Transformation in diplomacy, like the transformation of other international scenes of international relations, has not stopped at a specific point, and whenever the global structure of transformed diplomacy has changed. Throughout history, various forms of diplomacy have been observed between countries and governments. This development is due to the activity of various factors, and as long as the factors of transformation remain, the process of transformation remains. The new age in international relations has been marked by significant developments in diplomacy. In explaining the dimensions of this evolution, we use the term “modern diplomacy” against classical diplomacy. This paper tries to highlight the historical milestones of this evolution and its components.
The increasing role of global awareness, the diminished governance of states, the growth of information and communication technology, and the growth of non-state actors are among the main factors contributing to the development of diplomacy. Diplomacy involves managing relations between governments and government relations with other Actors. With the changes in the international system, the focus and content of diplomacy have also changed and, as in the past, they are not focused on top policy. In the traditional understanding of realism of international relations, the actions of governments are influenced by tangible factors of power and the content of diplomacy is also a matter of war and peace. In the new environment, new issues such as illegal immigration, human rights, terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, environmental risks, proliferation of arms, transnational trade, financial, economic, non-proliferation, human rights and aid issues Humanitarian, AIDS, population pressure, the prevention of indigenous and ethnic conflicts, and other crises and challenges beyond the international community that traditional diplomacy alone cannot cope with through the methods available. In other words, diplomacy in the information age includes wider areas of economic, social, cultural, environmental, scientific, legal and traditional political and military factors, and the issues of the underlying policy are more important in the agenda of diplomacy.
The five main tasks that the diplomatic apparatus does is to collect information and data, political advice, representation, negotiation, and consular services in a new international environment. New functions have also been developed: helping to enforce international regulations, representing the interests of various state and private actors, facilitating the establishment of relations between national and transnational entities, coordinating the activities of various actors in the interests of national interests, the importance of the policy of convincing and image More flexibility in foreign policy issues, crisis management in the new international environment, the development of transnational flows and the increasing role of non-state actors. Many of these tasks are withdrawn from the monopoly of the diplomatic apparatus and are carried out by new actors, while governments are still the most important actors in international politics. But at the same time, they have to divide their duties and responsibilities with diverse, broad-based, state-owned, non-state actors, transnational, and sub-national actors in different fields.
Changing the content of diplomacy, its implementation and guidance has also changed. In this new international environment, the existence of complex diplomatic relations between actors with various interests and boundaries is unclear. This undermines the role of governments in monopoly conduct and enforcement Issues and issues of foreign policy. Prior to the departure of information technology, ambassadors and diplomatic representatives had more relative credibility and independence to conduct diplomatic affairs, such as negotiating and representing duties. In traditional diplomacy, the true role of diplomats was, depending on their personal capacity, the power of the government and the powers given to them by the governments. Diplomats were aristocrats from the upper classes of the community. Bilateral relations were important to them. The protocol and procedures were of great importance.
However, as a result of the development of these technologies, the duties and responsibilities of diplomats have been subject to fundamental changes, and the facilitation of extensive and direct contact with governmental and non-governmental entities across national borders has been facilitated. If the main duties of diplomats prior to this change, the delivery of the message Leaders of countries, attending various ceremonies and formalities, sending information and negotiating, and sometimes making decisions when needed, have now changed these tasks for the sake of high-tech messaging. From the aspect of ceremonial ceremonies and diplomatic events, the concepts of these traditions have changed. In terms of sending information, the role of diplomats has lost much of its importance and also because of the natural circumstances of diplomats, diplomats consider that instead of persuading one or more people should be held accountable to public opinion and diplomatic talks It has been outsourced to a multilateral shape. In the current era, governments usually prefer diplomacy by politicians rather than diplomats. Between the heads of high-level media, private and informal relationships have been created, and the private diplomacy of heads of state and meetings, meetings, negotiations and treaties has increased. However, despite all the changes made in the implementation and guidance of diplomacy, the role of diplomats and their diplomatic expertise cannot be denied.
With the telecommunication revolution, the increase in information and the exchange of information between different countries, on the one hand, the world has become smaller and convergence has increased among countries, and on the other hand the international system has become more complex. These transformations have portrayed the role of diplomats in such a way that the existence of communications devices such as radio and television, and diplomats with more delicate tasks. On the other hand, increasing communication has had a great impact on one of the other responsibilities of diplomats, namely the gathering of information, since the spread of a variety of communication tools has made it possible to more accurately aggregate information. The Internet also created virtual communities to engage people in foreign countries that are not limited to geographical boundaries. The rapid transfer of information from mass media and new communication technologies such as satellite and Internet has ultimately led to a change in public opinion and Directions to it are intended to take advantage of new tools.
