Although G7 launches a $600B global infrastructure project to counter China, but, what are the ground realities? Can G7 counter China? Do they have enough money or resources to implement it? Is there any sincerity among G7 countries to invest such a huge amount, while they are also a victim of a global economic meltdown?
Group of Seven leaders pledged on Sunday to raise $600 billion in private and public funds over five years to finance needed infrastructure in developing countries and counter China’s older, multitrillion-dollar Belt and Road project.
U.S. President Joe Biden and other G7 leaders relaunched the newly renamed “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, (PGII)” at their annual gathering being held this year at Schloss Elmau in southern Germany.
Biden said the United States would mobilize $200 billion in grants, federal funds, and private investment over five years to support projects in low- and middle-income countries that help tackle climate change as well as improve global health, gender equity, and digital infrastructure. The rest of the US Dollars 400 Billion will be shared by other G7 nations. It is very much clear that this money is not aid, nor charity, but, an investment, which will generate profit and will be shared by investors accordingly.
The US has experience with the “Marshal Program” launched just after WWII in Western Europe. The aim was to assist Western Europe to rebuild its war-damaged infrastructure and revive its economy. The US was a major beneficiary of the Marshal Program while Western Europe also gained a lot.
But, this time, the objective is very much different – to counter China or to counter the Chinese mega initiative of Belt and Road. China’s belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was launched in 2013, with trillions of dollars, and got recognition from around 150 nations, countries, and organizations. Many countries are the beneficiaries of BRI already and the fruits of it are being enjoyed in many countries. BRI has no political motives and is open to all, any nation, country, or organization can be a beneficiary of it. Contrarily, G7’s program is politicized and focused to counter China only.
Does the G7 have sufficient funds? Can they spare such funds when their own economies are in trouble? Unlike China’s huge BRI initiative, the proposed G7 funding would come largely from private investors and is therefore not guaranteed. Do G7 countries have experience with infrastructure developments like China? Do they have capacity? If their own infrastructure is lacking behind, how can they assist other nations to develop? China upgraded its own infrastructure first and demonstrated its capability, after getting recognition, it assisted other nations in development. China is much more advance in infrastructure as compared to the rest of the world. Can all the G7 nations be willing to counter China? Some of the G7 members are close partners with China in trade, economy, and S&T. Some of the G7 depend on Chinese investment and or at least beneficiary of it. Few are dependent trading partners with China. Are all G7 nations on the same page politically? Are they willing to face the backfire or repercussions?
Overall Europe is a close partner with China in trade, investment, and development. They cannot sacrifice their national interests. Politically, they are closer to China.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian defended the track record of BRI when asked for comment at a daily briefing in Beijing on Monday. “China continues to welcome all initiatives to promote global infrastructure development,” Zhao said of the G7’s $600 billion plan. “We believe that there is no question that various related initiatives will replace each other. We are opposed to pushing forward geopolitical calculations under the pretext of infrastructure construction or smearing the Belt and Road Initiative.”
In fact, China is an open country and does not consider it a threat to its mega initiative of BRI. It is good to have multiple approaches to development, developing nations should have more options and opportunities. China strongly believes in globalization, multi-laterals, and open, free & fair competition. It trusts in its capacity, capability, experience, and financial strengths. Its approach of win-win cooperation got global recognition and established confidence, so there is no need of panicking. Rightly, China welcomes.
It is believed that more projects and initiatives are required for global developments. Advanced and developed nations should come up with more options. Developing nations warmly welcome, if more options and choices are available. A healthy completion is always a good phenomenon. It will be much more appreciated if such projects are purely for development, no politics at all. The focus should be on the welfare of humankind and not on gaining hegemony or supremacy.
The Policy of Sanctions and the Golden Horde Legacy
The modern policy of sanctions resembles, to some extent, the management practices of the Mongol Golden Horde. One of its elements was a system of labels (jarligs), orders, or permissions that were issued by the khan to his vassals. We remember well from history textbooks about the jarligs which were issued to rulers, that is, the permission the khan granted to the Russian princes to own this or that land. Jarligs were also issued to the clergy, freeing them from taxes or giving them other privileges. The jarlig was an instrument of imperial policy, fixing the decisions of the khan in relation to rulers or institutions dependent on him. It had a transboundary character, that is, it was a tool for managing a subordinate, but at the same time alien territory. On the one hand, it was the property of the khan. But on the other hand, it was a separate state unit. Historians have traced the subsequent influence of the Horde’s legacy on the formation of a centralised Moscow state.
