Connect with us

Defense

America Spends About Half of World’s Military Expenditures

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

The National Priorities Project headlines “U.S. Military Spending vs. the World” and reports: “World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.” But it can’t be believed, because, even if other nations aren’t under-reporting their military expenditures, the U.S. certainly is — under-reporting it by about 50%. The reality is approximately twice the official figure, so that America’s current annual military expenditures are around $1.5 trillion, which is to say, almost equal to that entire global estimate of “more than $1.6 trillion in 2015.”

America’s actual annual military budget and expenditures are unknown, because there has never been an audit of the ‘Defense’ Department, though an audit has routinely been promised but never delivered, and Congresses and Presidents haven’t, for example, even so much as just threatened to cut its budget every year by 10% until it is done — there has been no accountability for the Department, at all. Corruption is welcomed, at the ‘Defense’ Department.

Furthermore, many of the military expenditures are hidden. One way that this is done is by funding an unknown large proportion of U.S. military functions at other federal Departments, so as for those operations not to be officially “‘Defense’ Department” budget and expenditures, at all. This, for example, is the reason why Robert Higgs, of The Independent Institute, was able to report, on 15 March 2007, “The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here”. He found that America’s military expenditures, including the ones he could identify at other federal agencies, were actually already nearly a trillion dollars ($934.9 billion) a year:

“To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2006, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $499.4 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.6 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $69.1 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $25.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $69.8 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $38.5 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2006 total by nearly half again, to $728.2 billion.”

Furthermore, “Much, if not all, of the budget for the Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to abate perceived threats. … [As regards] Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. … The Federal Bureau of Investigation … devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program. The Department of the Treasury informs us that it has ‘worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.’”

But, almost everything there relied upon mere estimates, because the Congress and the President always supply to the public numbers that are sadly uninterpretable by anyone who wants to know what percentage of the federal government is actually military.

For example, on April 3rd, the White House, as required by law, sent to Congress “the Seven-Day-After report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141). The President signed this Act into law on March 23, 2018.”

That’s the current authorized spending for the entire U.S. federal Government. It was broken down there into twelve categories, some of which were for multiple federal Departments, in order to make the reported numbers as uninterpretable as possible — for example, nothing was shown for the Treasury Department, but something was shown for “Financial Services and General Government Appropriations” and it didn’t even mention the “Treasury” Department. And nothing was shown for the Justice Department, nor for the Commerce Department, but something was shown for “Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies” (whatever those are). However, as bad as this is, the military (or invasions) department is even less fathomable from the publicly available reports than those other ones are. The ‘Defense’ Department is the only one that’s still “unauditable” so that in one of the attempts to audit it:

“The audits of the FY 1999 DoD financial statements indicated that $7.6 trillion of accounting entries were made to compile them. This startling number is perhaps the most graphic available indicator of just how poor the existing systems are. The magnitude of the problem is further demonstrated by the fact that, of $5.8 trillion of those adjustments that we audited this year, $2.3 trillion were unsupported by reliable explanatory information and audit trails or were made to invalid general ledger accounts.”

Largely as a consequence of this, Wikipedia’s “Military budget of the United States” is a chaotic mess, though useful for links to some sources (all of which are likewise plagued as being uninterpretable).

On 1 March 2011, Chris Hellman headlined “The Real U.S. National Security Budget: The Figure No One Wants You to See”, and he estimated (using basically the same approach that Higgs had done in 2007, except less accurate than Higgs, due to failing to base his numbers on “the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available” but instead using only the President’s budget request) that at that time, the U.S. Government was spending annually on ‘Defense’, “$1,219.2 billion. (That’s more than $1.2 trillion.)” That amount was far less than the totals that the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense had been reporting, in some of its periodic investigations (such as the one just cited), to have been missed or undocumented or falsely ‘documented’ as having been spent, by that Department; but, for some mysterious reason, the American people tolerate and re-elect ‘representatives’ who ‘debate’ and rubber-stamp such corruption, which is of enormous benefit to corporations such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, whose sales and profits depend upon the U.S. Government and its allied governments. Any such privatization of the ‘Defense’ industry, in America or any other country — treating its military operations so as to produce profits for investors (investors in mass-murder) — thus guarantees that the national-security function will be heavily loaded with lobbying and graft, because the military industry’s entire market is to one’s own government and to its allied governments: it’s not a consumer market, but a government one. Thus, privatized military suppliers grow virtually to own their government; democracy consequently becomes impossible in such nations. And, one outcome from that is the uninterpretable financial reports by America’s government, regarding ‘Defense’.