The use of new technologies in diplomacy plays an important role in facilitating and expediting negotiations, exchanging and accessing information, expediting exchanges, influencing public opinion and increasing global relations, and making the diplomatic apparatus of the countries more efficient. In the past, traditional national security tools, such as diplomacy, have addressed the physical effects of national power, such as military power and economic power, but these are not suited to new challenges and new international environments. As a result, soft power, public diplomacy, thematic, specialized diplomacy are the main elements of new diplomacy that must be met with countless actors with different interests.
Most new tools for dealing with the new challenges come from information, awareness, and out-of-state control of the state and associated with modern communication technologies. The ability of diplomacy to face new challenges and threats requires structural reforms in the use of modern tools and techniques. Today, diplomacy requires communicating with the public media, which requires special attention. “Advertising” and “public opinion” are two of the most influential factors in diplomacy. There is now a close relationship between diplomacy and the press and mass media. The broad range of people’s access to information through satellite and computer networks has flooded the socio-political environment and brought dynamism and transparency into the political literature of the twenty-first century.
How to Save the Failing World Order?
Many in the West believe China’s economic ascendancy indicates that Beijing is covertly working to usher in a new world order in which the balance of power has shifted.
History shows that changes in the world order are inevitable, but they do not take place as quickly as some analysts think. For example, the rise of the US to the world’s primary geopolitical position took nearly half a century, from the late 19th to the mid-20th century. France’s rise to domination over western Europe in the late 16th-early 17th century was a long and arduous process.
In these as well as many other cases from ancient and medieval times, the rise of a new power was facilitated by stagnation, gradual decline, and military confrontation among the various existing powers.
For instance, the US was already powerful in the early 20th century, but it was the infighting during the two world wars among the European powers that brought down the edifice of the Europe-led world order and opened a path for American ascendancy.
But while it is possible to identify the changing winds of the world order through various analytical methods, it is much harder to find ways to preserve an existing order. It requires a whole constellation of leaders from competing sides to grasp the severity of the threat posed by radical change and to pursue measures together to cool down tensions.
The key question that needs to be addressed is whether the West still possesses the necessary political, economic, and military tools to uphold the existing world order and not allow slip it into chaos, as the world’s leaders mistakenly did in the first half of the 20th century.
The successful preservation of an existing world order is a rare event in history. Following the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15, European leaders gathered to build a long-lasting peace. They saw that the French power, though soundly defeated under Napoleon I, needed to be accommodated within the new fabric of the European geopolitical order. This meant not only inviting French representatives to conferences, but offering military and economic cooperation as well as concessions to the French to limit their political grievances.
In other words, European diplomats had an acute understanding of post-French Revolution geopolitics and understood the need to build a long-lasting security architecture through balance of power.
But such approaches are unusual. Perhaps the shock of the bloody Napoleonic Wars, as well as the presence of such brilliant diplomats such as Metternich, Talleyrand, Castlereagh, and Alexander I, assured the success of the new order.
It is far more common that challenges to the world order lead to direct military confrontation. Failure to accommodate Germany in the early 20th century led in part to WWI, and the errant diplomacy of the Treaty of Versailles led in part to WWII. The list goes on.
China’s rise to power is another case for study. The country is poised to become a powerful player in international politics thanks to its economic rise and concurrent military development. Beijing has strategic imperatives that clash with those of the US. It needs to secure procurement of oil and gas resources, which are currently most readily available through the Strait of Malacca. In an age of US naval dominance, the Chinese imperative is to redirect its economy’s dependence—as well as its supply routes—elsewhere.
That is the central motivation behind the almost trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, which is intended to reconnect the Asia-Pacific with Europe through Russia, the Middle East, and Central Asia. At the same time, Beijing has a growing ambition to thwart US naval dominance off Chinese shores.
In view of these factors, mutual suspicion between Beijing and Washington is bound to increase over the next years and decades.
Thus we are amid a changing world order. What is more interesting, however, is what the US (or the West collectively) can do to salvage the existing order.
From the US side, a strengthening of existing US-led alliance systems with Middle Eastern and Asia-Pacific states could help to retain American influence in Eurasia. Specifically, it would enable the US to limit Russia’s, Iran’s, and possibly China’s actions in their respective neighborhoods.
