With the introduction of Agenda 2030, the world recognised the need of attaining gender equality and empowering all women and girls in order to achieve long-term development. Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that “gender equality and women’s empowerment are critical across all SDGs and targets.” Gender equality in general focuses on women’s equal involvement in decision-making processes. Over the last two decades, the international community has been increasingly aware of the significance of women’s engagement in peace and security concerns. The diplomatic area of weapons control, nonproliferation, and disarmament covers a wide range of issues and forums.
Gender in Nuclear Disarmament and Arms Control Negotiations
Women and disarmament is an important relationship that has been recognized through a series of resolutions at the United Nations. The Women, Peace and Security Agenda was established through the UNSCR 1325. Women, disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation was adopted through UNGAR 65/69 in 2010. In 2012, the UNGAR 67/48 was adopted that encouraged member states and other actors to advocate equal opportunities for women in disarmament and decision-making processes.
There are many hindrances that women face when they are involved in decision making processes. This can be seen in every level of the society from local to global context. This can also be seen in arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament discussions. There has been increase in the efforts of removing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and administer arms in the last 40 years. However, the number of women involved in these negotiations is small.
Women will be able to bring their own unique experience and point of view that might be helpful in negotiations. People with different background or gender in gender bring their own opinion and challenge the idea that are put forth by letting them to think outside the box. This would in turn make the actors confront various perspectives and come out of their comfort zone. Both genders aim to eradicate these harmful weapons. However, when men go to war they inevitably use these weapons. The use of such weapons affects both men and women but they don’t affect them the same way. Women get impacted due to biological and social circumstances. The diversity in negotiations also changes the belief that everyone has similar background, ideas and most importantly needs. When there is an opportunity given to women in negotiation processes, their standpoint and give birth new ways of thinking. This resolves deadlocks and achieves various objectives.
With this information it is important to have women in negotiation processes as women are also impacted by negotiating outcomes. Therefore the importance of women participation in negotiating platforms on arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament is even greater.
Participation of Women in Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
Women’s participation in global arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament procedures vary widely throughout the world. Latin American and Caribbean countries, for example, have the greatest proportion of female diplomats in international forums, at approximately 40%. Africa has the smallest number of female representatives. They are, however, particularly active in campaigning for gender views on platforms dealing with small guns and light weapons.
In the year 2018, women were involved only in 14 of the 19 delegations of the six peace processes that were led by the UN. The number in these delegations was extremely low. When taking talking about the Blue Helmets, only about 3% of the military in UN missions are women. Even if women are employed, they are delegated with support work.
Gender imbalance in disarmament diplomacy persists, according to a UN Institute for Disarmament Research study. Women made up just 32% of attendees in disarmament-related meetings during the previous four decades. When it comes to specialists from the government, the ratio drops to 20%. The UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which deals with disarmament and international security, had the lowest percentage of women present, at 34%. Furthermore, just one of the 72 meetings was headed by a woman. The Third Committee that deals with social, humanitarian and cultural issues have the highest number of women. Thus we can deduce that gender has been stereotyped. It was more difficult to discern typecasting within the various realms of disarmament. It has been identified by other researchers that fields such as nuclear posture and deterrence policy to be more male-dominated and not welcoming when compared to the arms control and non-proliferation area that are more welcoming to including women.
The lack of gender equality may be shown in weapons control by looking at the number of women in senior roles. In terms of the number of representations, it is clear that men lead delegations. Even though the gap between women and men is decreasing, it can’t be seen reflected in the number of delegations that are led by women.
The Effectiveness and Implications of Gender Balance in Disarmament Negotiations
Even though there is a great deal of effort being put into achieving a gender balance that is numerical at negotiation tables, it is important not to note that only the presence of women does not innately mean it brings a positive result or greater results. When women are not allowed to make decisions, for example if women do not hold any leading/decision-making positions or a position that can influence it. Numerical representations barely make any difference. This also does not mean that just having one woman in an influential position is better than a gender-balanced table.