For example, the historian Georgy Vernadsky underscored such an influence. It would seem that it makes sense to discuss Horde practices in relation to Russia, pointing to the “Asian” nature of its political power, its despotism and excessive concentration of power. A similar narrative, in one form or another, has been developing for centuries among Russia’s Western neighbours. However, some imperial practices appear to be universal. Today they can be observed in US policy and, to some extent, in the policy of the European Union. Russia itself has largely lost its imperial heritage, becoming a nation-state even to a greater extent than its Western rivals. Which, of course, does not preclude a transition to an imperial organisation in the future under certain circumstances.
The characterisation of the modern US and EU as empires gives rise to two risks at once. There is an intellectual risk, associated with the obvious differences between the empires of the past and modern political entities. In many respects, they are simply incomparable. The comparison of modern industrialised mass democracies with the despotic and economically primitive empire of the Mongols is sure to prompt indignation among some and a condescending smile from others. The Americans and Europeans themselves created the idea of regulatory risk. For all the differences between them, the Western states are defined by their belief in the free organisation of their political institutions, which precludes violence or coercion. Their political communities are organised voluntarily, unlike the empires of the past, which were organised on the basis of violence and coercion.
The American and European identity is grounded in the idea of the superiority of the political governance they created. It seems to be the most fair from the point of view of the equality of people in their rights, as well as the freedom of citizens within the limits of the social contract. The “significant others” for such an identity are both the despotisms of the past and some modern states that rely on autocracies. First and foremost, these include Russia and China. The superiority of capitalism and the market is also part of the Western identity. It is opposed to non-free economies, in which the state plays a key and directive role. From a normative point of view, calling the US and the EU empires would be almost tantamount to a political provocation.
Nevertheless, such a thought experiment seems justified, especially since it reflects certain intellectual developments. Among others, we can recall, for example, “Empire” by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. This experiment posits two assumptions. The first is that in modern international relations, inequality and hierarchy are preserved, and are determined by differences in power, economic and human potentials. The second is that the voluntary nature of an organisation does not exclude coercion and domination. The softness of politics in comparison with the empires of the past hardly indicates the absence of coercion and domination as such. In addition, the democratic structure of individual states does not exclude coercive relations between them, not to mention relations with other states.
In the 20th century, the United States was indeed able to create a unique international community that could be called a “soft empire”. At its core, no doubt, was an instrument of force and coercion. It took shape as a result of the Second World War, in which the United States, together with its allies, defeated and then occupied a number of large states (Italy, Germany, Japan). Much more important, however, was the economic, technological, and financial superiority of the United States. America became the most important source of reconstruction of post-war Europe and Japan, which later became major economic players. The United States not only did not interfere with their development, but also benefited from it. During the Cold War with the USSR, a Euro-Atlantic community system was formed, in which the United States dominated both militarily and economically, avoiding excessive control and coercion. Such control, however, was characteristic of the USSR’s relations with its allies in Eastern Europe, despite the fact that the Soviet economic base turned out to be noticeably smaller than that of the United States and its European allies. The differences between the Western and Eastern blocs in terms of the level of coercion employed during the Cold War, made it possible at the ideological level to underestimate its presence in the ranks of the former and exaggerate in the ranks of the latter.
The movie epic Star Wars in the late 1980s became a kind of archetype for mass consumption, illustrating the differences between the two systems. The victory in the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc can be considered the pinnacle of the development of the American “soft empire”, and globalisation, which gained momentum in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, when it peaked.
Europe, in turn has developed its own “soft empire”, fundamentally different from the United States, but at the same time closely connected with it. It was never based on military-political coercion. The European Union, which was established to facilitate economic integration, created its “universe” through the establishment of common standards and rules of the game, which were accepted by its members voluntarily. However, over time, the European project acquired a growing political component. So far, it has been insignificant as a military-political player, remaining a junior partner of NATO. However, through the strength of its standards, rules and bureaucracy, the EU has established a relationship of power and coercion with its member states and in the orbit of its economic influence that is no less effective than the use of force.
The financial and economic power of the US and the EU is one of the factors that allows their “empires” to remain “soft”. The United States retains its role as a global and financial leader. The American dollar is a convenient and efficient instrument for international settlements. The EU is a large market, and the euro has also taken on a prominent role in international finance. Of course, the humanism and “softness” of Western “empires” have had their limits. Whenever the use of force was relatively unhindered and technically possible, it was employed quite harshly. This was evident in the defeat of Yugoslavia and Iraq. Against Iran, however, the possible use of force ran into the prospect of much larger losses. The use of economic measures made sense as a cheaper, but at the same time devastating alternative technique for using power.