Another powerful measure to solidify the existing the world order would be to increase Washington’s economic footprint across Eurasia. This could be similar the Marshall Plan, with which the US saved Europe economically and attached it to the US economy. New economic measures could be even more efficient and long-lasting in terms of strengthening Western influence across Eurasia.
But no matter what economic and military moves the US makes with regard to allies such as South Korea, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others, any attempt to uphold the existing world order without China’s cooperation would be short-lived. It would echo the way Germany was cast out of the Versailles negotiations, which served only to create a grievance in Berlin and prompt clandestine preparations for a new conflict. In a way, the West’s current problems with Russia can also be explained this way: Moscow was cast out of the post-Cold War order, which caused worry and a degree of revanchism among the Russian elites.
Without China’s inclusion in the world order, no feasible security conditions can be laid out. To be preserved, the world order must be adjusted to rising challenges and new opportunities. Many Western diplomats are uncomfortable dealing with China, but casting Beijing in the role of direct competitor would not solve the problem. Nor would giving Beijing large concessions, which would be too risky.
What is required is a middle road—a means of allowing China to participate in an adjusted world order in which some of its interests are secured. Only that will increase the chances for long-lasting security in Eurasia.
Pulling this off will require an incredible effort from Western and Chinese diplomats. It remains to be seen whether they will be more successful than were their predecessors from the early 20th century and other periods of history.
Author’s note: First published in BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,452, February 19, 2020
Need of multi-track diplomacy in International Relations
Authors: Areeja Syed and Asfandiyar Khan
‘Track one’ diplomacy is one of the most prominent types of diplomacy where states on the official level interact with the other states to promote cooperation, peace, and stability. A policy where one state’s government directly interacts with the decision-makers of the other State. Therefore ‘Track one’ diplomacy includes government, official departments, Ministry of foreign affairs, etc. Track-one diplomacy may also possibly be referred to as “first track” or “first tier” diplomacy. In most of the cases, we have seen that the government of the states on the official and track 1 level are unable to solve the disputes between the states. States need to adopt the multi-track diplomacy tactic to resolve a conflict or to maintain better ties with other states. Multi-track diplomacy refers to that diplomacy which includes two or more than two tracks while conducting diplomatic practice with other states.
The co-founders of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, Louise Diamond and John Mcdonald developed and applied the concept of Multi-Track Diplomacy. Multi-Track Diplomacy is an intangible way to view the procedure of international peacemaking as a living system. In Mul-titrack diplomacy, all the communities whether they are individuals, official or unofficial institutions and communities, work together for a common goal which is to maintain and stability around the globe. It consists of nine tracks. Where peace initiative is taken by:
Track 1: Government officials
Track 2: Professional conflict resolution.
Track 3: Business.
Track 4: Private Citizens.
Track 5: Research, training, and education.
Track 6: Peace activism.
Track 7: religion
Track 8: funding
Track 9: public opinion/communication (McDonald, Multi-Track Diplomacy, 2003)
As mentioned about that ‘track one’ diplomacy is all about government level processes. Let’s understand the track two and track three Diplomatic levels first. ‘Track two’ terminology was first used by Joseph Montville in 1981. The purpose of using this terminology was to introduce the unofficial efforts which could help bring peace between the parties. Montville realized the importance of unofficial efforts and felt the need to differentiate the phenomenon of government to government diplomacy and people to people diplomacy. That was the reason he gave the name to people to people diplomacy as ‘track two diplomacy’. The original concept of Track two or citizen diplomacy just included the common people discussing issues that are most of the time considered as the official negotiations or issues. Track Two Diplomacy has supplemented Traditional Diplomacy or Track One Diplomacy and considered as off the record and informal contact among the members of rival groups or countries with the purpose to formulate plans, to affect public opinion and systematically arrange human and material resources in a manner which would be useful in settling their disputes. It was stressed by Montville that Track Two Diplomacy is not a replacement for Track One Diplomacy; however, it reimburses the restrictions that the psychological hopes of people have imposed on leaders. Track Two Diplomacy aims to offer a bridge or supplement official Track One talks. (Fledman, Schiff, & agha, 2003) Firstly, no political or constitutional power is hindering Track Two groups so they can convey their views on matters that openly influence their families and communities. Secondly, Track Two gives power to the socially, economically, and politically alienated groups by providing a platform to them and which can be used to express their opinions regarding the ways that can be used to achieve peace in their countries or communities. Third, Track Two is successful at the phases of pre-violent and post violent conflict, thus it is a very effectual instrument in preventing the violent conflict and establishing peace after conflict. Fourth Track Two involves grassroots and middle leadership who are in direct contact with the conflict. Fifthly, electoral cycles do not affect Track Two diplomacy. (Mapendere, n.d)
