the Region, demonstrations led up to internal fighting and civil war throughout Syrian cities. Governments such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya toppled under the pressure of their population. But the case about Syria was different. Bashar Al- Assad reacted with an armed attack on demonstrators, consequently, the people were compelled to take up arms aiming at defending themselves and deterring the regime to kill more civilian people. Regional states such as Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey on one side and Iran on the other side intervened in Syria. Each of them was inciting their proxy groups inside the country, over time the situations in Syria entered into the large scale civil war. Over course of time, international powers such as United States and Russian Federation joined the conflicts. The aim of this article is to explore the factors behind the interventions of regional and international powers in Syrian conflicts. Foreign interventions could be multidimensional, there are political, economic, cultural, and religious and trade aspects perceived in the context of the Syrian crises. There were three main elements that induced foreign powers to interfere in Syria’s internal conflicts, firstly the geopolitical impetus secondly Balance of power in the Middle East and, thirdly ambition of pipeline construction.
The Syrian geopolitical is considered one of the most strategic location in the Middle East. Syria is the only country which competes Turkey for its strategic location in the Mediterranean. Therefore eyes of regional and international powers are in Syria, it is a strategic location for Russia too that helps Moscow to access to Mediterranean. Iran too, has not access to Mediterranean, therefore, keeping Assad on power as its ally is in its interest. Due to long standing relations and historical ties in terms of politics and religion, Tehran exerts utmost effort to prevent regime change in the interest of Istanbul. Turkey in the north through straits of Bosporus and Dardanelle connects east Europe to west-Europe, and from the south, through Mediterranean connects Asia and Africa to Europe. Thanks to its location have been dominating decision making in the Middle East. Turkey is the intersection among extractive and transformative nations, it means raw materials and manufactured goods through straits of Turkey enters into west and vice versa. Access to Mediterranean has been a subject of interest regional and international powers from old times until now, therefore all states scramble for obtaining sea power. Alfred Mahan a geopolitical scholar has once said that ‘’national greatness inextricably associated with the sea power’’ the dominance over sea leads to ascending as a super power. The old Empires such as Britain and France were fighting each other for dominance over Mediterranean, they were perceiving that Mediterranean was a focal point in international politics and believed that without control over Mediterranean, Empires cannot survive. Historically all superpowers have been originating their might in the dominance of Middle East, and have been defeated there too. Through exploring the history, it is sensed that most of the powers have started to take up sea harbor so as to control other countries activities for example England had hegemony over all Sea straits from Malacca Strait in Singapore to Cape of hope in South Africa which through these all Sea movements that was controlled by Great Britain. Sea power through history demonstrated that Sea hegemony will give rise to dominate over other countries. Due to Tartu’s port and Mediterranean in Syria, regional and international powers intervened in there. War on Syria will continue in many years to come and potentially that extends to neighbor countries in the near future.
Balance of powers
Regional powers in the Middle East are fighting for equilibrium strategy that dragged Syria in a quagmire which made the country a hell for its population. Turks according to most Syrian and Shia militant groups has logistically assisted ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) aiming at capitalizing on them as a means of pressure in the region. Turkey hopes to be a transit country for oil and gas in the region, and preventing Syria to play this role. Ankara in the trees of guarantee that Turkey stays from north and south as an only corridor for energy transport to European markets. And at the same time impeding Moscow to use gas as a pressure against West Europe as Putin did in 2008 which threatened Europe by cutting gas in flowing to their markets. Erdogan’s dream in the region is to be a leading gas transporter to Europe and aims to dominate all the region through making Ankara as an energy hub. Turks so far in this respect have been extremely successful by helping Daesh (Islamic State) and Sunni states in the region to counterbalance the Shia expansion on one side and cutting Russia’s role in the region on the other hand. ISIS hegemony expansion in the region was a major threat to Iran, Russia, and the USA, therefore all of them, in this case, were unified to fight against ISIS. Sunni Militia groups were the main supporter to Ankara through their role could impede the Kurdish development in Syria and at the same time disallowing Iranian expansion. The most important is cutting the Shia crescent which has been an Iranian dream for a long time that connected Shia from Mazar Sharif in Afghanistan to the coasts of Lebanon which could be helpful for Iran to bring Shia from Afghanistan to Lebanon to fight and Vis versa. But Turks cut this line by entering Al- Bab city in Syria.Iran in need of Syria to unify the Shia in the region and establish free movement among Shia states in the region from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Turkey on the other side wanted to topple Bashar regime and institute Sunni regime in Damascus aiming at uniting Sunni countries under its umbrella. Geopolitical importance of Syria made Damascus a center of confrontations among regional powers. Showdowns still continue, who will win the time to come will tell us what will happen with Syria .but most of the signals tell us that due to the importance of the location the conflict will continue many years ahead. Both of Ankara and Tehran exerts their utmost efforts to prevent tilt of balance in the region against their own will and interests.