Economic sanctions can be considered the key technology of the modern “soft empires”. The US is far ahead of the rest of the world in their application, although the EU is also using them to a growing extent, and the UK has incorporated them into its independent foreign policy post-Brexit. The global nature of dollar settlements allows the US financial authorities to track transactions around the world, restricting them where they conflict with political interests. In a global economy with a US-centric financial system, blocking US sanctions is likely to result in extensive losses or even spell ruin for any large company with an international presence. The use of blocking sanctions to target strategic exporters can cause enormous economic damage to the economies of individual countries; this has been aptly demonstrated in the use of sanctions against Iran, Venezuela and Russia. The use of secondary sanctions, as well as fines and criminal prosecution for violating US regulations, has led to businesses being disciplined, regardless of their country of origin. For example, the Chinese authorities condemn the US sanctions, but Chinese companies have been forced to take them into account and generally avoid violating them, fearing financial losses and the loss of the US market. Until February 2022, Russian big business also attempted to avoid violating the US sanctions regimes, even though Moscow officially condemned their use, and Russia itself had been hit by a number of restrictive measures. European businesses have also been hit hard by US fines and are complying with US regulations despite Brussels’ grumblings. The European Union itself is actively developing its own tools and restrictive measures.
The modern policy of sanctions also gives rise to the reincarnation of the practice of issuing “jarligs”. By imposing restrictions in a particular area, the US Treasury can, for example, issue a general license that allows certain transactions. Similar permissions are possible in the policy of the European Union. Two recent examples illustrate the use of “jarligs” vis-à-vis Russia.
The first example is the situation with food exports from Russia. Formally, the United States did not impose an embargo on the export of Russian grain, fertilizers or agricultural products. However, a number of Russian agribusiness assets have been hit by blocking sanctions. Fearing secondary sanctions and fines amid large-scale financial and economic sanctions against Russia in the wake of the outbreak of the military conflict in Ukraine, foreign banks have refused to conduct transactions involving export deals for Russian suppliers. For similar reasons, shipping companies have refused to ship Russian products. Combined with the difficulties affecting Ukrainian food exports due to hostilities, rising food prices, droughts and other factors, restrictions on Russian supplies have threatened to have serious global consequences. The answer was the “jarlig” of the US Treasury in the form of a general license for transactions involving Russian food.
The second example is that of Lithuanian attempts to partly block Russian transit to the Kaliningrad region. EU sanctions prohibit the import, transportation and transfer of a number of Russian goods. Under this pretext, their transit through Lithuania was blocked. In this case, the “jarlig” had already been issued by Brussels, which specified that the sanctions do not apply to the transit of these goods by rail.
In the context of the sanctions tsunami, Russia will have to face the good old practice of bans and “jarligs”, recalling the experience of the Horde. The “jarlig” will be issued where the interests of the initiators of the sanctions so require. They can also be given out as rewards for “behavior change”. Ultimately, in the modern doctrine of sanctions policy, “behavioral change” is one of the main goals. Accordingly, Russia can either continue to rely on “jarligs” or create conditions under which foreign restrictions can be circumvented. In relation to the aforementioned example with food exports, we could talk about a system of financial settlements with consumers of Russian exports independent of the control of Western authorities and an accelerated build-up of our own merchant fleet. With regard to Kaliningrad transit, this means the development of maritime transport to the Russian exclave. Such measures will require investment and political will. The alternative is dependence on “jarligs” that can be issued today and revoked tomorrow.
The experience of the Golden Horde, like many other empires, is that “jarligs” lose their meaning when the mass of players who ignore them becomes critical. Western “soft empires” continue to retain a large margin of safety. However, the resistance of major players like Russia may gradually undermine their dominance. Involving China in the process will pose an even more serious challenge to the “soft empires”. China’s policy will be extremely cautious, but the experience of an economic attack on China during the presidency of Donald Trump in the United States has already forced Beijing to take measures to ensure its economic sovereignty and develop insurance mechanisms for use in the event of inevitable exacerbations. So far, China puts up with “jarligs” for its large companies. However, the question is, how long will such humility last?