Any peace-making process will become unsteady, flimsy and weak when there is no involvement of people in the efforts to create a new social order. Hence, Track Three diplomacy is a strategy that functions and intercedes in a divided society and attempts to reunite it. Its purpose is not to settle an extensive conflict; however, it pays particular attention to the ideas of communication and understanding as a means of making the solution possible in the future. It is not aimed at altering the nature of bothersome conflictual relations. It is not aimed at uniting the opposing parties to negotiate for an equal share of something. Instead, the dynamics of a quarrelsome relationship that is the reason behind the problems are investigated by the participants. Later on, the participants progressively formulate a capacity for planning actions to alter these relations. This kind of diplomacy signifies the deepest force in fostering security. For example, security ties between the US and Taiwan have become better and the sturdier role in improving the whole relationship has been played by Track Three diplomacy. Moreover, Track Three diplomacy was significant in the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union when a vital role was played by the American business executive Arm and Hammer by promoting trade between the USSR and the US during the Cold War. (McDonald, 1991)
It is required in Track Three to have people to people contact in which ingenuity, compromises, and novelty of courageous people and groups who do not give up their efforts for peace, is included as well. Different arrangements, plans, and programs demonstrate its struggles to unite people so that the other side can be understood and enough pressure can be created from below to cause the belated political will to take place to go towards the next level that is a peace agreement. For instance, the conclusion of the Oslo Peace Accord made it possible for Track Three initiatives to operate the purpose of which were to inspire common Israelis and Palestinians to understand each other and in doing so, start the mutual reconciliation processes. (Wasike, Okoth, & Were, 2016)
Multi-track diplomacy is the amalgamation of all the tracks and is used when the usage of only one track is unable to address a certain issue. Original and the pure concept of multi-track diplomacy place ‘track one’ diplomacy on top of the list whereas putting the entire unofficial tracks below the track one. But Dr. Diamond and Ambassador McDonald reorganized the diagram and place all the tracks in an interconnected way. No track is superior then the other and not only a single track can work alone, but all are also interdependent on one another. All the approaches have separate values and resources, but when coordinated they can work more powerfully. It must be recognized that the main and deep-rooted conflicts between the states cannot be resolved solely through the official negotiation, but now there is a dire need to utilize all the tracks, and include the government, civil society and non-governmental organizations or entities while bringing long term peace.
Towards the Bolder Presence of OIC on global Arena
Authors: prof. Emmy Latifah and Sara Al-Dhahri*
For over half a century, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) serves as a focal point for its member states (MS) and as a clearing house between its members and the rest of the world. The OIC does that by providing a standing forum and diplomatic tools to solve disputes, and to address challenges in accordance with its charter.
Being the second-largest intergovernmental multilateral system after the United Nations (UN), whose members largely occupy the most fascinating part of the globe (that of its geographic and spiritual centre, as well as the sways of rich energy deposits), gives to the Organisation a special exposure and hence a distinctive role.
The OIC Charter clearly states that it is important to safeguard and protect the common interests and support the legitimate causes of its MS, to coordinate and unify the efforts of its members in view of the challenges faced by the Muslim world in particular and the international community in general. For that matter, the Organisation should consider expanding its activities further. One of the most effective way to do so, is by setting yet another permanent presence in Europe. This time it would be by opening its office in Vienna Austria, which should be coupled with a request for an observer status with a Vienna-based Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) – as prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic tirelessly advocates in his statements.
The OSCE itself is an indispensably unique security mechanism (globally the second largest after the UN), whose instruments and methodology could be twinned or copied for the OIC. Besides, numerous MS of the OSCE are members of the OIC at the same time. Finally, through its Mediterranean partnership dimension, this is a rare international body that has (some) Arab states and Israel around the same table.
Presence means influence
Why does the OIC need permanent presence in Vienna? The answer is within its charter: To ensure active participation of the Organization’s MS in the global political, and socio-economic decision-making processes, all to secure their common interests.
Why Vienna in particular, when the OIC has its office in Brussels (Belgium) and Geneva (Switzerland)?
When it comes to this city, we can list the fundamental importance of Vienna in Europe and the EU, and globally since it homes one of the three principal seats of the OUN (besides Geneva and New York).