World eyes are on the south Iranian gas deposits, the existence of huge amounts of gas in Arabian Gulf that locates between Qatar and Iran which both of them intended to export it to European markets. On the other hand, Russia owns huge amounts of gas which intend to export it to Europe too. Clash of interests among gas producers and gas consumers dragged Syria into an international conflict. Ankara and Tehran were two major powers that wanted to dominate gas route through Syria. Pipeline construction divided the region and the world powers into two competing sides, each of them was trying to steadfast their foothold in Syria. Qatar approached Damascus to build Arab gas pipeline and on the other hand, Tehran asked for construct Iran-Iraq-Syria project pipeline. Due to historical and religious affinity Damascus gave a positive response to Iranian offer and by supporting Iran plan, Qatar-Saudi Arab pipeline was revoked. For Syria pleasing Iran as a historical ally was more important than Turkey or Qatar, moreover, Russia as an ally to Damascus was preferring Iran pipeline over Turkey-Saudi- Qatar project. Moscow believed that treating with Tehran is better than Doha in the gas market. Pipeline construction gave rise to intensify rift and conflict among regional and international powers. Turkey as a transit country of oil and gas to Europe faced by Syria. When Syria’s leader Bashar Assad in 2009 declared Four Seas Strategy (Caspian Sea, Mediterranean, Gulf and the Black Sea), aiming at making Syria a hub of energy. Bashar was planning to fill the revenue gap that inflicted the economy of Syria by the financial crisis, and Damascus like other states, its budget faced a deficit. In 2010 Bashar Assad convened an agreement with Baghdad and Tehran to build oil pipe line from south Iran through Iraq to Mediterranean in Syrian ports to resolve this financial deficiency. China and Russia sided with the plan but United State of America and Turkey rejected this idea.
The war in Syria resulted to destabilize the whole Middle East, thousands of inhabitants in Syria for the sake of protecting their lives from internal fighting were compelled to leave their homeland and resorted to other countries. The demographic situation in Syria changed in a way that cannot be repaired in the near future, and this laid the volatile foundation to future generations. The most important motivation behind the regional and international powers involvement, were geopolitical factors, the balance of power and pipeline construction. These elements were considered as a leading cause of foreign interventions. A war in Syria tends to continue for many years to come and its implications will potentially spill over to other countries in the region. Syrian crisis resolution is emanated from inside the country, by waiving bigotry and tolerating each other. Prospects in Syrian internal showdowns heralding evil for all ethnic groups in the region and collapsing of the state system in the Middle East is inevitable.
1) John, Hannah, Foreign policy, Does Trump intend to thwart Iran’s Thwart Iran’s ambition in Syria, August 24, 2017.Web. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/24/does-trump-intend-to-thwart-irans-ambitions-in-syria/
2) Milad, Jokar, Huffington post, War in Syria, Geopolitics of the conflict, Web.
3) Reva,Goujon , Worldview Stratfor ,The Geopolitics of the Syrian Civil War ,August 4,2015,Web. https://worldview.stratfor.com/weekly/geopolitics-syrian-civil-war
4) Nafeez ,Ahmed, Middle East Eye ,The US-Russian Gas Pipeline War could destabilize Putin, Friday 30 October 2015, Web.
5) Joe Hood and Alia Dharssi, National post, Balance of power; How Russia’s entrance into Syria has altered the geopolitical calculus of the Middle East, October 2,2015, Web.
Syria’s Kurds: The new frontline in confronting Iran and Turkey
US President Donald J. Trump’s threat to devastate Turkey’s economy if Turkish troops attack Syrian Kurds allied with the United States in the wake of the announced withdrawal of American forces potentially serves his broader goal of letting regional forces fight for common goals like countering Iranian influence in Syria.