For example, probably fewer than 1% of Americans have even been informed by the press as to what the currently authorized annual federal spending for the ‘Defense’ Department is. When the Washington Post, on 23 March 2018, reported their main story about the FY 2018 federal spending authorizations (“In late-night drama, Senate passes $1.3 trillion spending bill, averting government shutdown”), the figure for the ‘Defense’ Department was buried inconspicuously in a 52-word passage within that 1,600-word ‘news’-report, which was otherwise loaded with distractive trivia. This buried passage was: “The legislation funds the federal government for the remainder of the 2018 budget year, through Sept. 30, directing $700 billion toward the military and $591 billion to domestic agencies. The military spending is a $66 billion increase over the 2017 level, and the nondefense spending is $52 billion more than last year.” That’s all. For readers interested in knowing more, it linked to their 2,200-word article, “Here’s what Congress is stuffing into its $1.3 trillion spending bill”, and all that it said about the military portion of the new budget was the 27-word passage, “defense spending generally favored by Republicans is set to jump $80 billion over previously authorized spending levels, while domestic spending favored by Democrats rises by $63 billion.” Though 23 categories of federal spending were sub-headed and summarized individually in that article, ‘Defense’ wasn’t one of them. Nothing about the budget for the U.S. Department of ‘Defense’ — which consumes more than half of the entire budget — was mentioned. However, the reality was that, as Defense News reported it, on 7 February 2018 — and these figures were unchanged in the bill that President Trump finally signed on March 23rd — “Senate leaders have reached a two-year deal that would set defense spending at $700 billion for 2018 and $716 billion for 2019.” This year’s $700 billion Pentagon budget thus is 54% of the entire $1.3 trillion FY 2018 U.S. federal budget. Another article in Defense News on that same day, February 7th, noted that, “‘I’d rather we didn’t have to do as much on non-defense, but this is an absolute necessity, that we’ve got these numbers,’ said the Senate Armed Services Committee’s No. 2 Republican, Sen. Jim Inhofe, of Oklahoma.” So: 54% of the federal budget wasn’t high enough a percentage to suit that Senator; he wanted yet more taken out of non-‘defense’. How can people (other than stockholders in corporations such as Raytheon) vote for such a person? Deceit has to be part of the answer.

Using similar percentages to those that were employed by Higgs and by Hellman, the current U.S. annual military expenditure is in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. But that’s more than the total authorized federal spending for all departments. Where can the extra funds be coming from? On 5 February 2018, CNBC bannered “The Treasury is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year”. Then, charts were presented on 10 May 2018 by Dr. Edward Yardeni, headlined “U.S. Government Finance: Debt”, in which is shown that the U.S. federal debt is soaring at around a trillion dollars annually; so, that extra money comes from additions to the federal debt. Future generations of U.S. taxpayers will be paying the price for the profligacy of today’s U.S. aristocracy, who receive all the benefits from this scam off the public, and especially off those future generations. But the far bigger losses are felt abroad, in countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine, where the targets will be suffering the consequences of America’s invasions and coups.

Notwithstanding its pervasive corruption and enormous uncounted waste, the U.S. military is, by far, the U.S. institution that is respected above all others by the American people. A great deal of domestic propaganda is necessary in order to keep it that way. With so many trillions of dollars that are unaccounted for, it’s do-able. All that’s needed is a tiny percentage of the huge graft to be devoted to funding the operation’s enormous PR for ‘patriotism’. And this treasonous operation has been sustainable, and very successful (for its ultimate beneficiaries), that way, in the U.S., at least for decades.