Moreover, numerous significant Agencies are headquartered in Vienna (such as the Atomic Energy Agency, UN Industrial Development Organisation, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty organisation, etc.), next to the segments of the UN Secretariat (such as Outer Space, Trade Law, the ODC office related to the issues of Drugs-Crimes-Terrorism, etc.).
Surely, there are many important capitals around our global village, but after New York, Geneva and Brussels, Vienna has probably the highest representation of foreign diplomats on earth. Many states have even three ambassadors accredited in Vienna (bilateral, for the UN and for the OSCE.)
The OIC has nine of its MS who are the OPEC members as well. Four of those are the OPEC’s founding members. Vienna hosts OPEC as well as its developmental branch, the OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID).
Some of the OIC MS have lasting security vulnerabilities, a fact that hampers their development and prosperity. The OIC places these considerations into its core activities through co-operation in combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, organised crime, illicit drugs trafficking, corruption, money laundering and human trafficking. Both the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UN ODC) and the OSCE have many complementarities in their mandates and instruments in this respect.
As an Islamic organization that works to protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilisations and religions, the effective tool for that is again Austria. It is the very first European Christian country to recognise Islam as one of its state religions – due to its mandate over (predominately Muslim) Bosnia, 100 years ago.
Back to its roots
The Organization was formed by a decision of the Historical Summit in Rabat, the Kingdom of Morocco on 25 September 1969, after the criminal arson of Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem.
Today, after fifty years of this ferocious incident, the OIC still firmly holds as one of the main cases its resolute support to the struggle of Palestinians, yet under foreign occupation. It empowers them to attain their inalienable rights, including that of self-determination, to establish their sovereign state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital while safeguarding its historic and Islamic character, and the holy places therein.
When we look back to Austria, it was Chancellor Bruno Kreisky (himself Jewish) who was the very first western leader to receive that-time contemporary Yasser Arafat, as a Head of State, and to repeatedly condemn many of the Israeli methods and behaviours. As prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic wonderfully reminded us during his recent lecture with Amb. Goutali of the OIC and Excellency Elwaer of the IsDB President’s Office; ‘Past the Oil embargo, when the OPEC – in an unprecedented diplomatic move – was suspended of its host agreement in Switzerland and requested to leave, it was none but that same Chancellor, Kreisky who generously invited the OPEC to find Austria as its new home.’
The OIC is also heavily involved in environmental issues, such as water implementation. According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, around two-thirds of the world’s transboundary rivers do not have a cooperative management framework. The OIC Science-Technology-Innovation (STI) Agenda 2026 has also called on the MS to first define water resource quality and demand by planning national water budgets at the ‘ local ‘ level where appropriate. In this regard, certain MS lack the ability to conduct a thorough exercise. An organized and focused action plan to adopt the OIC Water Vision is introduced to help Member States address water-related issues.
As for the implementation plan for OIC Water Vision, Vienna is focal again. This city is a principal seat of the Danube river organisation – an international entity with the most elaborated riverine regime on planet. This fact is detrimental for the Muslim world as an effectively water-managing mechanism and instrumentation to learn from and to do twinning with.
So far, the OIC covers Vienna (but only its UN segment) non-residentially, from Geneva – respective officers are residentially accredited only to the UNoG. Permanent presence, even a small one– eventually co-shared with the developmental arm of the OIC – that of the IsDB, would be a huge asset for the Organization. That would enable both the OIC and the Bank to regularly participate in the various formal and informal multilateral formats, happening daily in Vienna.
Absence is the most expensive
International security is a constant global challenge that is addressed the best way through the collective participation in multilateral settings. It is simply the most effective, cheapest, fastest – therefore, the most promising strategy to sustainability and stability of humankind.
According to the Global Peace Index (2019 figures), the economic impact of violence on the global economy in 2018 was $14.1 trillion. This figure is equivalent to 11.2% of the world’s GDP, or $1,853 per capita. The economic impact of violence progressed for 3.3%only during 2018-19. Large sways of it were attributed to the Muslim Middle East.
The OIC fundamental purpose is to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, as embedded in its and the UN Charter and other acts of the international (human rights and humanitarian) law.