Including women in specific issues and agendas can also lead to the inclusion of provisions that can shape socio-political reform. The gender that is usually excluded from negotiations mostly remains marginalized during post-conflict politics and also is largely absent from peace agreement texts. Women are generally more aware of the gender impacts due to arms and other weapons.
When women are given positions that can influence negotiations, they can overall improve the women’s socio-economic position. If women aren’t active participants in negotiations with a voice that can influence, there will be low chances of provision that aims at gender equality and socio-economic development that are usually part of peace agreements. Therefore, exclusion of women from negotiations will continue to maintain their political marginalization and therefore reduce the chances for political reform.
Because women make up half of the world’s population, they should be as involved in nuclear policy deliberations as they are in any other topic that impacts their lives. On the international level, nuclear disarmament discussions are now dominated by men. Women have distinct life experiences than men, and their capacity for ‘adaptive creativity’ is most likely underappreciated. Involving more women in nuclear policy may result in unique, unanticipated insights and alternatives. Women’s increased participation in nuclear policy may pave the way for new perspectives and avenues for progress. Merely having more women at the negotiating table is not enough; a structural reworking of the entire international system is required to truly account for women’s experiences and make the international system more inclusive for them. The role of women diplomats in nuclear negotiations is significantly increasing but there is still a long way to go. More women need to be given important roles at the leadership level so that they can bring in some influential difference at the negotiation table. Countries also need to make change within them as national interests are projected at the negotiation table.
Ukraine Joins NATO: Assessing Future Disasters
News related to the Russo-Ukrainian war is still for public consumption and scholar nowdays. As chess game, Russia-Ukraine are in a difficult to stop. Maybe the saying “starting a war is easy, but it’s hard to stop it” is true. Since the first time Vladmir Putin declared war on Ukraine until 4 regions of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson) have been controlled and the referendum on joining Russia, President Putin does not seem to play with his words. If we look at the opposite side, Ukraine is no less interesting. President Zelensky kept trying to defend Ukrainian territory and seeking international support, even on October 1 this month, social media was filled with the news “Ukraine Joins NATO”. This situation will obviously exacerbate the situation, not only in every war zone but will also invite other countries to be involved in the dynamics of Russia-Ukraine relations and give new chapter to the world political stage in this century.
What concern today is that the threat of a third world war is becoming more and more real. If we remaind when the war started, some scholars related to politics and war analyze underestimated the issue of nuclear involvement in the Rusia-Ukraine conflict, but now it needs to be reconsidered. Not only that, the crisis of natural gas and oil and wheat flour has also been felt more and more because of the Russia-Ukraine war consequence. If Covid 19 last year was able to weaken the economies of the world’s countries, then the Russia-Ukraine war could trigger a bigger disaster.
If Ukraine with NATO signifies that the beginning of the war has begun and will worsen the times ahead. The annexation of 4 regions of Ukraine to become part of Russia, worried many parties. In response to this, the United Nations (UN) held an emergency meeting on 2 October. Russia vetoed UN Security Council resolutions proposed by the United States and Albania condemning Moscow’s annexation of parts of Ukraine. US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas Greenfield introduced a resolution asking member states not to recognize Ukraine’s change in status and obliging Russia to withdraw its troops, as Russia’s annexation efforts contradict UN principles. At least 10 countries voted in favor of the resolution, while China, Gabon, India and Brazil still abstained. China has firmly criticized Western sanctions against Russia, but neither has it supported or assisted Russia in its military campaign. Meanwhile, regarding the submission of Ukraine to join NATO, it is not entirely certain that it will go well. Nancy Polesi as a spokeswoman for the US president argued that “NATO remains in principle, wide open to any country. However, Ukraine’s desire to join NATO now needs to be carefully considered.”
Russia-Ukrainian War Timeline
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been carried out since last February. The following is timeline of the Russia-Ukraine conflict that became an important moment
In February, Russian troops attacked the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, from the north in an attempt to overthrow the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky. With Ukrainian forces outgunned and outnumbered, many military experts expect the offensive to be successful quickly. But after weeks of fighting, the Russians withdrew, stymied by Ukrainian resistance.