I have previously explained why specifically military corruption has come to take over the U.S. Government, but not certain other governments

. And the result of its having done so has by now become obvious to people all around the world, except in the United States itself. Furthermore, ever since the first poll was taken on that matter, in 2013, which showed that globally the U.S. was viewed as the biggest national threat to peace in the world, a subsequent poll, in 2017, which unfortunately was taken in fewer countries, showed that this negative impression of the U.S. Government, by the peoples in those fewer countries, had actually increased there during the four intervening years. So: not only is the situation in the U.S. terrible, but the trend in the U.S. appears to be in the direction of even worse. America’s military-industrial complex can buy a glittering ‘patriotic’ image amongst its own public, but America’s image abroad will only become uglier, because the world-at-large dislikes a country that’s addicted to the perpetration of invasions and coups. Just as bullies are feared and disliked, so too are bully-nations. Even if the given bully-aristocracy becomes constantly enriched by their operation, economies throughout the world suffer such an aristocracy, as being an enormous burden; and, unfortunately, the American public will get the blame, not America’s aristocracy — which is the real beneficiary of the entire operation. This deflection of blame, onto the suckered public, precludes any effective response from the publics abroad, such as boycotts of U.S.-branded products and services might be. Instead, American tourists abroad become increasingly perceived as ‘the ugly American’. The restored ‘Cold War’ — this time with no ideological excuse (such as communism) whatsoever — could produce a much stronger global tarnishing of America’s global reputation. The beneficiaries, apparently, just don’t care.

first posted at The Saker

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Agni-V Canister Launch: Facts and Implications

Published

on

Three main nuclear players of Asia: China, India and Pakistan have established “triangular” dilemma due to their security concerns. This is manifested through the development of advanced  conventional and nuclear weapon forces.  China is pursuing military modernization program to counter US in Asia-Pacific region, whereas India’s development of sophisticated strategic forces is aimed towards China and Pakistan.  India’s acquisition and development of such deterrent of conventional and nuclear forces is a matter of concern for Pakistan and Chinese security planners. In response, it is inevitable for Pakistan to take measures for its security and safety.

Such dynamics has established multifaceted security trilemma between three Asian nuclear weapon states due to which induction and introduction of any technology in conventional and strategic forces of one state is matter of security concern for other state. This is expressed through the India’s offensive policies and strategies in pursuit of global power projection, and such dynamics has ability to disturb the deterrence equilibrium and strategic stability of the region. In this regard, recent launch test of Agni V demonstrates that India aims to establish credible strategic forces against China, which would not justify its claim of remaining “minimum’ against Pakistan.

Trends in India’s missile testing and acquisition in nuclear technologies demonstrates that India is largely supported in its quest of strategic forces modernization by the states including United States, France, Russia and other European states.  In SIPRI report of 2018, India is ranked as largest arms importer of the world and its technological transfer and foreign acquisitions are running in parallel with its motivation to increase the range, payload, reliability and accuracy of missiles, ICBMs, MIRVs, SLBMs and development of space program.

The United States is supporting the India’s military developments for its own strategic, economic, political and military goals in strategic landscape of Asia. Since US is supporting the India as a Great power in South Asia, the India has been attempting to prove its conventional and nuclear credentials. Therefore, such aspirations demand from India to obtain more resilient and disastrous military muscles. Therefore India’s missile inventory especially canister launch of Indian ICBM Agni-V has played key role in soothing the India’s self-image of a regional power and strategic objective of US.  Moreover, its operational launch has ability to increase security dilemma in South Asia as well as in the whole region as its range makes its capable to hit neighboring states Pakistan, China, and whole continent of Asia: and also parts of other continents such as Europe and Africa.

On January 18, 2018 first “Pre-induction” successful test of Agni-V was conducted.  Agni V is three stages, solid fueled, intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The range of the Agni V is 5,500-5,800 KM, it is capable to carry warhead of 1,500 Kg.  Later in June 2018, canister-launch test of Agni V was carried out.  The canister-launch version of the missile enables the quick transport of the missile and provides the capability to launch it anywhere. Canister launch of the Agni-V will lower the nuclear threshold in the region and increase the crisis instability. Consequently, according to the report, India is working to incorporate MIRVs technology with Agni V for its credible second-strike capability.