Mr. Trump’s threat coupled with a call on Turkey to create a 26-kilometre buffer zone to protect Turkey from a perceived Kurdish threat was designed to pre-empt a Turkish strike against the People’s Protection Units (YPG) that Ankara asserts is part of the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a Turkish group that has waged a low-intensity war in predominantly Kurdish south-eastern Turkey for more than three decades.
Like Turkey, the United States and Europe have designated the PKK as a terrorist organization.
Turkey has been marshalling forces for an attack on the YPG since Mr. Trump’s announced withdrawal of US forces. It would be the third offensive against Syrian Kurds in recent years.
In a sign of strained relations with Saudi Arabia, Turkish media with close ties to the government have been reporting long before the October 2 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul that Saudi Arabia is funding the YPG. There is no independent confirmation of the Turkish allegations.
Yeni Safak reported in 2017, days after the Gulf crisis erupted pitting a Saudi-UAE-Egyptian alliance against Qatar, which is supported by Turkey, that US, Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian officials had met with the PKK as well as the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which Turkey says is the Syrian political wing of the PKK, to discuss the future of Syrian oil once the Islamic State had been defeated.
Turkey’s semi-official Anadolu Agency reported last May that Saudi and YPG officials had met to discuss cooperation. Saudi Arabia promised to pay Kurdish fighters that joined an Arab-backed force US$ 200 a month, Anadolu said. Saudi Arabia allegedly sent aid to the YPG on trucks that travelled through Iraq to enter Syria.
In August last year, Saudi Arabia announced that it had transferred US$ 100 million to the United States that was earmarked for agriculture, education, roadworks, rubble removal and water service in areas of north-eastern Syria that are controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces of which the YPG is a significant part.
Saudi Arabia said the payment, announced on the day that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in the kingdom, was intended to fund stabilization of areas liberated from control by the Islamic State.
Turkish media, however, insisted that the funds would flow to the YPG.
“The delivery of $100 million is considered as the latest move by Saudi Arabia in support of the partnership between the U.S. and YPG. Using the fight against Daesh as a pretext, the U.S. has been cooperating with the YPG in Syria and providing arms support to the group. After Daesh was cleared from the region with the help of the U.S., the YPG tightened its grip on Syrian soil taking advantage of the power vacuum in the war-torn country,” Daily Sabah said referring to the Islamic State by one of its Arabic acronyms.
Saudi Arabia has refrained from including the YPG and the PKK on its extensive list of terrorist organizations even though then foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir described in 2017 the Turkish organization as a “terror group.”
This week’s Trump threat and his earlier vow to stand by the Kurds despite the troop withdrawal gives Saudi Arabia and other Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt political cover to support the Kurds as a force against Iran’s presence in Syria.
It also allows the kingdom and the UAE to attempt to thwart Turkish attempts to increase its regional influence. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt have insisted that Turkey must withdraw its troops from Qatar as one of the conditions for the lifting of the 18-month old diplomatic and economic boycott of the Gulf state.
The UAE, determined to squash any expression of political Islam, has long led the autocratic Arab charge against Turkey because of its opposition to the 2013 military coup in Egypt that toppled Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother and the country’s first and only democratically elected president; Turkey’s close relations with Iran and Turkish support for Qatar and Islamist forces in Libya.
Saudi Arabia the UAE and Egypt support General Khalifa Haftar, who commands anti-Islamist forces in eastern Libya while Turkey alongside Qatar and Sudan supports the Islamists.
Libyan and Saudi media reported that authorities had repeatedly intercepted Turkish arms shipments destined for Islamists, including one this month and another last month. Turkey has denied the allegations.
“Simply put, as Qatar has become the go-to financier of the Muslim Brotherhood and its more radical offshoot groups around the globe, Turkey has become their armorer,” said Turkey scholar Michael Rubin.
Ironically, the fact that various Arab states, including the UAE and Bahrain, recently reopened their embassies in Damascus with tacit Saudi approval after having supported forces aligned against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for much of the civil war, like Mr. Trump’s threat to devastate the Turkish economy, makes Gulf support for the Kurds more feasible.
Seemingly left in the cold by the US president’s announced withdrawal of American forces, the YPG has sought to forge relations with the Assad regime. In response, Syria has massed troops near the town of Manbij, expected to be the flashpoint of a Turkish offensive.