March, Russian troops attacking from the south take Kherson province. The advances are part of efforts to secure Ukraine’s Black Sea coast and form a land bridge between the territory of Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014, and the breakaway republic established with Moscow’s support that year in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
In April, a Russian missile attack on a train station in Kramatorsk, a city in Donetsk, killed more than 50 civilians. The attack came at the start of the Russian offensive to seize all of Donetsk and Luhansk, collectively known as the Donbas.
May,The last Ukrainian fighters surrendered to Russian forces in Mariupol, a port city and industrial center on the Sea of Azov. Russian troops destroyed the city during weeks of bombing that killed thousands of civilians. The battle ended with the siege of the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works factory, which became symbol of the Ukrainian resistance.
In June, Ukrainian troops raise flag over Snake Island, a strip of land in the Black Sea off the Ukrainian city of Odesa. Russian forces had seized the island early in the conflict, exposing the Ukrainian coast to missile attacks and a potential ground invasion. By expelling Russian troops from the island — two months after sinking the main ship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, Moscow is reducing the threat to Odesa that has further undermined the aura of Moscow’s naval power.
July, after weeks of artillery bombardment and street fighting, the last city under Ukrainian control in Luhansk, Lysychansk, fell to the Russians. However, in the weeks that followed, Moscow made little headway in its bid to secure the rest of the Donbas.
In August, Ukraine said it had launched a counter-offensive in the southern Kherson region. The build-up took weeks, during which Ukraine deployed newly arrived missile systems supplied by the United States and other Western countries to destroy Russian ammunition dumps and other military infrastructure. Ukraine also attacked a Russian air base in Crimea.
In September, in swift offensive, Ukraine retook most of northeastern Kharkiv, including the city of Izium, which had become Russia’s main logistics hub. Progress, which continued, allowed Kyiv to seize momentum in the war.
October, on October 1 Russia managed to annex 15% of the territory of Ukraine. Meanwhile, responding to Russia’s treatment, Ukraine immediately submitted an application form to join the NATO alliance in the region. This is what is being reconsidered regarding the opportunity for a bigger war.
Listen to the Comments
Regarding Ukraine’s efforts to hasten its efforts to join NATO, Dmitry Medvedev as Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council said that “Ukraine joining NATO is the same as accelerating the occurrence of world war 3”. Furthermore, Henry Kissinger, who is a former US Secretary of State who also serves as a scientist, diplomat, politician, geopolitical consultant, and veteran has also commented on what is happening between Russia and Ukraine at the moment. According to Kissinger “Ukraine must cede territory to Russia if it wants peace”. He further said that “it would be unwise for the United States to include Ukraine in NATO”. Henry Kissinger, dubbed the “Prophet of the Modern Century,” argues that Washington tried indiscriminately to include all former members of the Soviet bloc under its umbrella after the Berlin wall fell. So that the entire territory between Russia’s borders became open to restructuring. When viewed from Russia’s point of view, the United States then attempted to integrate all of Ukraine’s territory without exception, into the American-led strategic system, this development essentially removing Russia’s historic “safety belt”. According to Kissinger, sooner or later the West and Russia will engage in formal or informal dialogue, perhaps in a very important way of exploration in the nuclear circle.
Back to Think
Basically, the main reason for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, while NATO according to Russia is a threat to its territory and power. However, Ukraine’s desire to join NATO was not the only reason for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. From February to October 2022, the Russian-Ukrainian invasion seems to be progressing, although it is too early to predict and analyze the Russian-Ukrainian invasion, but it does not seem wrong to prepare for the worst in the future. The Russian invasion of Ukraine not only involved Russia and Ukraine, but also dragged other countries and had an impact in many ways in international life, especially the involvement of the United States, which is still considered a world leader today. We still cannot provide an in-depth analysis and take into account what will happen in the near future, because the war is not over yet and the human life are dynamic. Regardless of any views, be realists, liberals or constructivists, the people who will suffer will suffer.
A Matter of Ethics: Should Artificial Intelligence be Deployed in Warfare?