In this light, requesting the Observer status with the largest Security mechanism on the planet (outside the OUN system), that of the OSCE, which has rather specific mandates; well-elaborated politico-military, early prevention and confidence building mechanisms; net of legally binding instruments; extensive field presence (incl. several OIC members), and a from- Vancouver-to-Vladivostok outreach is simply the most natural thing to do. This would be very beneficial to the OIC MS, as well as one of the possible ways to improve its own instruments and their monitoring of compliance and resolution machinery.
That move can be easily combined with the bolder presence before the Vienna-based Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in advocating a just and sustained settlement for the Middle East – which is a nuclear free MENA.
Among the 57 OICMS, 21 of them are listed within a top 50 countries in the Global Terrorism Index for 2019. (With a ranking of 9.6 points, Afghanistan is infamously nr. 1 on the global terror index, making it the nation most affected by terrorism on Earth. The OIC member – Afghanistan, scored the most terror attacks in 2018 – 1,294; and the most terror-related deaths in 2018, with 9,961 casualties. Several other MS follow the same pattern.)
The OIC Charter (article 28, Chapter XV) clearly states that the Organisation may cooperate with other international and regional FORAs with the objective of preserving international peace and security and settling disputes through pacific means.
As said, Vienna is a principal seat of the second largest security multilateral mechanism on earth, OSCE. This is a unique three-dimensional organisation with its well elaborated and functioning: politico-military, economy-environment; and the human dimension – all extensively developed both institutionally and by its instruments.
No doubt, the OIC so far successfully contributes to international peace and security, by boosting understanding and dialogue among civilizations, cultures and religions, and by promoting and encouraging friendly relations and good neighbourliness, mutual respect and cooperation. But to remain to the contemporary challenges, it necessities more forums to voice its positions and interests. Many of the OSCE Member states have even three different ambassadors and three separate missions in Vienna. Presence of other relevant international organisations follows about the same pattern.
The strategic importance of the MENA (Middle East- North Africa) lies on its diverse resources, such as energy, trade routes, demography, geography, faith and culture. The OSCE has a Mediterranean partnership outreach, meaning some of the LAS and OIC members states are already participants, whereas the Central Asian states, Caucasus as well as Turkey, Albania and Bosnia are fully-fledged member states of the OSCE.
Taking all above into account, the OIC should not miss an opportunity to open another powerful channel of its presence and influence on the challenging and brewing international scene. It would be a permanent office to cover all diplomatic activities and within it– the observer status before the OSCE (perhaps the IAEA, too). This would be to the mutual benefit of all; Europe and the Muslim world, intl peace and prosperity, rapprochement and understanding, present generations and our common futures.
* Sara Al-Dhahri is an International Relations scholar of the Jeddah-based Dar Al-Hekma University and the Project Coordinator for Sawt Al-Hikma (Voice of Wisdom) Centre of the OIC.
Russian Head Games: American Citizens, American Puppets
“Analysis gave me great freedom of emotions and fantastic confidence. I felt I had served my time as a puppet.”~...
The Name of the Rose: De-evolution of Europe
“He who does not wish to speak of capitalism should remain forever silent about Nazism” – Max Horkheimer famously said....
Westin Hotels & Resorts Debuts In Monterrey, Mexico
Westin Hotels & Resorts is continuing its commitment of bringing unmatched wellness offerings to Mexico with the opening of The...
Republika Srpska preparing Brexit
The precedence of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union naturally allows other European organizations and individual countries to contemplate...
Biodiversity ‘fundamental’ for global food systems, at “heart’ of development
Because the production of everything we eat transforms the environment, the United Nations agriculture chief told a high-level UN meeting on biodiversity that careful discussions are needed to decide on...
The new neighborhood: Creating new community around sustainability and social well-being
At the 2020 tenth World Urban Forum, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) presented its new guidelines for integrated approaches...
Saving The Republic: A Titanic Struggle For Mind
“Truth cannot appear naked before the people.”-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Man’s Need of Metaphysics If America’s core problems could be reduced...
Defense3 days ago
“Westlessness” of the West, and debates on China during Munich Security Conference
Intelligence2 days ago
Artificial Intelligence: Potential Intensifier of Strategic Dynamics in South Asia
Americas3 days ago
How Bernie Sanders Will Destroy the Deep State if He Becomes President
Economy2 days ago
Banks and Artificial Intelligence
EU Politics2 days ago
The EU’s Response to COVID-19
Hotels & Resorts3 days ago
Discover Ateshgah Historical Architectural Reserve with Four Seasons Hotel Baku
New Social Compact2 days ago
The end of the perfect melons
South Asia1 day ago
Dysfunctional Government of Pakistan