From our partner RIAC
Another Sri Lanka?: Pakistan’s Economic Crisis
Pakistan’s Finance Minister, Miftah Ismail warned of “bad days” ahead as he highlighted the looming economic crisis that the nation finds itself in. Addressing a ceremony at the Pakistan Stock Exchange, the Finance Minister blamed the economic policies taken by the erstwhile Tehreek-e-Insaf government for the dire economic state of the country.
A Nation in Crisis
Pakistan’s foreign-exchange reserves have shrunk by more than half in the past year, to just over $9 billion, or about six weeks’ worth of imports. In 2022, the Pakistani rupee has lost about 30 percent of its value against the US dollar. Furthermore, a rise in inflation and unemployment coupled with political instability has only made matters worse. The three major global rating agencies, Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P Global have downgraded Pakistan’s long-term rating from stable to negative, citing the country’s deteriorating economic position.
The current Pakistani government has blamed former Prime Minister Imran Khan for much of its economic woes. These accusations are not entirely unfounded. While he promised to rid Pakistan of its economic troubles, Mr. Khan failed to deliver. His regime saw an increased rate of inflation and widespread economic mismanagement. By March 2022, the country’s total external debt and liabilities reached $128 billion. Unemployment also surged with Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) reporting 31% of the youth to be unemployed. The sudden dissolution of his government added fat to the fire, leading to political instability amid grave economic troubles. However, with a tenure of less than five years, blaming Imran Khan for all of Pakistan’s economic troubles seems far-fetched. Undoubtedly, the economy suffered under the Khan administration but this crisis stems from a much larger flawed system.
Economic Fault Lines
There are various structural flaws that can be located in the Pakistani economy that have time and again led to its unmaking.
The Khan administration is not solely responsible for the ongoing debt crisis. The IMF has provided loans to Pakistan on twenty-two occasions since 1958, imposing 13 Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP). The focus of these programmes has been to stabilise the economy while sacrificing growth in the short term. However, Pakistan’s growth rate has consistently remained the lowest in South Asia since the introduction of the first SAP in 1988. The sustainability and feasibility of these IMF bailouts have also been brought into question considering the frequent visits Pakistan makes to the IMF requesting for bailouts. For instance, the last bailout Pakistan requested was in May 2019, just three years before the current crisis. Furthermore, the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) created a debt of $64 billion for Islamabad which was originally valued at $47 billion in 2014. The excessive borrowing to resolve short term issues has majorly contributed to Pakistan’s economic troubles.
Another major issue with the Pakistani economy is the huge trade deficit that the country incurs. Pakistan’s trade deficit currently stands at $48.66 billion, a record high. This enormous trade deficit has resulted from lack of exports in the face of steadily growing imports. As the industries fail to meet the requirements of the domestic market, Pakistan has to rely on imports for bridging the gap. Similarly, the exports suffer due to low productivity of agriculture and industries. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), Pakistan is ranked 143 out of 185 countries on labour productivity, having its GDP per hour worked at a measly $6.3.
Poor fiscal management and failure of the private sector to adapt to innovations has further shackled the Pakistani economy. All of these issues have contributed to the ensuing political instability.
Another Sri Lanka?
The past few months have witnessed the collapse of Sri Lanka from one of the top performing economies in South Asia to its descent into anarchy. With Pakistan in a similar crisis, it is widely argued that the country might be on its way to follow the island nation into a harrowing economic collapse. With the fate of Sri Lanka at display, it is also feared that escalating political instability might lead to an eventual military rule, as has been the norm in Pakistan.
While the situation is bad and might worsen in the coming days, Pakistan is unlikely to follow the Sri Lankan trajectory. The revival of a 2019 bailout with the IMF on July 13, clearing the way for about $1.2 billion, comes as a relief for Pakistan. This much needed help will allow the country to look for alternative channels to bridge the financing gap. The Pakistani military has also been playing an active role in stabilising the situation, with Army Chief Qamar Bajwa seeking financial help from friendly countries including UAE and Saudi Arabia. The involvement of such external lenders should discourage major creditors like China from requesting immediate repayments, easing the pressure on Islamabad. However, this requires the Pakistani government to keep a check on the steadily increasing imports.
While the present measures are likely to provide respite for now, even in the unlikely scenario of a Sri Lanka-like complete economic collapse, the military would not let the political situation in Pakistan slide into anarchy and is likely to take over by dissolving the government in the worst case.