The thriving technological advancements have driven the Fourth Industrial Revolution nowadays. Indeed, the rapid growth of big data, quantum computing, and the Internet of things (IoT) has been reshaping all human activities – it creates a new business model, removes geographical boundaries, and revamps the decision-making process not only on the individual level but also on the state level. It has also influenced all human dimensions, from economic and social sectors to the political sphere. One of the results of this transformation is the emersion of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI is designed to recognize speech, learn, plan, and solve a problem. Generally, AI is described as a machine that can learn by itself, eventually imitating how the human brain works.
In the past few decades, researchers have achieved a breakthrough related to AI development that significantly exceeds the projections of experts in this field. An AI specialist who created Go-Playing, also known as Alpha Go, in 2014 said that it would take another ten years for a computer to overcome human Go-Champion. However, one year later, a researcher at Google DeepMind successfully established a technology to defeat it. From this point forward, AI is progressing at a breakneck speed. According to Greg Allen and Taniel Chan in their research about Artificial Intelligence and National Security, the evolution of AI is driven by some key factors, including: (1) exponential development in computing capability; (2) enlarged data-set; (3) advancement in the application of machine learning method and algorithm; and most importantly (4) the fast expansion of business interest and investment in AI.
There have been broad usages of AI in recent years, and it can be found in various programs and technological devices. AI has helped humans map and target markets, providing safer travel through a smart car or self-driving car, helping people predict the weather, and much more. The expansion of AI holds a promising future in many sectors, including in military dimensions. Its existence has become a huge turning point for creating autonomous weapons, vehicles, and logistic tools which could increase military capability. Robert Work, in his remark at CNAS Inaugural National Security Forum in 2015, stated that world leaders have been quick to recognize Artificial Intelligence’s revolutionary potential as a critical component of national security. It is proved by the increasing global investments in Artificial Intelligence for national security and the rising usage of AI in defense strategy.
The Usage of AI in Military Sector
Since World War II, semi-autonomous weapons have been deployed on the battlefields. This type of weapons system is continuously being developed in numerous countries. The massive growth of Artificial Intelligence, supported by extensive investments in this sector, has transformed semi-autonomous weapons into fully-autonomous ones. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), notably deployed by the US in Kosovo in 1999, were one of the first by-products resulting from this significant development. Back then, the US Defense had not thoroughly investigated how this technology might impact future military actions.
Fast forward two decades after the first usage of UAVs in military operations, the US Government has successfully improved the AI aspect significantly. By 2019, the Sea Hunter Uncrewed Surface Vessel (USV), owned by the United States Navy (USN), successfully sailed without crew from California to Hawaii. It was navigated by AI using a data set collected by the vessel’s onboard sensors, radars, and cameras. Further, the US Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) launched an AI-powered F-16 Fighter Aircraft in 2020. During some trials, this aircraft could defeat a comparable simulation controlled by a very experienced human. The number of funds invested by the US Department of Defence for AI development has also increased – from USD 600 Million in 2016- 2017 to USD 2,5 Billion in 2021-2022. This trend is not only happening in the US.
China is now using AI to increase the speed and precision of its tactical decision-making by automating its command and control system. This practice effectively established predictive operational planning. Apart from that, the government of China has already begun testing AI-enabled USVs for future development in the South China Sea. Russia might lag, but Putin presumably does not want to be excluded in this race as the government has targeted 30 percent of its entire military forces to become robotic by 2025. Russia is also working on multiple fronts by conducting research focused on using AI in information operations and increasing the efficacy of land warfare operations. This indicates how AI has gained compelling popularity among various states regarding its military usage. It seems that the prospect of wars using robots with minimum or even no human involvement in the future would be inevitable.
Deploying AI in Warfare: Against Human Ethics?
Along with technological development, military warfare is also growing; both are interwoven. The emergence of Artificial Intelligence would bring up the same effect, if not more. The initial indications have clearly shown how AI will play a significant role in shaping future wars. Even when AI has yet to be tested in the harsh environment of the natural world of combat operations, its prospect for future warfare cannot be ignored. However, despite all its benefits to improving a state’s defense and offense capability, the increasing adoption of AI into military forces gives rise to a debate, mainly related to legal, ethical, and security perspectives. Current AI development can address some specific problems more consistently than humans. It can detect patterns and anomalies within vast unstructured data faster than humans. According to Peter Layton in his publication – Fighting Artificial Intelligence Battle: Operational Concept for Future AI-Enabled Wars – the latest generation of AI is influential in five main areas, including identifying, grouping, generating, forecasting, and planning. Humans can execute those activities, but AI can do those tasks efficiently and much faster.