The objective of first three nuclear missiles (Agni-I, Agni II, Agni III) was to counter Pakistan, whereas the other missiles of the series (Agni-IV, Agni-V) are capable to hit the China due to the longer ranges. The successful canister launch test of Agni V demonstrates that the soon nuclear capable missile will be inducted into Indian Strategic nuclear command. The Canister-launch of the Agni-V will reduce the launch time and pairing it with MIRV technology will have destabilizing effect on the deterrence and strategic balance of Asia. The induction and introduction of operation ready Agni-V will have serious repercussions for geostrategic landscape of region.

India’s latest developments and missile proliferation indicates the India’s shift to acquire more offensive capabilities. Presently, India’s focus to increase the range of its missiles and shift from liquid to solid fueled missiles to enhance the level of readiness  and tri-service operation of nuclear-tipped missile. These developments are providing pre-emptive capabilities to the India that is inconsistent with the India’s nuclear posture of “Credible Minimum Deterrence”.  India’s offensive conventional and missile capabilities deterrence stability negatively influence the security architecture of region. Therefore, canister launch of Agni-V; marked by advance range, accuracy, payload and higher level of readiness has not only increased the security dilemma and instability in the region but it is also threatening its’ neighboring states with its military buildup.

Continue Reading

Defense

U.S. divorces Europe

Published

on

Europe is in the anticipation of NATO summit which will take place on June, 11-12 in Brussels. Before this meeting the Pentagon thoroughly analyzed all allies’ expenses on collective defence. It turned out that NATO members’ defence budgets don’t reflect real needs of the Alliance. Among the twenty-nine members, only the United States is really serious about its obligations, spending approximately $700 billion or 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense. No other NATO member comes close to this proportion, and the vast majority fail even to meet the self-imposed requirement to devote at least 2 percent of GDP to defense.

Donald Trump repeatedly warned the member states that America is not going to carry the main burden any more. It is time for Europe to pay for itself. “I’ll tell NATO, you got to start paying your bills,” Trump told a wildly cheering crowd in Montana on July, 5. And he is ready to begin with Germany. The president pondered aloud about the value for the US in paying for the collective defence of Germany. Now the US is analyzing the cost and impact of a large-scale withdrawal or transfer of American troops stationed in Germany. No doubt, the Baltic States are the next.

It is clear that Trump begins the process of limiting America’s role in NATO. For a long time NATO members have been promising, but did nothing to increase defense spending. Weak attempts of some countries to meet requirements did not save the situation.

If NATO reduces its huge financial injections in Alliance’s budget, the whole system of European defence, and the Baltic States’ defence in particular, will become illusive and unattainable. The Baltic States’ worst nightmares become true. It is not a secret that keeping a large army abroad is already draining the nation’s treasury, stationing many soldiers in numerous strategic foreign nations costs huge sum of money. While the Baltic States and Poland ask for more and more US and NATO troops and bases, the US is not about to satisfy their every whim. It is enough, patience is over, and pragmatism defeated compassion.

Being highly dependent on US financial support, NATO turns to be on the verge of collapse.
It became quite obvious that Trump behaves more as a businessman than a politician. He has received success in his business and transfers his behavior model to politics. The more so, Donald Trump keeps his word and the major theme of his administration “America first” at least really works. The US does not want any more to throw out money, doesn’t want to believe in Europe’s “sincere will” to be on equal footing in NATO. Trump-businessman prevails over Trump-politician. We are on the eve of global political change. Like “it’s every man for himself in business”, America will not pay for weak partners. Trump: “Dear Baltics, nothing personal, it’s just business.”

Continue Reading

Defense

The Islamic Republic of Iran and Security Discourse

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

The fact of security discourse has entered a new era in the next Cold War has a general consensus. Accordingly, security studies, in order to continue to maintain their position, have been compelled to avoid the traditional focus on threats, use and management of the military, by experiencing some fundamental changes, with new dimensions and considerations. Define security. At the same time, we are witnessing security issues and the emergence of new issues such as acid rain, AIDS, ozone depletion, drug trafficking, destruction of natural resources, warmth of the earth, population explosion, pollution of the air and so on.