The Way Ahead
Even though Pakistan might just evade the crisis through IMF involvement and bettering the trade deficit by curbing imports into the country, these are measures that tend to serve short term purposes and are no guarantee against another similar crisis in the coming years. The only sustainable answer would be initiating structural reforms. A self-sufficient economy must be at the heart of a rebuilding project. Increased productivity will facilitate an increase in exports while decreasing the imports on basic commodities like food and medicines. Finding economic stability is also detrimental to which path Pakistan’s politics will take in the future as the shadow of military rule looms large on the dwindling democratic set up which has managed to keep it in the barracks since 2008.
What Is Stopping Economic Development Across The Free World?
Notice the big events of economic booms during the last century and observe the unique role of mobilization of entrepreneurialism on such trajectories. For example, the original Silicon Valley of the USA was not a technology or financial revolution but the mobilization of an entrepreneurial journey, way before the term ‘IT’ became popular, and ‘technology’ conceptualized as worthy enough to trade in billions while staying invisible. The out-of-box thinkers came out of their garages, broke old systems, created new alternates and changed the world forever. Revolution of entrepreneurs, created by entrepreneurs and for entrepreneurs. The rest is history
Today, some 100 other nations are still trying hard with their own version to become the copycats. The existing lukewarm failures around the world on the replications of “silicon valley” of sorts, already speak volumes. Remember, only measured by entrepreneurialism, such goals, unless once Mindset Hypotheses properly understood this entire subject already beyond common narratives on economic growth.
Real economic development always needs methodical advancements of national mobilization of entrepreneurialism, upskilling and uplifting SME sectors to quadruple exportability otherwise, growth and productivity remain stagnant. The big challenges are to bring the entrepreneurial thinking and job creator mindsets blend across the economic development teams on a fast track basis. Their current frame of mind critically needs uplifting so their confidence level stands up to the global quality, demands for speed and execution able to tackle the power of global competitive forces.
Neither across the world, during the entire last decade, did academia build neither the long awaited Fourth Industrial Revolution nor did the bureaucracies digitized, mobilized and uplifted SME economies. Where is the entrepreneurial mix in all such equations? What have the economic development teams really learned recently? When will they get ready to advance their thinking and blend their efforts alongside the entrepreneurial engines and right mindsets?
When 100 plus nations, talking about digitization, are still trying to figure out mobilization of large sectors of their SME economies, with little or no progress, lingering questions arise. Necessitated now, are some newly mandated activities at every stage of any economic development in progress. Identify and rearrange right mindsets, for right challenges. What worked, last many decades, today, with no results, now ready for thrown out of windows? How long unlimited printing of currencies last, how high will inflation go and how long the recessions last?
The post-pandemic technologically advanced world, Best option is to balance mindsets and cause change, adjust to global age demands on productivity and performance, otherwise accept a diaper change, surrender to face frailty of life and limits of minds. It is not the absence of expertise that is a problem, it is the mindsets unable to recognize such expertise, in the first place.
The invisible switch: There is no political power unless there is a parallel economic power; after all, there cannot be any economic power without entrepreneurial job-creator-mindset power. Economies without digitization are as if without electricity, economic development without upskilled frontline teams as if without a bulb. Study the solutions via Mindset Hypothesis
The 4B factor: Four Billion on the march; billion displaced due to pandemic, billion replaced due to technology, billion misplaced in wrong jobs now a billion on starvation-watch. The 4B Factor, this digitally connected mass of people making this now the biggest force of global opinion in the history of time.
Global opinion v/s national public opinion: Observe, how fast the world changed, how the ocean of global opinion is now drowning ponds of national opinion. Notice, nations are already so intoxicated, in joy over the popularity of their own national opinion, while having just an opposite global opinion on the world stage. Study the global tidal waves.
Study the Agrarian Age to Industrial Age, later to Computer Age, measure how most talented ‘cow-hands’ were suddenly replaced by steam power and hydraulics and later floors filled with clerks replaced by a single computer. Study “How did we arrive here so suddenly” Excerpted Source: Naseem Javed, Sunrise, Day One, Year 2000. Published, IABC Communications World, Dec. 1995, Volume 12 Issue 11, Article, ‘Chronology Charts’
Over centuries, despite, available like an open book, the government failed to create armies of entrepreneurs but was always successful in creating real armies and real combat soldiers. Simply because, soldiers trained by sleeping in the forests while digging trenches in the rain, but not trained by running around in classrooms with water pistols or drawing pictures of tanks.