Nevertheless, some aspects need to be considered for further deployment of AI in warfare. With all of the intelligence an AI machine can uphold, it would still be vulnerable to cyberattacks, which brings more concern towards security. Furthermore, AI is still proven to be unably adapting to minor changes. It still has difficulties to apply the same knowledge to different contexts. And with human life at stake, this shortcoming is more or less unacceptable. In a war situation, where it is a matter of life and death, removing human footprints in the decision-making process would put ground morals and ethics at stake. After all, AI is not a human; in a general context, it should not be the one making a decision over a human.
Between the Greater Russia and the MAD
With ‘The Greater Historical Russia’, the impossible that the dream appears to be, and the Russian defeat at Liman and the attack on Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, the threat to use nuke by Russia has increased implying the ‘Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and the catastrophic time for Europe ahead. MAD, a term coined by Donald Brennan, a strategist working in Herman Kahn’s Hudson Institute in 1962, is flying high with the audience of IR theatre and war strategy. This has come in the wake of seven month long Russo-Ukrainian war that has lingered far longer than expectation, of course with the clandestine support of NATO. The whole gamut revolves around the Russian allegation against the US and the European counterparts that Russia is not like the African and Asian states and it won’t allow its colonisation with NATO reaching at its thresholds by accepting Ukraine as its new member. In a time when US is having tough time with China, the NATO’s insistence has pushed Russia further towards Asia.
The heat generated by the current Russo-Ukrainian conflict fuelled by NATO and its sympathisers on the one hand and Russia on the other reminds one of 35 days long deadlock of Cuban missile crisis of 1962. In 1961 in the aftermath of US deployment of Jupiter Missiles in Italy and Turkey Soviet Union had positioned its nuclear missiles in Cuba when the Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev signed an agreement with Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro in July 1962 over the deployment and the construction of a number of missiles launch facilities.
Now Russia after the occupation of Crimea and Sevastapol in 2014 has, in the midst of the war, unilaterally conducted a referendum against the world opinion on September 23, 2022 to annexe parts of Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. The annexation of about 15 percent of the territory of Ukraine is the first one after World War II and would not be digested by the world community easily. The Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has even remarked that the NATO members “do not and will not recognise any of this territory as part of Russia”. Russian President Vladimir Putin calls them the ‘accession treaties’ that is the part of Russia’s unfinished task of the past to annex the ethnically Russian dominated areas. President Putin remarked that “The people made their choice, and that the choice won’t be betrayed by Russia. Occupied regions of Ukraine vote to join Russia in staged referendums. The Russian leader called on Ukraine to end hostilities and hold negotiations with Moscow – but insisted that the status of the annexed territories was not up for discussion (Mayens, September 23, 2022). The proposal implies forced annexation and a complete surrender, which could have been the option of President Volodymyr Zelensky, well before the calling for so much of destruction of life and material.
The Russian action calls for serious attention since it rips apart the spirit of international law and United Nations by opening up the alternative of forcible solution to the unfinished territorial agendas of different states. The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres remarked that in this moment of peril, I must underscore my duty as Secretary-General to uphold the Charter of the United Nations. The UN Charter is clear. “Any annexation of a State’s territory by another State resulting from the threat or use of force is a violation of the Principles of the UN Charter and international law (United Nations). The Russian actions entails UNSC response under article 39, 41 and 42 of United Nations Charter which may further alienate it from the world community.