Although the security image presented seems fresh, it is believed that there is no fundamental change beyond the scope of the topic, and the essence of security remains the same. Nevertheless, there have been positive and significant developments in this period. ; Such as the release of the “militaristic” one-dimensional approach, and the turning of attention to the sinister category of “conflict” and “conflict,” and ultimately to the fact that security has a multidimensional face and cannot be restricted to the next military unit. The rule of this new insight is that it produces a significant amount of texts related to national security studies, in which economics, the environment, cultural and intellectual, political, geographic and etc. issues are considered as new dimensions of national security.

The national security considerations of the Islamic Republic of Iran have undergone many changes during the years after the Islamic Revolution. The country’s security considerations are divided into three “axis expansion”, “axis retention” and “growth-driven” discourses. In each discourse, four basic variables, namely, the goals and principles of national security, national strength, threats and vulnerabilities of national security, and ultimately national security policies, have been considered.

The expansionist discourse; in the national security considerations of the country, the “expansion-oriented discourse” in the early years had a new military discourse. In these years, despite the fact that the religious revolutionaries did not have all the formal political structures, they gradually managed to dominate all the declared and effective policies of the system, and in fact their ideas were the main guide to domestic and foreign policy. In the eyes of the revolutionists, the concept of national security did not enjoy intrinsic credibility, even in the face of any national burden, such as national identity, national interests, and national security, a kind of hatred and pessimism. Accordingly, the concept of security in the form of a macro was worthy of value and instead of national security, such as the security of the system, the security of the Islamic Ummah was considered. Such a definition of security also meant that it would spur the nature of the expansion of the revolution. Accordingly, revolutionaries, in addition to focusing on the improvement of the individual and social life of the nation, felt the expansion of Islamic values beyond national boundaries as part of their primary duties. On the one hand, they wanted Iran for Islam, and on the other hand, they considered the role of Islamic Iran as a pole and axis for the Islamic world.

From the results of the national security considerations in the expansionist discourse, one can mention the following: “the boundaries and frontiers of nationalism were abandoned”, “followed by a revolutionary pattern”, “national security considerations did not follow the pattern of civilization,” “various dimensions in considerations The security of the country, including its goals and principles, national achievements, threats and vulnerabilities and national security policies, began at a zero point “,” the security objectives were subject to revolutionary macro policies, following the ideals and principles of human and Islamic, which reflected the nature of the software of national security ” “Revolution and the system were vulnerable to threats,” “Raid.” Political militancy was the priority of other dimensions, such as social, cultural, economic and security. ”

Conservative Discourse; the occurrence of war was a turning point in national security considerations. In a situation where many of the concepts of the revolution were still being defined, and yet the pivot of the revolution was unfolding, the imposed war began. In fact, existing political forces had not yet reached a consensus in many areas, and political transformations could be expanded. That is why, even in the first year of the war, the revolutionary community was involved with issues that were not so in tune with the conflicting communities. Only after the decline of political inflammation after the dismissal of Bani-Sadr and the summer of 1981 and the achievement of a political unity between revolutionary officials, the war was at the forefront of national security. From the beginning of the second year of the war to the end, it was dominated by national security considerations. Obviously, the fundamental distinction of this period with the previous period was the limitation of the circle of fundamental security problems of the system in a fundamental factor, namely war and its affairs. Therefore, preserving the territorial integrity of the country and securing the system against the Iraqi objective threat is at the core of the system’s attention. Nevertheless, the new era is in line with the ideological aspects of the past period. The evolution of war and the type of resistance created by the armed forces even increased the ideological impact at some time on the security considerations of the country. However, the realities of warfare were decisive in controlling many ideological and ideological goals of the past.

According to the results of this study, the results of the national security considerations in the persistent discourse include: “national security considerations were centered around national boundaries”, “greater use was made of elements of spiritual power”, “the continuation of the revolution through war Was insured “,” the ability of the Iranian community to mobilize and integrate to face the crisis of extermination was proven “,” the necessity of military empowerment “,” the economic backwardness of the country was reduced as the main negative changes “,” to prevent unrealistic considerations in foreign policy “,” Aspects of pragmatism in outside politics ” was imposed. ”

Growth-focused discourse; The war focused on security considerations at the edge of the national borders, but the end of it and the beginning of widespread developments in the country, above all else, centered on these considerations into national borders. The end of the war was accompanied by other changes at the national, regional and international levels. At the internal level, by reforming the constitution and centralizing power in the presidency, the areas of possible controversy in the executive branch of the country were resolved but this did not mean the end to political rivalries in the great collection of politicians in the country. During this time, one can see three important points in relation to the supreme elite of the country regarding national security. First, a view based on economic growth. Second, an ideological perspective and third, a view based on political cultural development.