Commenting on last year’s two-month long Turkish campaign that removed Kurdish forces from the Syrian town of Afrin and Turkish efforts since to stabilize the region, Gulf scholar Giorgio Cafiero noted that “for the UAE, Afrin represents a frontline in the struggle against Turkish expansionism with respect to the Arab world.”
The same could be said from a Saudi and UAE perspective for Manbij not only with regard to Turkey but also Iran’s presence in Syria. Frontlines and tactics may be shifting, US and Gulf geopolitical goals have not.
‘Gadkari effect’ on growing Iran-India relations
If the ‘Newton Effect’ in physics has an equivalent in international diplomacy, we can describe what is happening to India-Iran relations as the ‘Gadkari Effect’.
Like in the case of the 18th century English scientist Isaac Newton’s optical property of physics, the minister in the Indian government Nitin Gadkari – arguably, by far the best performing colleague of Prime Minister Narendra Modi – has created a series of concentric, alternating rings centered at the point of contact between the Indian and Iranian economies.
‘Gadkari’s rings’ around the Chabahar Port in the remote province of Sistan-Baluchistan in southeastern Iran are phenomenally transforming the India-Iran relationship.
The first definitive signs of this appeared in December when the quiet, intense discussions between New Delhi and Tehran under Gadkari’s watch resulted in the agreement over a new payment mechanism that dispenses with the use of American dollar in India-Iran economic transactions.
Prime facie, it was a riposte to the use of sanctions (‘weaponization of dollar’) as a foreign policy tool to interfere in Iran’s oil trade with third countries such as India. (See my blog India sequesters Iran ties from US predatory strike.)
However, the 3-day visit to Delhi by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on January 7-9 highlighted that the application of the payment mechanism to the Indian-Iranian cooperation over Chabahar Port holds seamless potential to energize the economic partnership between the two countries across the board. In a historical sense, an opportunity is at hand to make the partnership, which has been ‘oil-centric’, a multi-vector ‘win-win’ relationship.
The meeting between Gadkari and Zarif in Delhi on Tuesday signaled that the two sides have a ‘big picture’ in mind. Thus, the opening of a branch of Bank Pasargad in Mumbai is a timely step. Pasargad is a major Iranian private bank offering retail, commercial and investment banking services, which provides services such as letters of credit, treasury, currency exchange, corporate loans syndication, financial advisory and electronic banking. (It is ranked 257th in the Banker magazine’s “1000 banks in the world”.)
Bank Pasargad is establishing presence in India just when the Chabahar Port has been ‘operationalized’ and a first shipment from Brazil carrying 72458 tons of corn cargo berthed at the port terminal on December 30.
More importantly, the discussions between Gadkari and Zarif have covered proposals for a barter system in India-Iran trade. Iran needs steel, particularly rail steel and locomotive engines “in large quantities, and they are ready to supply urea,” Gadkari told the media.
Then, there is a proposal for a railway line connecting Chabahar with Iran’s grid leading northward to the border with Afghanistan. Zarif summed up the broad sweep of discussions this way:
“We had very good discussions on both Chabahar as well as other areas of cooperation between Iran and India. The two countries complement each other and we can cooperate in whole range of areas… We hope that in spite of the illegal US sanctions, Iran and India can cooperate further for the benefit of the people of the two countries and for the region.”
Paradoxically, the collaboration over Chabahar Port, which has been a “byproduct” of India-Pakistan tensions, is rapidly outgrowing the zero-sum and gaining habitation and a name in regional security. There are many ways of looking at why this is happening so.
Clearly, both India and Iran have turned the Chabahar project around to provide an anchor sheet for spurring trade and investment between the two countries. This approach holds big promises. There is great complementarity between the two economies.
Iran is the only country in the Middle East with a diversified economy and a huge market with a fairly developed industrial and technological base and agriculture and richly endowed in mineral resources. It is an oil rich country and the needs of Indian economy for energy, of course, are galloping.
Second, Chabahar Port can provide a gateway for India not only to Afghanistan and Central Asia but also to Russia and the European market. Logically, Chabahar should be linked to the proposed North-South Transportation Corridor that would significantly cut down shipping time and costs for the trade between India and Russia and Europe.