The Russian action is not short of rather goes beyond the ‘China’s ‘Salamy Slice Strategy’ of annexing the opponent’s territory in a series of small operations. Should China and India follow the suit in Taiwan and Kashmir? There is a long list of unsettled territories and boundaries among states which may catch fire from the Russian action. Should the states put aside the peaceful negotiations and return to the pre-World War state of complete chaos and colonisation? This is a big question in the face of the nuclear threat posed by President Vladimir Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Western countries that his country’s nuclear threats are ‘not a bluff’. Vladimir Putin recapped to the world President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen leader has also advised President Putin to use low yield nuclear weapon (tactical weapon) to plug the NATO offensive against Russia in Ukraine. The use of such weapon would be less lethal (about 1 to 2 percent) to the one dropped in Hiroshima and help determine the war outcome. “Putin also issued the warning after accusing Western countries of resorting to ‘nuclear blackmail’, despite no NATO countries threatening to use nuclear weapons. The threat comes as Russia’s prospects in Ukraine are grim, with Putin’s military losing thousands of square miles of territory to a Ukrainian counteroffensive” (Hagstrom, September 21, 2022). President Biden has slammed Russia for having violated the core tenets of UN Charter. Nuclear war shouldn’t be fought as its solves nothing. But NATO will protect every inch of its territory. In the heat of exchange the nearing of catastrophe frightens the world.
The Russian decision of mobilising citizens to bolster Ukraine invasion has evoked huge resistance from people. A Russian draft officer has been shot in Siberia region and people have thronged on to the streets to protest against the forced recruitment. Therefore, President Putin has been placed at two hostile fronts – domestic and international and his mercurial position is keeping everyone at the toes. Winston Churchill’s counsel of declaring ‘Diplomacy as the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions’ may sound interesting but let’s remember, Russia is not a state that looks for direction. But President Putin should remember that ‘as he has failed in Ukraine, the use of nuke may fail him more and bring assured destruction to Russia’.
Deudney, Daniel. (1983). Whole earth security: A geopolitics of peace. Washington: Worldwatch Institute. p. 80.
Hagstrom , Anders. (2022, September 21). Fox News. Putin warns West: Threat to resort to nuclear weapons ‘not a bluff’. Putin claims NATO countries are using ‘nuclear blackmail.
Maynes, Charles. (2022, September 30). NPR. Putin illegally annexes territories in Ukraine, in spite of global opposition.
Secretary General. (2022, September 29). Secretary-General’s remarks on Russian decision on annexation of Ukrainian territory [as delivered]. www.un.org
Betting on the wrong horse: The battle to define moderate Islam
Proponents of a moderate Islam that embraces tolerance, diversity, and pluralism may be betting on the wrong horse by supporting...
Ukraine Joins NATO: Assessing Future Disasters
News related to the Russo-Ukrainian war is still for public consumption and scholar nowdays. As chess game, Russia-Ukraine are in...
European Union Trucks Banned From Entering Russia
In a reciprocal step, an executive order banning European Union haulage trucks crossing borders into Russia’s territory aggravates economic situation...
Baltic reality: High inflation and declining of living standards
The Baltic States’ economy is in bad condition. The latest estimate from the EU’s statistics body shows that Eurozone inflation...
For A New Foreign Policy in Italy
The sad and notorious vicissitudes of the non-existence of an Italian foreign policy have hit rock bottom over the last...
Who Masterminded the Suicide Attack on Hazara Students’ Educational Center Kaj in Kabul?
According to explicit intelligence information, last Friday, September 30, 2022, a suicide attack on Hazara students in an educational center...
Grey whale’s disappearance from Atlantic Ocean holds clues to possible return
By SOFIA STRODT Youri van den Hurk is preparing for a possible big welcome-home event – the return of the grey...
Europe4 days ago
Europe’s former imperial countries are now desperate U.S. colonies
Eastern Europe3 days ago
A New Phase of Escalation in the Russia-Ukraine War
Green Planet3 days ago
Youth Pessimistic Attitude and Their Noteworthy Role as Climate Justice Norm Entrepreneur
Middle East3 days ago
Saudi crown prince shifts into high gear on multiple fronts
Russia3 days ago
Russia-Zimbabwe’s Parliamentary Relations Still at Exploratory Stage
African Renaissance3 days ago
The New World Order
Economy4 days ago
Russia Struggling to Explore Africa’s Market
Finance4 days ago
Financing to Support Liberia’s Reforms for Promoting Inclusive Economic Growth