Entrepreneurialism is neither academia born nor academic centric. Let the professors teaching entrepreneurialism break the furniture in protest, their contributions, as theories are excellent only when free, but not for heavy cost and creating student debts. Today business education is more a liability and no longer a real asset. The world changed, minds opened, old-systems closing, new worlds arising with new definitions erupting to manage the future better.
Go build an airline, place aeronautical engineers, and frequent flyers in the cockpits but leave qualified trained pilots in the airport lobbies. Now glued to the radio to find about a crash understand the similarity to current pending financial crashes, nation by nation. As a test, best check out what percentage of entrepreneurial job creator mindsets are in the mix with job seeker mindsets of any local, national economic ministry anywhere in the free world.
Save economies and grab the solutions: They can rapidly upgrade and acquire Mastery on National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism,learn its pragmatism and common sense deployments within months, acquire digitization, mobilization and most importantly to articulate on such advanced new thinking across the national agenda. Learn fast, fail fast, raise fast and shine. Study how Expothon is tabling such ideas globally.
Today, a shipload of some 7000 economic development officers, representingalmostthe total of top teams spread across free economies of the world should now take a luxury cruise, relax, relearn, unlearn, as their current mathematics is causing serious maladjustments on creating grassroots prosperity for some 100 nations. How fast can this force of 7000 people on a luxury cruise be upskilled on National Mobilization of SME Entrepreneurialism?
The difficult questions: How quickly options when infused with technology lead to mobilizations to discover new paths. Which economic leadership of free nations can display such transformation or even articulate on such critical topics? Which national or global institution is bold enough to face and debate such challenges? Which economic team is ready to test, explore, or try on such forbidden topics? Nevertheless, the world changing fast and will not stop for anyone.
Observing the change, it will not be the sudden arrival of missed Fourth Industrial Revolution; but the surprised arrival of the First Industrial Revolution of the Mind. Study deeply how the mind is opening up and responding to creative entrepreneurial issues, the old concept already dead, now replaced with new thinking. Leaving behind the woman entrepreneurs is another tragedy for any nation. What are some new solutions?
Just like today, we no longer tolerate square wheels or rotary dials, or chasing a form stamped 10 times, across a 10-floor building without a lift. The post pandemic economic recovery in smoke and mirror war games, will no longer tolerate the inefficiencies and bureaucracies. Of course, today, the ability to face the truth now considered extraordinary strength. Change can be beautiful, once minds opened.
Refusing to face the truth; this is where all the hostility and hate breeds, and where without diversity and tolerance, wars and fakery declared the common games, this is when humankind left as secondary, common good declared waste, societies destroyed, so who needs economic development, anyway? A new wave of grassroots economic development will emerge as the top-level economic development almost already destroyed. Hear the sounds of distant firings. It will be the five billion connected alpha dreamers, who will develop and change the world. The rest is easy
Politics of Pakistan: A Riot or an Opportunity
On 14th August, 1947 Pakistan appeared on the world map as the largest independent Muslim state of that time. Sixty-five...
COVID- a way forward with Sustainability & Biodiversity
Since the onset of the COVID- 19 pandemic, a new unprecedented situation has arisen many new challenges including social, health,...
Seventy-Five Years of India’s Independence
If anyone had asked Jawaharlal Nehru as he made his midnight speech on August 15 and freedom dawned, how he...
‘Immensely bleak’ future for Afghanistan unless massive human rights reversal
The international community must dramatically increase efforts to urge the de facto authorities in Afghanistan to adhere to basic human...
The Policy of Sanctions and the Golden Horde Legacy
The modern policy of sanctions resembles, to some extent, the management practices of the Mongol Golden Horde. One of its elements was a system of labels...
What Is a Sovereign State?
Against the backdrop of the rapid collapse of the US-led world order, the question of which states will survive in...
IAEA: ‘Very alarming’ conditions at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
The situation at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has deteriorated rapidly to the point of becoming “very alarming,” Director General...
Middle East4 days ago
An updated Chinese strategy towards the Arab region: Evidence from Saudi Arabia
Energy4 days ago
Mozambique Risks Economic Stability if it Purchases Russian Oil
Economy4 days ago
What Is Stopping Economic Development Across The Free World?
Economy4 days ago
Another Sri Lanka?: Pakistan’s Economic Crisis
Defense4 days ago
A war where the machine decides who to kill! (LAWs wars)
World News3 days ago
Nuclear-free Mongolia a ‘symbol of peace in a troubled world’
Reports3 days ago
Vietnam’s Economy Forecast to Grow 7.5% in 2022
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Myanmar: Crimes against humanity committed systematically