Thus, it falls in place that the Trump administration, which keeps an eagle’s eye on Iran’s external relations, has given a pass to the Indian investment in Chabahar. Prima facie, Chabahar Port can provide access for Afghanistan to the world market and that country’s stabilization is an American objective. But then, Chabahar can also provide a potential transportation route in future for American companies trading and investing in Afghanistan and Central Asia.
According to a Pentagon task force set up to study Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, that country is sitting on untapped rare minerals, including some highly strategic ones worth at least 1 trillion dollars. Indeed, President Trump has pointedly spoken about it to rationalize the US’ abiding business interests in Afghanistan. Now, from indications of late, conditions have dramatically improved for an Afghan settlement that provides for enduring US presence in that country.
We must carefully take note that Iran is in effect supplementing the efforts of Pakistan and the US to kickstart an intra-Afghan dialogue involving the representatives from Kabul and the Taliban.
Importantly, China has also adopted a similar supportive role. A high degree of regional consensus is forging that security and stability of Afghanistan should not be the stuff of geopolitical rivalries.
The bottom line is that Iran’s own integration into the international community, which the Trump administration is hindering, is inevitable at some point sooner than we believe.
The disclosure that behind the cloud cover of shrill rhetoric against Iran, Washington secretly made two overtures to Tehran recently to open talks shows that Trump himself is looking for a deal to get out of the cul-de-sac in which his Iran policies have landed him.
Washington cannot but take note of the constructive role that Tehran is playing on the Afghan situation. (Interestingly, Zarif and Zalmay Khalilzad, US special representative on Afghanistan who go back a long way, have paid overlapping visits to Delhi.)
There is an influential constituency of strategic analysts and opinion makers within the US already who recognize the geopolitical reality that American regional policy in the Middle East will forever remain on roller coaster unless and until Washington normalizes with Tehran. They acknowledge that at the end of the day, Iran is an authentic regional power whose rise cannot be stopped.
From such a perspective, what Zarif’s discussions in Delhi underscore is that while Iran is keeping its end of the bargain in the 2015 nuclear deal, it is incrementally defeating the US’ “containment strategy” by its variant of “ostpolitik”, focused principally on three friendly countries – Russia, China and India.
This is where much depends on the Indian ingenuity to create new webs of regional partnerships. There are tantalizing possibilities. Remember the 3-way Moscow-Baghdad-Delhi trilateral cooperation in the bygone Soviet era?
That is only one model of how the three big countries – Russia, India and Iran – can have common interest to create sinews of cooperation attuned to Eurasian integration. It is a rare convergence since there are no contradictions in the mutual interests of the three regional powers.
The Indian diplomacy must come out of its geopolitical reveries and begin working on the tangible and deliverable. That will make our foreign policy relevant to our country’s overall development. Gadkari has shown how geo-economics makes brilliant, purposive foreign policy. Equally, he followed up diligently what needed to be done to get Chabhar project going so that an entire architecture of cooperation can be built on it. Zarif’s extraordinary remarks testify to it. Even a hundred theatrical performances on the Madison Square Garden wouldn’t have achieved such spectacular results in a short period of time.
*Nitin Jairam Gadkari is an Indian politician and the current Minister for Road Transport & Highways, Shipping and Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation in the Government of India.
First published in our partner MNA
Reasons behind the eventual withdrawal of Kuwait from PGCC
After several years since the beginning of Syria crisis, the Persian Gulf Arab states are changing their policies towards this county, and following the move of UAE and Bahrain, Kuwait will soon expand its relations with Syria.
Along with this policy change, the Arab leaders of Persian Gulf countries are warming up their ties with Israel.
The Arab-Israel relations get closer but Kuwait does not agree with this policy and intends to maintain its foreign policy outside Israeli influence, but it’s possible as a result Kuwait might be separated from the PGCC.
In this regard, it should be noted that the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council was an organization that was set up in 1981 to control Iran and was attempting to take steps to control Iraq, too.
Alongside these issues, the international and regional powers’ role in influencing these countries also reflects the lack of trust between the PGCC countries. For instance, while Qatar hosts a Turkish military base, this is seen as a threat to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain.
A recent international summit was held in Doha, Qatar, by high-profile figures, while earlier the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Riyadh took place with the absence of Qatar, Oman and the UAE’s leaders.
By holding this important summit and gathering outstanding international figures from Iran, Turkey and Russia, Qatar has shown that it could be more widely recognized in the international arena despite the hostile actions of the Persian Gulf Arabs states with the Doha blockade.
On December 12, 2019, Riyadh hosted the first Arab-African conference of foreign ministers of six countries bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, a strategic area vital to global shipping.
During the summit an agreement was made on the establishment of a legal regime for the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The objective of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden regime was to support world trade, international shipping lanes, regional stability and the investment and development of the member states. The plan, proposed by the King of Saudi Arabia, will be implemented in pursuit of security and stability in the region.
The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on December 12 that Saudi Arabia agreed to establish a Red Sea regulatory regime aimed at strengthening security and investment in the Red Sea bordering countries.
According to the statement, the seven countries are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Djibouti, Yemen, Somalia, and Jordan.
The conference also features a new Saudi-led regional bloc that shows the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council’s failure.
Regarding the normalization of relations with Tel Aviv and the “deal of the century”, we are also seeing disagreements among members of the Council. Kuwait is one of the countries that disagrees with the policy of normalization of relations with Israel by some member states of PGCC. Kuwait has never wanted to be dominated by the Saudis. We also see a sharpening of the country’s disagreements with Saudi Arabia over joint oil fields, too.
This disagreement is over the Neutral Zone, and area of about 5,700 square kilometers. Its dividing line begins north of Khafji oil field and runs straight to the west.
Kuwait disagrees with the resumption of oil extraction from the neutral zone without its recognition, and calls for its control as a Kuwaiti-dominated area.
Kuwait has discovered that Saudi Arabia is not a true friend of the Persian Gulf states, but an interventionist in the Persian Gulf states’ internal affairs.
Kuwait knows that the deal Saudi Arabia and its allies, the Emirates and Bahrain made with Qatar may repeat with Kuwait and Oman. In fact, what caused Qatar not to invade Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE was the resistance and meddling of Kuwait and Oman.
Accordingly, Kuwait seeks to strike a balance between the three countries. Although Kuwait has military and security ties with the U.S., it well knows that the U.S. is constantly threatening regional security. No one has forgotten what Trump said about Saudi Arabia, : “You might not be there for two weeks without us”.
First published in our partner Tehran Times
World Bank Group Announces $50 billion over Five Years for Climate Adaptation and Resilience
The World Bank Group today launched its Action Plan on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. Under the plan, the World...
SIHH: Master Ultra Thin Tourbillon Enamel
The new Master Ultra Thin Tourbillon Enamel features a new tourbillon movement and a new-look date counter. They form a...
Pakistan Securing Its Maritime Interest and CPEC
The IOR is a major sea route that unites the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia with Europe and America....
Making Globalization Work: Climate, Inclusiveness and International Governance Top Agenda of the WEF 2019
The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2019 will take place on 22-25 January in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. The meeting brings together...
How Has the Purpose(s) of American Higher Education Changed Over Time, and Why?
Initially, universities and colleges have been founded on three central promises such as (a) teaching, (b) public services, and (c)...
Corporate tax remains a key revenue source, despite falling rates worldwide
Taxes paid by companies remain a key source of government revenues, especially in developing countries, despite the worldwide trend of...
The Endless Debate about Russia’s Policy in Africa
Early March 2018, Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Hommes d’Afrique magazine that “our African friends...
- Centre and Calm Yourself and Spirit on Restorative Yoga Energy Trail
- Queen Rania of Jordan Wears Ralph & Russo Ready-To-Wear
- OMEGA watches land on-screen in Universal Pictures’ new film First Man
- Experience the Prada Parfum’s Way of Travelling at Qatar Duty Free
- ‘Get Carried Away’ With Luxurious Villa Stays and Complimentary Private Jet Flights
Tech News2 days ago
Report: Deloitte named a global leader in Internet of Things
Americas3 days ago
The Secret Logistics of America’s Global Deep State
Southeast Asia3 days ago
France returns to Laos
South Asia3 days ago
CPSEC: The Saudi addition to CPEC
Reports3 days ago
Global Economic Prospects: Middle East and North Africa
Energy2 days ago
Gender equality for an inclusive energy transition
Defense2 days ago
NATO generals do not believe in good relations with Russia
Reports2 days ago
Global Commission Describes New Geopolitical Power Dynamics Created by Renewables