In addition to these internal changes, regional and international changes have also been effective in shaping new national security considerations. The decline of the role of ideology in the international system after the collapse of communism and the establishment of a new order in this system that led to the growth of the monopolistic behaviors of the powers, and especially the United States, have had a decisive impact on the national security of the country. In addition to these developments, trends such as the escalation of internationalization and the evolution of the globalization process have also been effective factors. At the regional level, the effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new states in the northern region, as well as the continuation and progression of the regional Middle East crises, created many engagements for the statesmen.

In the context of the country’s national security considerations, the following results can be reached in the growth-driven discourse: “Inflammation of the past two periods and relative introversion in the security considerations” was reduced, “there is still a vacancy in a systematic and all-rounder vision in the country’s security considerations,” ” National welfare is becoming more and more emphasis on national security “,” The creation of a strong and prestigious Iran instead of the physical exodus of the revolution “,” Elements of national power have been given a more objective quality “,” The threats have become more widespread “,” Necessity Multilateral vision is felt in politics “,” a tangible change in the amount of attention to the public L environment has been found. ”

On this basis, in general, it can be said that “security policy” has a different meaning from whatever has been, including two fundamental principles. On the one hand, political planners, diplomats, such as jurists and intellectuals, have to come up with a collective agenda in order to find a place for small and ultra-national actors in politics and the administration of society. On the other hand, the global arena represents new areas where governments alone are not “non-governmental”. So, while identifying the realm of government influence, a particular kind of problem arises that the government does not necessarily find the right solution for them. The understanding and accepting this separation is an important consideration in the security equations. Accordingly, a new study program is being developed, the nature of which is not only the elimination of threats, but also the creation of opportunities and the realization of requirements that are in keeping with the capabilities of a political system. In this framework, new thinkers in the field of security studies are divided into two state-oriented and non-government-oriented approaches, thus defining and identifying new actors in the national security equations, which were not so important for analysts before. At the same time as developing national security studies, the category of “threats” has also evolved, and we are witnessing the emergence of new threats that are largely nongovernmental and, in contrast to the Cold War, are in the two “national” and “supreme” spaces of the national government.

In addition, Iran’s national security considerations have been varied in various ways; in summary, the evolution of “outsourcing to introspection” from the “ideological approach and pure commitment to more realism”, from “universality to Iran”, from “simplicity to complexity”, and from the “Threat of Thought as an Intentional Threat in the International System.” In these developments, we are paying more attention to the need for a balance between the limits and limits of national security considerations.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsdesk7 hours ago

EU and China step up cooperation on climate change and clean energy

At the China-EU Summit on 16 July in Beijing, the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of...

Southeast Asia8 hours ago

Explaining Gendered Wartime Violence: Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing

The United Nations described Rohingyas as ‘amongst the most persecuted minority groups in the world.’ News reports and refugee testimonies...

Russia9 hours ago

Russia’s key to Africa

On July 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin warmly received two African leaders, Gabonese Ali Bongo Ondimba and Sudanese Omar al-Bashir,...

South Asia10 hours ago

Pakistan: A New Space Era

Pakistan’s fragile economy and resource restraints are the main hurdles in the way of technological development, especially in space affairs....

Americas10 hours ago

Trump’s and Putin’s Responses to Mueller’s Russiagate Indictments

In the July 16th joint press conference between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the question arose...

Green Planet1 day ago

UN Environment and Google announce ground-breaking partnership to protect our planet

UN Environment and Google announced today a global partnership that promises to change the way we see our planet. Combining...

Newsdesk1 day ago

Philippines Growth to Remain Strong Despite Global Uncertainty

The World Bank maintains its 6.7 percent growth forecast for 2018 and 2019 despite rising global uncertainty. Considering recent economic...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy